• 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
American said:
I'd love to know the biggest reason.
Click to expand...

They have been listed in this thread multiple times: more stable environment for children and adults.
 
Jerry said:
My first "attempt" was fine, it gave the information needed. Despite how many times you've been in threads like these you somehow never learned that there's a difference between sex and gender. Not sure how that happened but it was pointed out to me by Capt'n Courtesy a few years ago, so there was a point in time I didn't know either.
Click to expand...

No, you cherry picked the information. Words in Webster's Dictionary may have mulitple definitions. One of those definitions for Gender happens to be "Sex". You chose to omit that because it invalidated your argument. While medically the two words may have seperate meanings, by their definitions Gender can be used to be indicating ones Sex.

Only accounting for legal terms is just another silly game on your part, and I know this because your gender doesn't matter in determining what part of a jail you can use; that's determined by your sex. If you're a pre-op transsexual male to female, despite having always identified as a woman you will be placed with men.
Click to expand...

Its not a silly game, but a practical point. If legal entities within the United States routinely use "Gender" and "Sex" relatively interchangably, or use "Gender" as a synonym for sex at times, then whether or not its medically viewed as different isn't really the issue here. Even the U.S's Equal Employment Oppertunity Commission uses the words somewhat interchangably. While talking in a heading of "Sex Discrimination" about "Sexual Harassment" they clearly state:

Sexual Harassment - This includes practices ranging from direct requests for sexual favors to workplace conditions that create a hostile environment for persons of either gender, including same sex harassment. (The "hostile environment" standard also applies to harassment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, age, and disability.)
Click to expand...

While I fully identify and acknowledge that there's a significant difference between the two when viewed from the medical world, common vernacular...even coming from government entities...uses them somewhat interchangably.

As to the issue with the pre-op transexual...there's no clear cut answer for that. Some states, or even cities, allow for people to change their legal status prior to surgery, others don't. Still, others outright don't allow it while some have not even addressed the issue yet. There seems to be no consistant reference to the information on ones birth certificate as to whether its a "sex" or "gender" identification, as information about it continually switches between the two interchangably as per the common vernacular.

This is you being annoyed because apparently some time ago, likely in an argument that was not about the use of the word but something far more reaching, you got schooled on the subject. As such, you're trying to jab it into another discussion where the implication of what's being talked about is clear, simply because you have a burr up your backside over the issue.

Anyway, I don't think I ever claimed that a gay-marriage ban discriminated against gender.
Click to expand...

You suggested it would be sex discrimination, not gender discrimination. I was wanting you to actually take a step beyond simply throwing out random statements without backing it up and actually explain your statement. It took a bit of time, but it seems you finally have now.

Consider me taking a similar tact as the EEOC, and my speaking of "Gender" discrimination in this case is a synonym for "Sexual" discrimination. My apologizes to those that continually and singularly only use the medical defintions of them, but this is not likely to change routinely on my part.

I understand your frustration, its much the same when people use the common vernacular for nation, state, and country. And at times I put a little vent out about it. But unless its central to the discussion (Such as "is the US a christian nation"), I don't make a giant deal of it when its obvious what they're meaning using the commonly used language rather than the technical definitions.

The law does not require one person to identify as a man and the other to identify as a woman. The law only requires one person to have a penis and the other have a vagina. Today, a regular lesbian woman could marry a pre-op male-to-female transsexual man who identifies as a woman. No problem. Their genders are both female, but because their sexes are different they could marry.
Click to expand...

You state it as if it is an absolute, when in reality it is not. It varies state to state. For example, in Texas, even if you made that post-op it would still not legally matter as Texas has ruled that surgery can not change ones sex/gender under the law. Alternatively, if a place allowed for changing ones legal sex status prior to surgery...as New York contemplated in 2006...then again the marriage should actually be able to go forward.

Regardless, if you wish, when you read my statements of "gender discrimination" you can feel free to read it as "sex descrimination". Commonly speaking with regards to the law they are typically used interchangably, even by government groups that watch over said discrimination.
 
Redress said:
They have been listed in this thread multiple times: more stable environment for children and adults.
Click to expand...

So gay couples make better parents then natural parents?
 
American said:
So gay couples make better parents then natural parents?
Click to expand...

Who made that exact assertion?

And in some cases, yes, some gay parents are better parents and vice versa.

Sexual orientation does not give one super parenting powers either way, just look at these gems:

Couple's online gaming causes infant's death - News at GameSpot

In a story out of Korea, which is just now surfacing in the Western press, a couple in Incheon, South Korea, were arrested last week when their 4-month-old daughter died after being left alone by the couple for hours. The mother and father reportedly had gone to a nearby Internet cafe, lost themselves in playing Blizzard's massively multiplayer online PC game World of Warcraft, and returned to their home only to find the infant dead from suffocation. "We booked the pair on criminal charges, judging that when you consider the situation, they were responsible for their daughter's death," a policeman told the Chosun Ilbo newspaper. The couple reportedly told police, "We were thinking of playing for just an hour or two and returning home like usual, but the game took longer that day." The infant was the couple's only child.
Click to expand...

Yep. Straight parents are always PERFECTO!!!
 
American said:
So gay couples make better parents then natural parents?
Click to expand...

More along the lines that a gay couple can create a stable environment similar to a heterosexual couple. Nothing in Redress's statement in any say suggests that they're saying that such is "better" than "natural parents", but simply stating they can provide a stable environment.
 
American said:
So gay couples make better parents then natural parents?
Click to expand...

redress-albums-stuffz-picture67112136-strawman.jpg


I did not say, suggest nor imply gays made better parents. Nice try though.
 
Ikari said:
Better than being rooted in the Dark Ages.
Click to expand...

on the contrary, stare decisis is one of the underpinnings of our legal system.

Yet the right to contract does exist, and so long as the Marriage License exists;
Click to expand...

sorry but no; the Lochner era was struck down by the SCOTUS switch in the 1930's. you may argue that we still have it in that it's inalienable - and i would be sympathetic to that claim - but it holds little legal water.

traded away for a minimum wage....

there is no rational and just argument against same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

this is what's called a non-falsifiable thesis. i could just as easily declare that there was no rational argument in favor of homosexua marriage. viola, any arguments for that policy change are now by definition irrational and need not be answered. so on and so forth.

well, that or it's a positive claim of a negative; which is preeeettty difficult to pull off; perhaps you could cite for us the conservative writers you have read on this issue, their main arguments, and what irrationalities you find in each of them?
 
Zyphlin said:
More along the lines that a gay couple can create a stable environment similar to a heterosexual couple. Nothing in Redress's statement in any say suggests that they're saying that such is "better" than "natural parents", but simply stating they can provide a stable environment.
Click to expand...

while it certainly seems reasonable to suppose that they may be a better solution than single parents; i would argue there simpy isn't enough evidence yet on the viability, favorability, or stability of homosexual couples as parents.
 
Ikari said:
Better than being rooted in the Dark Ages. Yet the right to contract does exist, and so long as the Marriage License exists; there is no rational and just argument against same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

Yes their is, you just don't want to acknowledge it as such.
 
Blackdog said:
Yes their is, you just don't want to acknowledge it as such.
Click to expand...

There has not been an argument against same sex marriage under the Marriage License which has supported the rights and liberties of the individual. Without that, you can have no just argument.
 
cpwill said:
really. your drivers license is contract?
Click to expand...

Strawman again and more circle talk, but the answer under the LAW is absolutley YES.The definition of license under the law is a contract.

Its a contract between you and the DMV of your state, if you violate said contract that license can be removed from you.

a marriage is a contract period, there is no changing this fact no matter how much you cry about it and circle talk:lamo
 
cpwill said:
while it certainly seems reasonable to suppose that they may be a better solution than single parents; i would argue there simpy isn't enough evidence yet on the viability, favorability, or stability of homosexual couples as parents.
Click to expand...

and you would be wrong, this has already be proven by CC
not to mention it again is a straw man

there is still no sound reason to stop gay marriage and it is about equality
 
Blackdog said:
Yes their is, you just don't want to acknowledge it as such.
Click to expand...

Not to stop them there isnt, they have all been throughly debunked.
 
cpwill said:
on the contrary, stare decisis is one of the underpinnings of our legal system.
Click to expand...

It's not an underpinning, if stare decisis somehow evaporated, the court system wouldn't collapse. It's a good basis by which one can decide current action. However, it does not mean we cannot change or recognize the rights of others. We move forward and evolve, and we can compare precedent to knowledge and decide if precedent should rule. It doesn't always.

cpwill said:
sorry but no; the Lochner era was struck down by the SCOTUS switch in the 1930's. you may argue that we still have it in that it's inalienable - and i would be sympathetic to that claim - but it holds little legal water.

traded away for a minimum wage....
Click to expand...

There is still right to contract which is recognized currently. You can't just break a contract with no repercussions. That's part of right to contract. You can say that we don't recognize unlimited right to contract, which is true. However, right to contract is still a right and is recognized. And the Marriage License is a contract. That's the end all be all of it.

cpwill said:
this is what's called a non-falsifiable thesis. i could just as easily declare that there was no rational argument in favor of homosexua marriage. viola, any arguments for that policy change are now by definition irrational and need not be answered. so on and so forth.

well, that or it's a positive claim of a negative; which is preeeettty difficult to pull off; perhaps you could cite for us the conservative writers you have read on this issue, their main arguments, and what irrationalities you find in each of them?
Click to expand...

You could say that, you just couldn't back it up as I can make an argument for same sex marriage which fully recognizes and respects the rights and liberties of the individual. As the Marriage license exists, and the right to contract exists. There is no argument against same sex marriage which would not infringe upon the rights of others. Thus there is no just argument. Government force against an individual who has not infringed upon the rights of others is a form a tyranny; tyranny is not just.
 
Zyphlin said:
No, you cherry picked the information.
Click to expand...

You expressly asked me for my belief, so naturally I gave information which expressed my belief. The source happened to have information in addition to what was relevant to your question, but that doesn't matter.

Zyphlin said:
Words in Webster's Dictionary may have mulitple definitions.
Click to expand...

Which is why I quoted only wat was relevant to my belief. Why would I post all this other information when it's not relevant to the answer? You wanted to know what I thought the difference was, and so that's what I tried to tell you.

Zyphlin said:
One of those definitions for Gender happens to be "Sex". You chose to omit that because it invalidated your argument. While medically the two words may have seperate meanings, by their definitions Gender can be used to be indicating ones Sex.
Click to expand...

Gender and sex are closely related, yes, but they are not the exact same thing. The words are even spelled differently.

Zyphlin said:
While I fully identify and acknowledge that there's a significant difference between the two when viewed from the medical world, common vernacular...even coming from government entities...uses them somewhat interchangably.
Click to expand...

As I originally said, it's important to distinguish between the two as they are not the same thing.

Zyphlin said:
As to the issue with the pre-op transexual...there's no clear cut answer for that. Some states, or even cities, allow for people to change their legal status prior to surgery, others don't. Still, others outright don't allow it while some have not even addressed the issue yet. There seems to be no consistant reference to the information on ones birth certificate as to whether its a "sex" or "gender" identification, as information about it continually switches between the two interchangably as per the common vernacular.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting we use the terms as used by the states DP's servers are physically located in?

Zyphlin said:
This is you being annoyed because apparently some time ago, likely in an argument that was not about the use of the word but something far more reaching, you got schooled on the subject. As such, you're trying to jab it into another discussion where the implication of what's being talked about is clear, simply because you have a burr up your backside over the issue.
Click to expand...

More trolling. Good job, Moderator :cool:

Zyphlin said:
You suggested it would be sex discrimination, not gender discrimination. I was wanting you to actually take a step beyond simply throwing out random statements without backing it up and actually explain your statement. It took a bit of time, but it seems you finally have now.
Click to expand...

All because you had to get your panties in a knot over me cautioning you to be clear.

Zyphlin said:
You state it as if it is an absolute, when in reality it is not. It varies state to state. For example, in Texas, even if you made that post-op it would still not legally matter as Texas has ruled that surgery can not change ones sex/gender under the law. Alternatively, if a place allowed for changing ones legal sex status prior to surgery...as New York contemplated in 2006...then again the marriage should actually be able to go forward.

Regardless, if you wish, when you read my statements of "gender discrimination" you can feel free to read it as "sex descrimination". Commonly speaking with regards to the law they are typically used interchangably, even by government groups that watch over said discrimination.
Click to expand...

All of that was me trying to express the difference. you asked a question, I was answering it. Yes things very from state to state, no ****. You asked for how I saw them as different and I tried explaining it. You pay way to much attention to the peripheral data not relevant to the immediate point at hand; a form of debate A.D.D.
 
Centrist77 said:
Strawman again and more circle talk, but the answer under the LAW is absolutley YES.The definition of license under the law is a contract.

Its a contract between you and the DMV of your state, if you violate said contract that license can be removed from you.

a marriage is a contract period, there is no changing this fact no matter how much you cry about it and circle talk:lamo
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the drivers license is a contract. You have to consent to a wide variety of things to obtain one, including intrusive DUI laws.
 
Ikari said:
There has not been an argument against same sex marriage under the Marriage License which has supported the rights and liberties of the individual. Without that, you can have no just argument.
Click to expand...

among other reasons this is true, there are no sound, reasonable, logical, non-bias, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, non anti-american non-discriminative reasons are there to "Stop" gay marriage.
 
cpwill said:
really. your drivers license is contract?
Click to expand...

Yes, a driver's license is a contract.

In exchange for paying a token fee and agreeing to certain rules, I can use the roads.

People tend to forget that Marriage is not a private contract, however, even though it can be confidential. A marriage license is not like drawing up an agreement between 2 people and having it notarized at Kinko's. That would be a strictly private legal contract. With marriage, the State is very much involved, and through the State, the voting public.
 
Jerry said:
With marriage, the State is very much involved, and through the State, the voting public.
Click to expand...

Aye, and the State is forbidden from discrimination. If it were private contract, it could be restricted as anyone feels fit. But since it's not, it MUST be open to all; including same-sex couples.
 
Ikari said:
Unfortunately, the drivers license is a contract. You have to consent to a wide variety of things to obtain one, including intrusive DUI laws.
Click to expand...

yep primarily almost all licences are under the law contract.
 
Jerry said:
Yes, a driver's license is a contract.

In exchange for paying a token fee and agreeing to certain rules, I can use the roads.

People tend to forget that Marriage is not a private contract, however, even though it can be confidential. A marriage license is not like drawing up an agreement between 2 people and having it notarized at Kinko's. That would be a strictly private legal contract. With marriage, the State is very much involved, and through the State, the voting public.
Click to expand...

AGreed thats what also makes it a contract a marriage is a contract which consists of the obligations imposed on married couples by the inheritance and domestic relations laws of the state where you reside
 
Centrist77 said:
AGreed thats what also makes it a contract a marriage is a contract which consists of the obligations imposed on married couples by the inheritance and domestic relations laws of the state where you reside
Click to expand...

also on a side note this is why side contracts can or have to be made if the original contract doesnt suit the parties involved. For example a prenump. Its there to say the original rules of the state contract do not apply and that both parties agree on these now NEW contract rules.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
while it certainly seems reasonable to suppose that they may be a better solution than single parents; i would argue there simpy isn't enough evidence yet on the viability, favorability, or stability of homosexual couples as parents.
Click to expand...

And you and I disagree, there have been plenty of legitimate studies showing that a stable homosexual couple is capable of giving a child a healthy stable home at levels similar to other couples. If the evidence isn't enough for you I can understand that, and understand your argument. However, your argument isn't actually an argument, its just stating your belief. Your belief doesn't make the numerous studies that HAVE happened disappear, or cease to exist.
 
Centrist77 said:
Not to stop them there isnt, they have all been throughly debunked.
Click to expand...

No they have not been "debunked." Reasons have been given as to why certain people see it differently, and that is that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom