• 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
So we should judge all black people by gang bangers? All gay people by those who do the parade? Sorry blanket judgments don't work.

Gangbangers are a small minority of black people (and are actually found in many other racial groups as well). Gays who are indecent in public (since not all those in gay pride parades are actually indecent in public) are a small minority of gay people as a whole (and, again, indecent straight people are out there too).

Polygamy marriages where the women are being oppressed and/or abused and not given all the same rights as the husband are the majority of polygamous marriages. The small minority would be group marriages and/or any polygamous marriage where the wife/wives has the same rights and is treated the same as the husband/husbands, under the laws of the religion or the government where such marriages are legal.
 
Since we can't truly discriminate against a "number" of people involved in a marriage, then there is no "separate but equal". There is no equal for everyone that might be involved in a polygamous marriage. You show me a way to guarantee everyone actually can be equal (and that means everyone), then it will work.

I don't have to show anything, although it would not be that hard, I mean really.

Also, then you must agree that those same sex couples who are/get married in a religious ceremony in the US now are also being discriminated against based on their religion, as well as their sex. Good to know that you now agree that same sex couples deserve to be in legal marriages.

But discrimination is OK as long as I you or I agree with it for whatever reason. So this argument has no validity at all.
 
Gangbangers are a small minority of black people (and are actually found in many other racial groups as well). Gays who are indecent in public (since not all those in gay pride parades are actually indecent in public) are a small minority of gay people as a whole (and, again, indecent straight people are out there too).

Polygamy marriages where the women are being oppressed and/or abused and not given all the same rights as the husband are the majority of polygamous marriages.

I assume you have proof of this? I mean no place could I find anything that said women are being repressed because of polygamy. Now it may be because of government or even religion, but polygamy on it's own is not responsible.

So no go.

The small minority would be group marriages and/or any polygamous marriage where the wife/wives has the same rights and is treated the same as the husband/husbands, under the laws of the religion or the government where such marriages are legal.

Again polygamy is not the cause or issue.
 
I don't have to show anything, although it would not be that hard, I mean really.



But discrimination is OK as long as I you or I agree with it for whatever reason. So this argument has no validity at all.

Discrimination is OK, legally speaking, as long as there is a valid reason for it based on the rules of scrutiny of the 14th Amendment. That is what is being dealt with here. So if you want to claim that polygamy falls under the base of religious discrimination because those in certain religions can practice polygamy (although it is almost always polygyny that their religions allow, not polygamy as a whole), then it would hold true that those in certain religions also "practice" same sex marriage (they allow it to happen and some probably even teach that sex outside of a marriage is a sin, even among homosexuals). So both would fit into that level of scrutiny, and would both have to be judged under the strictest level of scrutiny.

Now, I don't believe either could be judged under this level, since the government not giving legal recognition for either of these marriages does not prevent someone from practicing their religion. There is really no part of the religion or practice of the religion that not recognizing such marriages affects.

So, if we null the religious discrimination argument (since, like I said, it has to be either used for both types of marriage or neither), then that leaves same sex marriage at the scrutiny level for sex (middle tier) and polygamy at the scrutiny level for number of participants (which can only be lowest tier). The arguments for and against SSM and polygamy are not the same arguments in their entirety. At the legal level, same sex marriage has a much better argument for its benefits and the amount of effect that it will have on our current society than polygamy does for those same things.

You seem to believe that the entire argument for same sex marriage is equality. This just isn't true. It is one of the main reasons (still, not the only one) that many support SSM, along with benefits to children and for the couple itself. But the arguments themselves are much more in depth.
 
Discrimination is OK, legally speaking, as long as there is a valid reason for it based on the rules of scrutiny of the 14th Amendment. That is what is being dealt with here. So if you want to claim that polygamy falls under the base of religious discrimination because those in certain religions can practice polygamy (although it is almost always polygyny that their religions allow, not polygamy as a whole), then it would hold true that those in certain religions also "practice" same sex marriage (they allow it to happen and some probably even teach that sex outside of a marriage is a sin, even among homosexuals). So both would fit into that level of scrutiny, and would both have to be judged under the strictest level of scrutiny.

I am not talking about SSM. How often do I have to tell you this? I am talking about polygamy and don't care how it does or will affect SSM, OK?

Don't care why someone is being discriminated against, just know according to you and everyone else it is OK as long as you agree with the reasoning. Makes it no less discrimination of course.

I will say this...

Out of all the people who posted you are the only one that made a really good case at any point. To bad you ignored it and just block posted.
 
Last edited:
I am not talking about SSM. How often do I have to tell you this? I am talking about polygamy and don't care how it does or will affect SSM, OK?

Don't care why someone is being discriminated against, just know according to you and everyone else it is OK as long as you agree with the reasoning. Makes it no less discrimination of course.

I will say this...

Out of all the people who posted you are the only one that made a really good case at any point. To bad you ignored it and just block posted.

This thread is about SSM. That means that your arguments should probably be focused on SSM. The point was brought up about polygamy being discrimination, and why weren't SSM advocates fighting for polygamy along with SSM.

If you would like to discuss just polygamy and whether it should or shouldn't be legal without references to SSM, then it should probably be done in another thread.
 
Here is a post the I wrote about 2 years ago, identifying why polygamy is completely dissimilar to GM and why it should not be lega:

Link to page, please, otherwise you're hiding the responses you got from that post.
 
When it comes to adult individuals (consensual), all social unions are a right.
 
Link to page, please, otherwise you're hiding the responses you got from that post.

Hiding. Sounds like an accusation, Jerry. I'm hiding nothing. I archive posts in Word documents... something that YOU suggested I do. I don't know exatly where the post is. Feel free to comment on it in THIS thread.
 
Hiding. Sounds like an accusation, Jerry. I'm hiding nothing. I archive posts in Word documents... something that YOU suggested I do. I don't know exatly where the post is. Feel free to comment on it in THIS thread.

It probably sounds like an accusation because it's an accusation. Link or you're running away from being smacked down on that thread by the Barron.
 
It probably sounds like an accusation because it's an accusation. Link or you're running away from being smacked down on that thread by the Barron.

Baron's not here. You are. If you cannot debate the position yourself, then whatever happened when my post was originally posted concerns me not. Either discuss the issue or not. Your choice. You want to play some of your ridiculous games, you will not find a player in me.
 
Baron's not here. You are. If you cannot debate the position yourself, then whatever happened when my post was originally posted concerns me not. Either discuss the issue or not. Your choice. You want to play some of your ridiculous games, you will not find a player in me.

I'm not the one quoting material without links.....
 
I'm not the one quoting material without links.....

No links. It's my own material. I wrote it. Any sources are discussed in the post. So, you have a choice. Discuss it or not.
 
No links. It's my own material. I wrote it. Any sources are discussed in the post. So, you have a choice. Discuss it or not.

Here's where I'm coming from: you gave that post as a quote. Not in the context of being something you're saying now, but in the context as part of a previous discussion, like a sound clip. That's just fine, but just as I would demand a source had you provided a sound clip, so that everyone can access the while conversation, so is a link necessary now.
 
See, here's the thing:
Polygamy as a reaction to homosexual marriage is a smokescreen and an invalid comparison.

We're not saying homosexuality is the same thing as polygamy.

We're saying that both are protected from discrimination under the law.

Just like when you people pipe up with "oh yeah but the bible forbids shellfish and mixed fabrics". You're not saying shellfish and mixed fabrics are the same as homosexuality, you're saying that all 3 are forbidden in biblical law.

Bringing up polygamy is a test to see if someone truly is for equality or if they're just presenting any argument which seems to work to get their way; just like when you people bring up random crap forbidden in scripture, you just want to see if we're cherry-picking. Same.....exact...thing. It's an integrity test.

So go ahead and reiterate how homosexuality is not polygamy. We already agree with that and then go on to bring up polygamy.
 
Last edited:
Here's where I'm coming from: you gave that post as a quote. Not in the context of being something you're saying now, but in the context as part of a previous discussion, like a sound clip. That's just fine, but just as I would demand a source had you provided a sound clip, so that everyone can access the while conversation, so is a link necessary now.

I placed the post in a quote because it was posted before, indicating that it was not something new that I just wrote. The quote is in it's entirety, with the exception of one line that was directed to YOU. Was it argued before? Yes. I don't remember the debate. I've reposted the comment about 4-5 times over the past 2 years, and it has been discussed each time, sometimes more extensively than others. From my recollection, I do not recall you discussing it, though one reason I researched and wrote the post was because it was something that you always asked about. So, here's your chance.

As far as the post, I'll have to do a search. The files I keep on my own posts, have been, at least for the past 2 years or so, in Word docs. I'm going to be logging off shortly, so if the thread is THAT important to you, either you can find it, or it needs to wait until tomorrow.
 
See, here's the thing:


We're not saying homosexuality is the same thing as polygamy.

We're saying that both are protected from discrimination under the law.

Just like when you people pipe up with "oh yeah but the bible forbids shellfish and mixed fabrics". You're not saying shellfish and mixed fabrics are the same as homosexuality, you're saying that all 3 are forbidden in biblical law.

Bringing up polygamy is a test to see if someone truly is for equality or if they're just presenting any argument which seems to work to get their way; just like when you people bring up random crap forbidden in scripture, you just want to see if we're cherry-picking. Same.....exact...thing. It's an integrity test.

So go ahead and reiterate how homosexuality is not polygamy. We already agree with that and then go on to bring up polygamy.

You know I do not argue from an equality position, but from a individual/family/society benefit position. To me, the equality argument is far weaker, and more self-serving, not how I view GM. You know this and have known this for more than 4 years. This is not our first rodeo. My post on polygamy takes an individual/family/society benefit position, not an equality position, so the discrimination argument has nothing to do with what I presented.
 
You know I do not argue from an equality position, but from a individual/family/society benefit position. To me, the equality argument is far weaker, and more self-serving, not how I view GM. You know this and have known this for more than 4 years. This is not our first rodeo. My post on polygamy takes an individual/family/society benefit position, not an equality position, so the discrimination argument has nothing to do with what I presented.

Well sure just like a diet rich in purines (shellfish) and fraud (mixed fabrics) have nothing to do with sodomy. But people will keep bringing these things up. We'll just have to live with it I suppose.
 
Well sure just like a diet rich in purines (shellfish) and fraud (mixed fabrics) have nothing to do with sodomy. But people will keep bringing these things up. We'll just have to live with it I suppose.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.
 
You must be a very fragile person if you think someone else's union harms you in any way.

No, they're union can only benefit me.

Their divorce is what harms me. High-risk couples who think they're in love and ignore other dysfunctions which lead to their divorce. When children are involved (which is the only time I give a crap about who you marry) your divorce contributes to the juvenile crime, teen pregnancy and drop-out rates. Those things harm me, they harm you.
 
I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Pro-SSM challange Anti-SSM with other things scripture forbids.

Anti-SSM challanges pro-SSM with other forms of marriage which logicaly should be protected.

Both sides do this for the same reson: to test the consistancy and integrity of the other side's argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom