• 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
No, Jerry, that is complete mischaracterization. The family argument is the best way to win the gay marriage debate because it is logical and is not strictly relevant to gay marriage. It is relevant to ALL marriage. I would argue it whether GM was legal or not. I would also argue it, and HAVE argued it as the main reason why MARRIAGE should remain a legal institution in the US. Go read a few of my debates with Panache, our resident "there should be no government sanctioned marriage" poster for reference. The family argument is not as you are characterizing it. You make it sound like it is a lie to win the GM debate. Which it absolutely is not.

Then where are the pro-marriage people? All I see are special interest groups hashing it out over votes and money. In the headlines, in the mainstream, where are the people who speak of promoting marriage per-se? Pro-SSM is not it. Anti-SSM isn't it.
 
Last edited:
You miss the point of course. You seem to think there is only one reason why people support SSM, when in fact there are several. For the family is one, to promote monogamy is one, fairness is one, and there are others. The strongest argument is the family argument, but it is not the only argument. Having multiple reasons for supporting something does not mean that those other reasons are lies.

Marriage is not about monogamy, nor is it about "fairness", so those are invalid reasons.
 
Then where are the pro-marriage people? All I see are special interest groups hashing it out over votes and money. In the headlines, in the mainstream, where are the people who speak of promoting marriage per-se? Pro-SSM is not it. Anti-SSM isn't it.

No need to fight for something that already is in place.
 
Marriage is not about monogamy, nor is it about "fairness", so those are invalid reasons.

That is what we call an "opinion". Your opinion is noted, but I disagree. You also failed in any way to actually address my counter to your claim.
 
Poligamists. What you have something against Muslims? Discrimination.

Polygamy doesn't fit with ANY of the positives that do with both GM and traditional marriage.
 
Then where are the pro-marriage people? All I see are special interest groups hashing it out over votes and money. In the headlines, in the mainstream, where are the people who speak of promoting marriage per-se? Pro-SSM is not it. Anti-SSM isn't it.

Marriage already exists, so there is no reason to lobby for it. Why aren't there pro-human race groups promoting the human race instead of groups promoting black rights, or white rights?

You seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing.
 
Marriage is not about monogamy, nor is it about "fairness", so those are invalid reasons.

Marriage promotes monogomy, which in turn promotes stability. This kind of stability promotes societal stability, one of the reasons the government would sanction marriage.
 
Marriage promotes monogomy, which in turn promotes stability. This kind of stability promotes societal stability, one of the reasons the government would sanction marriage.

Monogamy isn't required for stability. Polygamy can promote stability quite well, if not better than monogamy.
 
Monogamy isn't required for stability. Polygamy can promote stability quite well, if not better than monogamy.

And you, of course, have facts and evidence to back this up.
 
Marriage already exists, so there is no reason to lobby for it. Why aren't there pro-human race groups promoting the human race instead of groups promoting black rights, or white rights?
As much as I hate to use them as a link....

Human Rights Council - Homepage

You seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Arguing for the sake of arguing is the expressed point and purpose of this forums very existence. In fact I think that's all I've ever don here. Like those lil awards for reverse debates and whatnot...arguing for the sake of arguing.

You think anyone really gives a **** about SSM? I mean, is truly passionate either way? Not enough to populate this forum, anyway. They are few and far between.
 
Last edited:
I don't think a 50% divorce rate is worth fighting for. Frankly I don't see why gays even bother.

Just because you have such a negative view on marriage doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to make up my own mind on whether or not I get married.
 
Polygamy doesn't fit with ANY of the positives that do with both GM and traditional marriage.

Then you are discriminating, anti-American and against freedom, And then you must also think that marriage for a man and woman of two different races is not a right?

If you're giving rights to some people, but denying them to others, well, that sounds like discrimination to me.

As long as the marriage contract exist, then it is discrimination.

You are using the government to force your definition of marriage on something that is none of your business. If 3 people love each other they should be able to get married!


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?

Sorry but you have it backwards.


Quotes by others in this thread, some are paraphrased as best I can remember. I am applying them to polygamy.

This does not represent their view and is just an example.
 
Last edited:
As much as I hate to use them as a link....

Human Rights Council - Homepage

That's human RIGHTS. I stated the human RACE. I'm not talking about rights, but the existence of the race in general.



Arguing for the sake of arguing is the expressed point and purpose of this forums very existence. In fact I think that's all I've ever don here. Like those lil awards for reverse debates and whatnot...arguing for the sake of arguing.

You think anyone really gives a **** about SSM? I mean, is truly passionate either way? Not enough to populate this forum, anyway. They are few and far between.

You're arguing for the sake of arguing... which means that you are just arguing to be argumentative. You're not arguing a position. You're just arguing. If that's what you want to do, that's on you. I'm just pointing it out.
 
Then you are discriminating, anti-American and against freedom, And then you must also think that marriage for a man and woman of two different races is not a right?

If you're giving rights to some people, but denying them to others, well, that sounds like discrimination to me.

As long as the marriage contract exist, then it is discrimination.

You are using the government to force your definition of marriage on something that is none of your business. If 3 people love each other they should be able to get married!


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?

Sorry but you have it backwards.


Quotes by others in this thread, some are paraphrased as best I can remember. I am applying them to polygamy.

This does not represent their view and is just an example.

Sorry, BD, but this does not have any relevance to my position on polygamy at all. Since it doesn't apply, you might want to try again.
 
Then you are discriminating...


There is nothing wrong with discrimination as long as it is rational. We discriminate between selling guns to regular citizens and selling guns to felons. We discriminate between selling alcohol and tobacco to adults versus selling alcohol and tobacco to minors.

There are rational reasons behind why we discriminate in that fashion. You have to be pretty stupid to argue that all discrimination is bad and anti American and I don't know many people who do, so anyone who argues such is making a strawman and hyperbole.

There are lots of rational reasons why we should discriminate against polygamy but there are NO good reasons why we should discriminate against same sex marriage.
 
Sorry, BD, but this does not have any relevance to my position on polygamy at all. Since it doesn't apply, you might want to try again.

Not directed at you are your argument. You just happened to make the last post, lol.
 
Not directed at you are your argument. You just happened to make the last post, lol.

Perhaps, but it still mischaracterizes my argument. Do you think that not allowing 1 year olds the right to vote is discrimination?
 
There is nothing wrong with discrimination as long as it is rational. We discriminate between selling guns to regular citizens and selling guns to felons. We discriminate between selling alcohol and tobacco to adults versus selling alcohol and tobacco to minors.

Polygamy involves consenting adults who love each other. It is discrimination.

There are rational reasons behind why we discriminate in that fashion. You have to be pretty stupid to argue that all discrimination is bad and anti American and I don't know many people who do, so anyone who argues such is making a strawman and hyperbole.

Not saying that at all. I am saying their is no rational reason to deny polygamy or in most cases due to medical advances incest.

There are lots of rational reasons why we should discriminate against polygamy but there are NO good reasons why we should discriminate against same sex marriage.

Why? Because it will be a little more complicated? Many Mormons and Muslims would disagree.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps, but it still mischaracterizes my argument. Do you think that not allowing 1 year olds the right to vote is discrimination?

They are unable to physically or mentally vote either way. That is a ridicules comparison. I am talking about grown adult humans who want to marry more than one person. They deserve equal rights. Anything else is discrimination and anti-American and has been debunked.

It is about the family and civil rights.
 
They are unable to physically or mentally vote either way. That is a ridicules comparison. I am talking about grown adult humans who want to marry more than one person. They deserve equal rights. Anything else is discrimination and anti-American and has been debunked.

It is about the family and civil rights.

No, I've already debunked the polygamy argument several times. It's not discrimination because it does not accomplish the same goals that marriage is to accomplish... which is why the government should not sanction it. It's not discrimination at all... but since I NEVER argue from a discrimination position for GM, I'm really not concerned about discrimination anyway. See... you don't know my position on this.
 
No, I've already debunked the polygamy argument several times. It's not discrimination because it does not accomplish the same goals that marriage is to accomplish... which is why the government should not sanction it.

And what goals would those be? Why would 3 or more married people in the same household not stand up? You have given answers with no substance.

It's not discrimination at all... but since I NEVER argue from a discrimination position for GM, I'm really not concerned about discrimination anyway. See... you don't know my position on this.

Yes it is un-American and discrimination. They have a right to marriage. Marriage is a right. I don't know your position because you have yet to give it.
 
And what goals would those be? Why would 3 or more married people in the same household not stand up? You have given answers with no substance.

I have posted this lots of times before. I have it bookmarked on my computer at home (I'm at work), so I'll repost it later. In brief, though, marriage has been shown to produce the following benefits: increased health, positive rearing of chidren, more individual stability, and more financial stability. All of these things lead to a more stable society and a society where the rearing of children can occur in an environment that allows for the best outcome. Government sanctions marriage because in order for our nation... and hence our government to survive, a healthy, stable society, where children are reared with positive outcomes is desired. GM and traditional marriage, research has shown, meet these criteria. Polygamy, does not. Hence, governmental sanctioning of GM and TM is logical; sanctioning of PM is not.



Yes it is un-American and discrimination. They have a right to marriage. Marriage is a right. I don't know your position because you have yet to give it.

Marriage is not a right. It's not discrimination because the same reasons that governemnt sanctions marriage in the first place does not apply to polygamy. And as far as my position goes, we've debated this before. You don't remember?
 
Back
Top Bottom