• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Same sex marriage: what is it really?

What is same sex marriage?


  • Total voters
    62
I see no point in the name change, why would the government have two names for something that is the same, and I also think it would be unconstitutional. You know, the whole separate but equal thing. It's a rather pointless distinction, and nothing more than a tactic to try and delay the inevitable passage of SSM.

And I agree, if it came down to it, I would take it, but I wouldn't be surprised if that did happen it would be ruled unconstitutional at some point.

Sorry I wasnt clear, the different names for different things DEFINITELY is still discrimination and a HUGE slap in the face.

I was talking about if ALL marriages were now referred to has civil unions.
I still think it isnt right because the question would always be asked, WHY was it changed and any honest answer points to discrimination IMO.
 
Sorry I wasnt clear, the different names for different things DEFINITELY is still discrimination and a HUGE slap in the face.

I was talking about if ALL marriages were now referred to has civil unions.
I still think it isnt right because the question would always be asked, WHY was it changed and any honest answer points to discrimination IMO.

If all marriages were changed I really wouldn't have a problem with that. People could get married by their church(which by the way I could do now, which I find rather funny), and could get the benefits of a civil union by the State. (Which I can't do right now, which I find that rather sad.)
 
that doesnt make sense?
for the majority its about EQUAL treatment and fighting DISCRIMINATION
what logic says that fighting for marriage rights (something the is UNEQUALLY denied) makes it about something else and that fight for "other" things would make it for equal rights?

was interracial marriage only about being accepted?
womens rights?
minority rights?

polygamist rights?
incest rights?


you can play that game all day; once you turn marriage into a 'right' (recieving a marriage license is not a right for anyone), then everyone must have access to it irrespective.

to define marriage is - in this sense - to descriminate; for as soon as you define something you set borders around and say "this but not that". you are basically complaining that we have a definition of marriage even as you decry that we do not have yours.

you have it backwards

in fact it is you that have it backwards. marriage is a social institution that is recognized by the government; not the other way around.
 
Last edited:
If all marriages were changed I really wouldn't have a problem with that. People could get married by their church(which by the way I could do now, which I find rather funny), and could get the benefits of a civil union by the State. (Which I can't do right now, which I find that rather sad.)

cool thanks
Like I said I was just curious, the majority of my friends don't like it but that doesn't mean they speak for all. They just feel like it would be giving in instead of doing whats right. No biggie though, I'm personally up and down on the issue but I would never argue against it if they claimed discrimination.
 
Why should they be forced to take these "alternate" methods?

they aren't. they are free to take or leave them as they will. however, for them to later complain that they do not access to the 'benefits' of marriage when the only legal 'benefits' they can name are - in fact - accessible to them is disengenious. hence, either they are all suffering from mental degeneration (unlikely), or their goal is not - in fact - those legal benefits.

The Marriage License is a government issued and recognized contract.

so are powers of attorney :)
 
polygamist rights?
incest rights?


you can play that game all day; once you turn marriage into a 'right' (recieving a marriage license is not a right for anyone), then everyone must have access to it irrespective.

to define marriage is - in this sense - to descriminate; for as soon as you define something you set borders around and say "this but not that". you are basically complaining that we have a definition of marriage even as you decry that we do not have yours.

But you've provided no proof that LGBT should be denied marriage rights. And the SCOTUS has stated that marriage is a right, so much so that even prisoners on death row can get married. Now why should someone on death row be able to get married and not LGBT people?
 
polygamist rights?
incest rights?


you can play that game all day; once you turn marriage into a 'right' (recieving a marriage license is not a right for anyone), then everyone must have access to it irrespective.

to define marriage is - in this sense - to descriminate; for as soon as you define something you set borders around and say "this but not that". you are basically complaining that we have a definition of marriage even as you decry that we do not have yours.

Translation: You have no answer to the questions asked or way to defend your stance so you try to deflect BUT Ill play your games anyway just for fun, but Ill also be waiting for you to answer and stop being dishonest lol

Pologamy - I have absolutely NO problem with it as long as it fits my mold of what I think EQUAL marriage is.

as long as its CONSENTING, HUMAN, ADULTS than fine by me. Now the one obstical of Polygamy would only be the abundance of laws written to conform it. For example if the husband dies who gets what if theres no will, does it go in rank of 1st wife and so etc and stuff like that. If that could get worked out than Im all in, why? because its NONE OF MY BUSINESS who CONSENTING HUMAN ADULTS marry, to think otherwise would make me a pompous, selfish, hypocritical, jackass. I choose not to do that and love my fellow american.

Incest - as far as "I" know there would be a victim, incest increases abnormalities I "think"
but also if you look at our American history there was TONS of incest, and there is still incest in the Amish community. Its HUGE with them but its also causing a problem there to because it has a GENE effect after some many generations the same gens mixing, so again theres evidence of REAL victims and not made up ones.

What else you got? anything logical and valid? the reality is you are the one playing games.
Im living in reality :D
 
Last edited:
But you've provided no proof that LGBT should be denied marriage rights.

largely because i'm not trying to argue that. what i'm trying to argue here is that marriage being a social institution, the answer to "gay marriage - what is it really" (the OP) is that the gay marriage movement is a drive to seek social acceptance (equality, if you wish) via a social institution.
 
largely because i'm not trying to argue that. what i'm trying to argue here is that marriage being a social institution, the answer to "gay marriage - what is it really" (the OP) is that the gay marriage movement is a drive to seek social acceptance (equality, if you wish) via a social institution.

Equality by the government yes, equality by the people, well that is already here. Just with my generation. It is the older generation that is holding this up.

Oh, and you never answered my question, why should a death row inmate be allowed to enter into a marriage, and not LGBT people?
 
they aren't. they are free to take or leave them as they will. however, for them to later complain that they do not access to the 'benefits' of marriage when the only legal 'benefits' they can name are - in fact - accessible to them is disengenious. hence, either they are all suffering from mental degeneration (unlikely), or their goal is not - in fact - those legal benefits.



so are powers of attorney :)

There is at least one benefit that is only accessible to a person's spouse, the right to not be forced to testify against your spouse in a legal hearing. That is not something that can be granted through any lawyer. I'm sure there are probably more though.
 
Translation: You have no answer to the questions asked or way to defend your stance so you try to deflect BUT Ill play your games anyway just for fun, but Ill also be waiting for you to answer and stop being dishonest lol

Pologamy - I have absolutely NO problem with it as long as it fits my mold of what I think EQUAL marriage is.

as long as its CONSENTING, HUMAN, ADULTS

ah, but don't you realize that by defining marriage you are discriminating? the notion that the two involved should choose each other, for example, is as culturally-centered as the notion that those two should consist of one male and one female.

Incest - as far as "I" know there would be a victim, incest increases abnormalities I "think"
but also if you look at our American history there was TONS of incest, and there is still incest in the Amish community. Its HUGE with them but its also causing a problem there to because it has a GENE effect after some many generations the same gens mixing, so again theres evidence of REAL victims and not made up ones.

certainly i agree that incest is not nearly the genetic bogey-man it is made up to be. over a long period within the same community is not the same as a single coupling - and the logic besides would invalidate the marriage of anyone with less than genetically desireable material.
 
they aren't. they are free to take or leave them as they will. however, for them to later complain that they do not access to the 'benefits' of marriage when the only legal 'benefits' they can name are - in fact - accessible to them is disengenious. hence, either they are all suffering from mental degeneration (unlikely), or their goal is not - in fact - those legal benefits.



so are powers of attorney :)

More BS an spin LMAO, its a nice fantasy world you live in. You're right its all a plot LMAO
its discrimination plan and simple and all the ideas to discriminate against it were dumb and illogical when they were brought up for civil and women rights and they are still dumb and illogical today.
 
largely because i'm not trying to argue that. what i'm trying to argue here is that marriage being a social institution, the answer to "gay marriage - what is it really" (the OP) is that the gay marriage movement is a drive to seek social acceptance (equality, if you wish) via a social institution.

Social acceptance cannot be forced by any law. It took decades for interracial marriages to become socially acceptable by most people even after Loving v. VA made all interracial marriage legal in all states. What is legal is not always popular, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal.
 
ah, but don't you realize that by defining marriage you are discriminating?

certainly i agree that incest is not nearly the genetic bogey-man it is made up to be. over a long period within the same community is not the same as a single coupling - and the logic besides would invalidate the marriage of anyone with less than genetically desireable material.

again this is pure dishonest rubish, we send people that break the law to jail, techinincally thats discriminating against criminals, guess we should let them all free huh? see how dumb that is LMAO guess what else is matches? your examples.

I am fine with the definition of marriage being between Human consenting adults, that include polygamy if they can figure out how to regulate it and to be honest if a group of SCIENTISTS proved that there arent any dangers to incest then it that wouldnt bother me either BUT the reality is it DOES do harm. Amish here in PA are having a real issue with it.

Like I said let me know when you can answer my questions, because you have yet to do so LOL
 
Equality by the government yes, equality by the people, well that is already here. Just with my generation. It is the older generation that is holding this up.

equality before the law is already here. social equality... well it's coming along slowly; but most aren't yet willing to translate that into altering the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples as the 'equal' in that social institution to heterosexual ones. and that is true in every single state thus far (even blue california) that the matter has been put to the people.

Oh, and you never answered my question, why should a death row inmate be allowed to enter into a marriage, and not LGBT people?

well that's a rather different discussion; but i would posit that it is likely because the death row inmate has chosen in this instance to follow the law and submit an application that meets the state requirements for receiving a marriage license, whereas a homosexual couple (assuming two members of the same gender) has not.
 
again this is pure dishonest rubish, we send people that break the law to jail, techinincally thats discriminating against criminals

indeed it is. we discriminate, for example, in that we do not grant the same freedom of movement to people who steal cars as we do to people who do not steal cars.

guess we should let them all free huh?

:confused: when have i ever said that discrimination is bad? as your example of the criminal ably highligts; discrimination is, in fact, necessary to the functioning of society.

I am fine with the definition of marriage being between Human consenting adults, that include polygamy if they can figure out how to regulate it and to be honest if a group of SCIENTISTS proved that there arent any dangers to incest then it that wouldnt bother me either BUT the reality is it DOES do harm. Amish here in PA are having a real issue with it.

interesting. so you are willing to remove marriage from a man who is cousin to his female fiance based on what their children and grandchildren theoretically might do? you are willing to ground the proper definition (limits) of marriage this solidly in the ability to have healthy children through sexual reproduction?
 
Social acceptance cannot be forced by any law.

that is correct. adultery, for example, remains rather publicly taboo despite the fact that it is legal. and it's why I think - should they ever succeed - that homosexual marriage advocates are in for some disappointment.
 
equality before the law is already here. social equality... well it's coming along slowly; but most aren't yet willing to translate that into altering the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples as the 'equal' in that social institution to heterosexual ones. and that is true in every single state thus far (even blue california) that the matter has been put to the people.



well that's a rather different discussion; but i would posit that it is likely because the death row inmate has chosen in this instance to follow the law and submit an application that meets the state requirements for receiving a marriage license, whereas a homosexual couple (assuming two members of the same gender) has not.

Equality under the law is not here, if that were so, then I could get married to the person I want. But I can't. And that is discrimination. And like I said, it is the older generation that is uncomfortable with homosexuality, but my generation isn't, and if we voted in larger numbers this battle would be over in the next election cycle.

So a death row inmates right to marriage surpasses my right to marriage?
 
that is correct. adultery, for example, remains rather publicly taboo despite the fact that it is legal. and it's why I think - should they ever succeed - that homosexual marriage advocates are in for some disappointment.

Why would I be disappointed when SSM becomes law. In fact, it will be a celebratory moment.
 
Social acceptance cannot be forced by any law. It took decades for interracial marriages to become socially acceptable by most people even after Loving v. VA made all interracial marriage legal in all states. What is legal is not always popular, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal.

Sadly this is true, the majority of America didnt accept interracial marriage until 1992!!!!
I find this sad and those so called Americans should be embarrassed of themselves.

California made it legal in 1948, the whole country was on board 1967 (72% of the US was still against it)
 
so are powers of attorney :)

That it is, and you wouldn't say that a dude can't pick another dude to hold his power of attorney, now would you? No, because right to contract is right to contract; and that's the end all be all of it.
 
Equality under the law is not here, if that were so, then I could get married to the person I want. But I can't. And that is discrimination. And like I said, it is the older generation that is uncomfortable with homosexuality, but my generation isn't, and if we voted in larger numbers this battle would be over in the next election cycle.

So a death row inmates right to marriage surpasses my right to marriage?

both of you have equal 'right to marriage'. so long as you follow the law when applying for a marriage license.

it seems that all you know how (or wish) to have here is the "gays should or should not have the ability to recieve marriage licenses for their relationships' argument. do you have an actual reply to the original question that i have missed?
 
indeed it is. we discriminate, for example, in that we do not grant the same freedom of movement to people who steal cars as we do to people who do not steal cars.
correct something that has no merrit in this debate



:confused: when have i ever said that discrimination is bad? as your example of the criminal ably highligts; discrimination is, in fact, necessary to the functioning of society.
agreed but no merrit to topic at hand its a strawman
next



interesting. so you are willing to remove marriage from a man who is cousin to his female fiance based on what their children and grandchildren theoretically might do? you are willing to ground the proper definition (limits) of marriage this solidly in the ability to have healthy children through sexual reproduction?

no the answer is I dont know, because scientifically I dont know the affects, at one time it was legal and the american way, laws changed it for reasons they deemed to be unsafe, and the amish who still do it are having MAJOR problems because of it

so unless you know the sciences on it and YOU dont, thats an entirely DIFFERENT debate LMAO

not allowing gay marriage is still discrimination and a WRONG one because its an equal rights issues and theres no victim like I said.

so you gonna man up and answer my questions or keep dodging :D
 
that is correct. adultery, for example, remains rather publicly taboo despite the fact that it is legal. and it's why I think - should they ever succeed - that homosexual marriage advocates are in for some disappointment.

We're equal rights advocates and I wont be dissappointed ill be proud that my country made yet another positive step forward and rid our society of yet another unfair discrimination. :D
 
Why would I be disappointed when SSM becomes law. In fact, it will be a celebratory moment.

because nothing will have really changed (you yourself might be ecstatic, i don't know). society will feel exactly the same way it did the day before-hand; if anything there may be backlash (one of the downsides of representative government; you can't run roughshod over the expressed will of the people without them getting all uppity about it).

my (adoptive) sister, for example, lives in the world where she will be married one day. except that she also sees her mom helping her pick a dress. and her dad walking her down the aisle. and getting married by my dad (who is a methodist minister). and getting married in the church where we were children. but if her marriage is a lesbian one, then none of these things will happen, irrespective of whether or not the Supreme Court (or whomever) has altered the definition of marriage... but that's something she has no desire to face and so she chooses not to. until she has to. and that will be a series of disappointing days for her when she realizes that "gay marriage" isn't some kind of "easy" fix-all button.
 
Back
Top Bottom