• 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
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.

My argument is justified by God. You can like it or not, and considering our rights according to the founders are endowed by the creator, you have no just argument as well.
 
My argument is justified by God. You can like it or not, and considering our rights according to the founders are endowed by the creator, you have no just argument as well.

you have every right to your opinion, but remember some of the founding fathers were adulterers and slave owners. did god not endow slaves with rights as well? my thoughts is that our rights weren't endowed by anyone, we make our own rights.
 
My argument is justified by God. You can like it or not, and considering our rights according to the founders are endowed by the creator, you have no just argument as well.

Really the founders thoughts on rights came from a more humanist perspective, that we have rights simply because we are human.
 
My argument is justified by God. You can like it or not, and considering our rights according to the founders are endowed by the creator, you have no just argument as well.

Gods are not found in our government, nor can you rightfully enforce your gods upon the rest of us. The founders often used references to gods, but not all believed. Where rights came from is irrelevant, less you're actually god; in which case you can spell it out. If not, then you're just some human who thinks he knows god's thoughts. But since I have a sneaking suspicion that you are not god, then what we are left with is "rights exist". And there's the starting point. Rights exist. Now, we have a SECULAR government. I know that word makes you shiver, but it's true. Therefore, no argument based on gods can be considered just and rightful in a system based on the rights and liberties of the individual. Only arguments which support the rights and liberties of the individual can be taken as just argument in a system built upon the rights and liberties of the individual, such as our Republic.

In short, your desire to force theocracy is nothing short of tyranny and the very reason why the rest of us have guns.
 
Last edited:
No they have not been "debunked." Reasons have been given as to why certain people see it differently, and that is that.

Yes they actually have been thoroughly debunked about "stoping" gay marriage. There is no changing that, if you are so certain by all means bring one up that is sound, reasonable, logical, non-bias, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, non anti-american non-discriminative reasons are there to "Stop" gay marriage.

I always quote STOP because thats whats key and the debate. You are free to think, preach, teach etc what ever you want but stopping it is WRONG. And im not talking about just the act of voting, that is a freedom too but doing so is wrong and has been proven here and other threads over and over again.

Ive debated this with you before and you know they have all been debunked

I respect your views,(please correct me if Im wrong)

you view god as your highest law and thats fine and dandy
you view god as thinking gay marriage would be a sin and thats fine and dandy
you view the bible as more important and bigger law then the constitution and thats fine and dandy

YOU have the right to do all those things, and I would defend those too! but once you try to force those views on me as an american you are flat out wrong. As long as its sound mind consenting adults its none of your business who I or other people merry just like its none of my business who you merry. Its also wrong to discriminate. YOUR religious beliefs are great for YOU. For others they are not. If gay marriage becomes legal tomorrow you lose nothing, you get to keep all that I have already mentioned, but, today, right now, american citizens dont have the same rights and thats wrong plain and simple.

Again YOU believe what you want, I will always respect and fight for that freedom cause you are an american just like I respect and will fight for the gay americans not to be discriminated against.
 
Last edited:
My argument is justified by God. You can like it or not, and considering our rights according to the founders are endowed by the creator, you have no just argument as well.

like i said that has been thoroughly debunked because it can easily be argued anti-american and hypocritical. YOUR god has no business in other peoples affairs as far as AMERICA is concerned LOL

How fast you would change your tune if somebody wanted to infringe on your religion. You should THANK your god you live in america and are free to believe in him. Thank your god that someone like me would fight for YOUR right to do so while you dont care about others.
 
My argument is justified by God. You can like it or not, and considering our rights according to the founders are endowed by the creator, you have no just argument as well.

Actually, your argument is justified based on yours (who is fallable) and other mortal men's (who are fallable) interpritation of what they believe god stated through the recollection of other mortal men (who were fallable). As such, said justification only truly works with regards to others that employee your same interpritation of the same set of words to meaning the same thing. Additionally, while what you believe god thinks is perfectly fine as a justification for why you vote a certain way or why you propose a certain law personally, ultimately "because god doesn't like it" is not a justification in any way for allowing a law that is unconstitutional. At least not in any kind of legal sense. You may feel it MORALLY justifies it, but that...frankly...is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
like i said that has been thoroughly debunked because it can easily be argued anti-american and hypocritical. YOUR god has no business in other peoples affairs as far as AMERICA is concerned LOL

Precisely! I can't believe that in this day and age there are working humans that think it's ok to subjugate us all to their gods. Isn't that what they bitch about the Muslims? Subject us to their laws...better look out! Well it's a two way street. Secular government means that government will respect religion, people's rights to it, and will protect the expression of it. However, it will not use it as base for laws. Our laws are to be based in the rights and liberties of the individual. It's amazing people can support such theocracy when history (and present in the ME) has shown that theocracy never produces anything good.
 
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.

Sure, I have no problem, non at all, with allowing gay marriage.

I just think that if you're not going to be driving, you shouldn't have a license. There's no point.
 
Sure, I have no problem, non at all, with allowing gay marriage.

I just think that if you're not going to be driving, you shouldn't have a license. There's no point.

The only real reason would be if on the off chance you had to drive somewhere. But you're right. If you're not going to drive; then you don't need to get a driver's license.
 
My argument is justified by God. You can like it or not, and considering our rights according to the founders are endowed by the creator, you have no just argument as well.

Shshshshhh...marriage only exists in America, 2011. It never existed before, anywhere else, in human history, and has no basis in human culture ;)

Hey, if they want to run to run to what American law has to say, then just jump to the broader scope of God's jurisdiction being the whole planet.
 
Last edited:
The only real reason would be if on the off chance you had to drive somewhere. But you're right. If you're not going to drive; then you don't need to get a driver's license.

The problem today is that we have people getting licenses and then either not driving at all of getting into accidents. Gays say they will be no better, so while I have nothing against them I'm not motivated to support them, either. If anything I see them as a distraction, a gigantic Red Herring, to actual solutions to existing problems.

When the gay marriage movement comes with solutions to the divorce rate, I'll give a ****. Until then, I'll vote against them at every turn just out of spit for not caring about the institution.
 
The problem today is that we have people getting licenses and then either not driving at all of getting into accidents. Gays say they will be no better, so while I have nothing against them I'm not motivated to support them, either. If anything I see them as a distraction, a gigantic Red Herring, to actual solutions to existing problems.

When the gay marriage movement comes with solutions to the divorce rate, I'll give a ****. Until then, I'll vote against them at every turn just out of spit for not caring about the institution.

So if someone doesn't want to drive, they shouldn't get a license. If gays want to marry, they shouldn't be allowed to get a license until they can teach straight folk how to create a proper foundation to their marriages and thus decrease the divorce rate? I'm not sure this is a logical argument. People who don't drive don't need to get a license, but it's up to them if they choose to get one or not. Gay couples shouldn't be banned from contract merely because they're gay. The divorce rate...that's your problem. Government ain't here to make you stick together with your spouse (otherwise divorce would be illegal). The divorce rate is the divorce rate, you people should probably make better choices before getting married; but I'll give you enough rope to hang yourself with if that's what you want. You get to make your own decisions and abide by the consequences thereof. Why does the gay community have to fix your problems before you'll let them get married? Seems to me that it's your problem; deal with it.
 
Shshshshhh...marriage only exists in America, 2011. It never existed before, anywhere else, in human history, and has no basis in human culture ;)

No one has said that. What has been said is that as soon as government usurped marriage by creating the Marriage License, it left the realm of religion and entered the realm of law. And laws in the United States are to be based on the rights and liberties of the individual. The government is not allowed to discriminate. And since the Marriage License is a government issued and recognized contract, there is no rational and just argument as to forbidding same sex couples their right to contract.
 
So if someone doesn't want to drive, they shouldn't get a license. If gays want to marry, they shouldn't be allowed to get a license until they can teach straight folk how to create a proper foundation to their marriages and thus decrease the divorce rate?

No no, I failed to properly explain myself.

I think these little lawsuits various groups spring up all over the country are half-assed attempts to partially change little pieces of law which doesn't even matter.

What I would like to see is an over arching marriage reform act. I would like to see a Constitutional Amendment defining what marriage is, it's intended purpose, and require stricter regulation from the states in qualifying people for a license.

I want to see a change away from the narrow focus of helping a token minority group, and towards something which will help everyone.

Sure, fine, let gays marry...and require everyone to undergo personal finance counseling and pre-marital counseling, and raise the age limit.
 
Ok, well I guess I can kinda see that point. But I don't really agree with it. We have a Marriage License, and that should be made available to everyone. That's the only change I think is necessary. I don't think we need any Constitutional amendments to define marriage; that's up to the individual. While things like personal finance counseling and pre-marital counseling is a very good idea, I can't see it as proper to force it through government. We should not have to ask government's permission to be married. And if we make poor choices in who we decide to marry, that's our fault and we must then live by those consequences. It sucks, but that's freedom. Freedom is like a length of rope. You can build a swing or hang yourself. It's up to you.
 
No one has said that. What has been said is that as soon as government usurped marriage by creating the Marriage License, it left the realm of religion and entered the realm of law. And laws in the United States are to be based on the rights and liberties of the individual. The government is not allowed to discriminate. And since the Marriage License is a government issued and recognized contract, there is no rational and just argument as to forbidding same sex couples their right to contract.

Marriage, as a total institution, is social. Being a social organism, it is in the realm of law while in the realm of philosophy while in the realm of economy. Marriage is never 100% absent in any realm, though a specific given marriage may be unbalanced in some respect.

According to the DoI, the very rights and liberties you defend were granted by the God you're trying to blot out. That's like spending an inheritance while denying that relative ever existed. By simply executing an activity afforded to you by liberty, you are evidencing the existence of God.
 
The DoI was part propaganda to excuse the act of rebellion against the Crown and to secure the support of the American people. They will appeal to that which they needed to appeal to in order to generate that support. However, rights do not require gods to exist, they merely require an organism capable of high, abstract thought; such as humans. Marriage is in many aspects, and many of those aspects are personal. The personal aspects of marriage are not what's on debate here. It's the legal context of marriage and the proper use of government in it. As such, so long as the Marriage License exists as a government issued and recognized contract; the right of the people to contract cannot legitimately be infringed upon.
 
Ok, well I guess I can kinda see that point. But I don't really agree with it. We have a Marriage License, and that should be made available to everyone. That's the only change I think is necessary. I don't think we need any Constitutional amendments to define marriage; that's up to the individual.

I just think that since we all agree that marriage is a *right*, that it should be a right specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

While things like personal finance counseling and pre-marital counseling is a very good idea, I can't see it as proper to force it through government.

In many states the government enforces concealed weapons classes, and that's a right. All states heavily regulate adoption and fostering, and raising children is a right. Why is something so vital to human society as marriage left unguarded against fools who get divorced half the time?

We should not have to ask government's permission to be married. And if we make poor choices in who we decide to marry, that's our fault and we must then live by those consequences. It sucks, but that's freedom. Freedom is like a length of rope. You can build a swing or hang yourself. It's up to you.

you don't need the government's permission to have a religious ceremony, call your partner your "wife" or "husband", buy a house together and write living wills and powers of attorney. Not at all.

But if you want the government to step in and afford you various protections, well then yes you need to be something the government wants to protect.
 
The DoI was part propaganda to excuse the act of rebellion against the Crown and to secure the support of the American people. They will appeal to that which they needed to appeal to in order to generate that support. However, rights do not require gods to exist, they merely require an organism capable of high, abstract thought; such as humans. Marriage is in many aspects, and many of those aspects are personal. The personal aspects of marriage are not what's on debate here. It's the legal context of marriage and the proper use of government in it. As such, so long as the Marriage License exists as a government issued and recognized contract; the right of the people to contract cannot legitimately be infringed upon.

Like any contract, like any right, you have to qualify.

Including gays should be a footnote in a real piece of marriage protection legislation, not the main thrust.


If we don't address the real problems, then once gays can marry, the divorce and juvenile crime rates will not change, and thus we'll know that nothing of value was accomplished.
 
Last edited:
I just think that since we all agree that marriage is a *right*, that it should be a right specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

2 things. 1) I don't think marriage is in and of itself a right. Contract is a right, and marriage now exists as a government issued and recognized contract. That is what same sex couples have right to; the Marriage License. If the Marriage License did not exist, then it would be up to the individual churches and what have you to decide for themselves. Since government took it and made it a contract, it became a "right" in that the individual has right to contract. 2) This is what the 9th amendment is for.

In many states the government enforces concealed weapons classes, and that's a right.

Well if you want to get me rolling on my opinions towards the 2nd amendment, I think those classes; while useful, are BS when forced. It's a good idea to learn to use your gun well and to carry at appropriate times, I do not think it is the place of government to force you to do that. You have the right to keep and bear arms. That, IMO, means that both open and concealed carry should be assumed standard and you should NOT have to get a permit for it.

All states heavily regulate adoption and fostering, and raising children is a right. Why is something so vital to human society as marriage left unguarded against fools who get divorced half the time?

Because that's their business, not yours or mine. People have right to contract, meaning they can enter into contract with another willing party at their leisure. If two folk decide that they want to enter into the contract of the Marriage License, they should be more than free to do so. If they didn't think it through or go through the proper courses, then it' that's their bad. They have to accept the consequences of their actions. Should have made a better choice, but I'm not going to sit around and make everybody's choices for them. They can do what they want so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. As for children, it becomes a lot more complicated there particularly with adoption because there's another human involved beside two adults who consented to forming a contract. You have to make sure that child can be properly cared for. There's no right to adoption, it's just that through biology you can get kids on your own. And it's a can of worms right there trying to regulate biology.

you don't need the government's permission to have a religious ceremony, call your partner your "wife" or "husband", buy a house together and write living wills and powers of attorney. Not at all.

You certainly don't. But that doesn't get you the contractual benefits and obligations that the Marriage License grants.

But if you want the government to step in and afford you various protections, well then yes you need to be something the government wants to protect.

Government is to protect our rights and liberties first and foremost. Proper government will work towards that end.
 
Because that's their business, not yours or mine. People have right to contract, meaning they can enter into contract with another willing party at their leisure. If two folk decide that they want to enter into the contract of the Marriage License, they should be more than free to do so. If they didn't think it through or go through the proper courses, then it' that's their bad. They have to accept the consequences of their actions. Should have made a better choice, but I'm not going to sit around and make everybody's choices for them. They can do what they want so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. As for children, it becomes a lot more complicated there particularly with adoption because there's another human involved beside two adults who consented to forming a contract. You have to make sure that child can be properly cared for. There's no right to adoption, it's just that through biology you can get kids on your own. And it's a can of worms right there trying to regulate biology.

The divorce of people I will never meet has and likely will again directly harm me through the communal cost of divorce and the resulting juvenile crime rate. That makes it my business.
 
you have every right to your opinion, but remember some of the founding fathers were adulterers and slave owners. did god not endow slaves with rights as well? my thoughts is that our rights weren't endowed by anyone, we make our own rights.

Irrelevant. Slavery and adultery are not the issue here. What is relevant is that your opinion or argument makes mine no less relevant or valid.
 
Yes they actually have been thoroughly debunked about "stoping" gay marriage. There is no changing that, if you are so certain by all means bring one up that is sound, reasonable, logical, non-bias, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, non anti-american non-discriminative reasons are there to "Stop" gay marriage.

I always quote STOP because thats whats key and the debate. You are free to think, preach, teach etc what ever you want but stopping it is WRONG. And im not talking about just the act of voting, that is a freedom too but doing so is wrong and has been proven here and other threads over and over again.

Ive debated this with you before and you know they have all been debunked

I respect your views,(please correct me if Im wrong)

you view god as your highest law and thats fine and dandy
you view god as thinking gay marriage would be a sin and thats fine and dandy
you view the bible as more important and bigger law then the constitution and thats fine and dandy

YOU have the right to do all those things, and I would defend those too! but once you try to force those views on me as an american you are flat out wrong. As long as its sound mind consenting adults its none of your business who I or other people merry just like its none of my business who you merry. Its also wrong to discriminate. YOUR religious beliefs are great for YOU. For others they are not. If gay marriage becomes legal tomorrow you lose nothing, you get to keep all that I have already mentioned, but, today, right now, american citizens dont have the same rights and thats wrong plain and simple.

Again YOU believe what you want, I will always respect and fight for that freedom cause you are an american just like I respect and will fight for the gay americans not to be discriminated against.

I as an American citizen can certainly force what I want as far as laws go any way I wish. That is what our court system is for.

SO no nothing has been "debunked" no matter how much you rant about it. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom