• 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

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
64,271
Reaction score
27,500
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Since it appears that some wish to discuss gays getting married (again), I figured I'd start another poll about it. A little different spin on this one than I've seen in at least a while, although the argument is common in gay rights threads.

(Besides, there doesn't seem to be a single poll about it on the first or second page of the Polls section, so I figure I'll change that.)

Is same sex marriage a special right or equal protection?

Please explain all answers so we can have a good debate about this.
 
Some do not know what marriage is, nor its purpose.
To the homosexuals I say this..
Sorry about your predicament, but we designed marriage for one man and one woman, with the end result being procreation..
At the time when marriage was being designed and implemented, a few hundred thousand years back in time, no one in their right mind ever thought about the homosexual thing.
A civil union is fine with me.
 
Any action that does not impose on the life, freedom, and property of another person is a right by default.

Some do not know what marriage is, nor its purpose.
To the homosexuals I say this..
Sorry about your predicament, but we designed marriage for one man and one woman, with the end result being procreation..
At the time when marriage was being designed and implemented, a few hundred thousand years back in time, no one in their right mind ever thought about the homosexual thing.
A civil union is fine with me.

Marriage isn't a design. "We" had nothing to do with its formation. Traditions enjoy no constitutional protections.
 
Last edited:
Some do not know what marriage is, nor its purpose.
To the homosexuals I say this..
Sorry about your predicament, but we designed marriage for one man and one woman, with the end result being procreation..
At the time when marriage was being designed and implemented, a few hundred thousand years back in time, no one in their right mind ever thought about the homosexual thing.
A civil union is fine with me.

And a few hundred years ago, the definition of freedom excluded blacks, tradition isn't always a good thing, is it.
 
Some do not know what marriage is, nor its purpose.
To the homosexuals I say this..
Sorry about your predicament, but we designed marriage for one man and one woman, with the end result being procreation..
At the time when marriage was being designed and implemented, a few hundred thousand years back in time, no one in their right mind ever thought about the homosexual thing.
A civil union is fine with me.

The legal marriage license (which is what we are talking about here) was originally designed to restrict marriage, but not to one man and one woman. They didn't even consider that such a thing would be needed.

The marriage license was supposed to restrict marriage to men and women who the government/church approved of. For the church, it meant the couple had to meet certain criteria in order to get the license, i.e. no divorce, both of that faith, parents/father approved the marriage, etc. For the US government, it was mostly to prevent men from marrying women of a different race (particularly whites marrying any non-whites) and vice versa.

Our views of marriage since that time have changed greatly, enough so that it can easily include same sex couples. And according to the Equal Protection clause in the Constitution, since marriage is a legal contract, it should include them.
 
Some do not know what marriage is, nor its purpose.
To the homosexuals I say this..
Sorry about your predicament, but we designed marriage for one man and one woman, with the end result being procreation..
At the time when marriage was being designed and implemented, a few hundred thousand years back in time, no one in their right mind ever thought about the homosexual thing.
A civil union is fine with me.

The fact that you think marriage was designed a few hundred thousand years ago kind of renders the rest of your point moot.
 
Since it appears that some wish to discuss gays getting married (again), I figured I'd start another poll about it. A little different spin on this one than I've seen in at least a while, although the argument is common in gay rights threads.

(Besides, there doesn't seem to be a single poll about it on the first or second page of the Polls section, so I figure I'll change that.)

Is same sex marriage a special right or equal protection?
Please explain all answers so we can have a good debate about this.

I tend to view the issue as a political payoff for support of the democratic party and it's use of identity politics. Why didn't you include that as an option?
 
I tend to view the issue as a political payoff for support of the democratic party and it's use of identity politics. Why didn't you include that as an option?

What about those of us who are for gay marriage, but don't support the Democrat party?
 
Civil unions is equal protection. The same benefits straight couples have should be afforded to them.

Marriage is a religious institution at its root. If Gays want civil unions, fair enough. But marriage is religious domain and if the religious do not want to let them in. They should accept it, be happy with civil unions and move on.
 
Last edited:
I tend to view the issue as a political payoff for support of the democratic party and it's use of identity politics. Why didn't you include that as an option?

Because...

a) I'm not a Democrat, but I still support same sex marriage.

b) If something is good, I don't care who is using it for their political gain. Support for a particular issue, like same sex marriage, should be about the issue, not the party or a particular candidate or how any of those use that issue. You can always support an issue and not the person/party that is pushing it. If not, then you are playing politics yourself.
 
Civil unions is equal protection. The same benefits straight couples have should be afforded to them.

Marriage is a religious institution at its root. If Gays want civil unions, fair enough. But marriage is religious domain and if the religious do not want to let them in. They should accept it, be happy with civil unions and move on.

Except some religions have let them in and give same sex couples a religious marriage, ceremony and all. It is the government that doesn't accept their marriage.

And there are plenty of religions who don't want to recognize even some opposite couples as married, including second marriages after a divorce when it is against the church and interfaith marriages. These marriages, while not recognized by a person's/couple's own religion(s), are still recognized by the government as being in a legal marriage contract.

Plus, legal marriage is given to opposite sex couples all the time who do not participate in any religion or even have a religious ceremony.

Religion does not own marriage.

If such a "compromise" were the only way, then every couple should have to accept it, opposite and same sex couples.
 
Marriage is a religious institution at its root. If Gays want civil unions, fair enough. But marriage is religious domain and if the religious do not want to let them in. They should accept it, be happy with civil unions and move on.

No it's not, at it's roots, marriage is for cementing alliances between families, and historically it's a polygamous and patriarchal system. And even if you were to go with the religious path, marriage has existed as far back as ancient Greece, and they had a certain fondness for buggery.
 
Religion does not own marriage.

If such a "compromise" were the only way, then every couple should have to accept it, opposite and same sex couples.

That is fine. If they find a priest willing to do the ceremony. Good for them.

Still a civil union in paper and should remain as such until the religious (no idea for US but in UK Church of England) accepts it. Which it won't.
It shouldn't be forced to change. In UK Straight people cannot get a civil union only a marriage. I can't speak for US because I have no idea how it is there.

No it's not, at it's roots, marriage is for cementing alliances between families, and historically it's a polygamous and patriarchal system. And even if you were to go with the religious path, marriage has existed as far back as ancient Greece, and they had a certain fondness for buggery.

Gays have civil unions which is legally the exact same as marriage. The same rights and benefits.
I support civil partnerships and unions for the gay community however the moment any Gay community tries to force religious institutions through Parliament into acknowledging marriage for them is when they lose my support and the motion passing through Parliament which is trying to make this happen will have my MP's opposition and will most likely fail not only in UK Parliament but also the EU Court of Human Rights. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
What about those of us who are for gay marriage, but don't support the Democrat party?

You are a human being that is entitled to your opinion. People support all kinds of postions on numerous subjects.
 
That is fine. If they find a priest willing to do the ceremony. Good for them.

Still a civil union in paper and should remain as such until the religious (no idea for US but in UK Church of England) accepts it. Which it won't.
It shouldn't be forced to change. In UK Straight people cannot get a civil union only a marriage. I can't speak for US because I have no idea how it is there.



Gays have civil unions which is legally the exact same as marriage. The same rights and benefits.
I support civil partnerships and unions for the gay community however the moment any Gay community tries to force religious institutions through Parliament into acknowledging marriage for them is when they lose my support and the motion passing through Parliament which is trying to make this happen will have my MP's opposition :shrug:

In the US, we don't have one religion because we have freedom of religion. Which means that no law or discrimination can be justified with "religion owns that word". It doesn't work. We don't have to have a priest marry us or a church approve of our legal marriages, which are really just contracts.

My own marriage took place in the front yard of a relative with a Navy wife as the officiant. She had gotten her "license" (or whatever it is called) to legally sign the marriage licenses for the state my husband and I were married in over the internet, which was also how I contacted her, since I was in Hawaii but we were getting married on the mainland. She had no set religion, she would do a ceremony however the couple wanted it, for a fee. She told me that about two weeks before our wedding, she had officiated over a ceremony in a hot tub. My husband and I are neither religious, although we both believe in a higher power and come from religious families.

No religion has a right, in the US, to tell the government that they should not recognize certain couples' marriages because they don't believe that the couple "fits" the true definition of marriage. The marriage license is a legal contract, not a religious one.
 
Because...

a) I'm not a Democrat, but I still support same sex marriage.

b) If something is good, I don't care who is using it for their political gain. Support for a particular issue, like same sex marriage, should be about the issue, not the party or a particular candidate or how any of those use that issue. You can always support an issue and not the person/party that is pushing it. If not, then you are playing politics yourself.

So, you agree the issue is a political one being used by the democratic party for political gain?
 
No religion has a right, in the US, to tell the government that they should not recognize certain couples' marriages because they don't believe that the couple "fits" the true definition of marriage. The marriage license is a legal contract, not a religious one.

US is amongst those countries which is secular. In UK, we have a established religion and institution COE and Protestants playing a role and having a opinion in our laws. They sit in Parliament and can vote/oppose a law if they choose to.

In UK, I think Gays have nothing to complain about compared to US where they can't even adopt or be recognised as a couple in all states.
I think US Gays should be lobbying for civil unions and maybe they will pick up more support from the religious in US. Rather than trying to use the term 'marriage'.
 
So, you agree the issue is a political one being used by the democratic party for political gain?

I personally think both sides are using it for political gain, just in opposite ways.
 
US is amongst those countries which is secular. In UK, we have a established religion and institution COE and Protestants playing a role and having a opinion in our laws. They sit in Parliament and can vote/oppose a law if they choose to.

In UK, I think Gays have nothing to complain about compared to US where they can't even adopt or be recognised as a couple in all states.
I think US Gays should be lobbying for civil unions and maybe they will pick up more support from the religious in US. Rather than trying to use the term 'marriage'.

Many people who support same sex marriage here are doing many things to try to get it, but we have come to realize that our biggest hope for getting it the fastest is just continuing to challenge discriminatory/unconstitutional laws in court, such as DOMA and laws that bar gay couples from adopting children from public adoption agencies or through the state.

In fact, once DOMA goes away/down, it won't matter if there are some states here that won't actually grant marriage licenses to same sex couples, because due to the 14th Amendment's Full Faith and Credit Clause, those states will be forced to legally recognize same sex marriages that are performed in other states.
 
I personally think both sides are using it for political gain, just in opposite ways.

It's a cultural issue. Most republican constitutents constitute a single culture, traditional western european. If the republican party wants to keep it's consitutents it's supposed to represent their needs, wants, and aspirations. Personally, I'm not much impressed with the republican leadership. I feel they have much more in common with their democratic counterparts than their constituents. This would explain the recent revelations about the mrs bush and mrs mcain who've recently voiced support for gay marriage and abortions. Ok, their entitled to their opinions, but aren't they supporting wrong party?

For the democratic party it's a little more problamatic. The majority of the democratic party constituents are currently upper class whites. They fully support things such as abortion and gay marriage. However, they aren't reproducing their own numbers. Hell, blacks and asians aren't either. The democratic leadership's great hope is the latinos now flooding across our borders. The problem here is they constitute a traditional culture, and one that is often at odds with treasured democratic party principles. Indeed, a large part of why prop 8 passed is because of black christians. Problems, problems.
 
Many people who support same sex marriage here are doing many things to try to get it, but we have come to realize that our biggest hope for getting it the fastest is just continuing to challenge discriminatory/unconstitutional laws in court, such as DOMA and laws that bar gay couples from adopting children from public adoption agencies or through the state. In fact, once DOMA goes away/down, it won't matter if there are some states here that won't actually grant marriage licenses to same sex couples, because due to the 14th Amendment's Full Faith and Credit Clause, those states will be forced to legally recognize same sex marriages that are performed in other states.

You mean by forcing the issue on the american people whether they support it or not. Pity.
 
You mean by forcing the issue on the american people whether they support it or not. Pity.

By doing what is constitutional, no matter what the just-slightly-a-majority wants. DOMA changes a part of the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment's FF&CC to discriminate against a group of people. To be legal, it should have gone through the proper methods and actually became an Amendment to the Constitution (which is normally done through a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress followed by having to be approved by 3/4ths of the states). Congress didn't have the numbers then (and most likely don't have the numbers now) to get this done constitutionally.
 
By doing what is constitutional, no matter what the just-slightly-a-majority wants. DOMA changes a part of the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment's FF&CC to discriminate against a group of people. To be legal, it should have gone through the proper methods and actually became an Amendment to the Constitution (which is normally done through a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress followed by having to be approved by 3/4ths of the states). Congress didn't have the numbers then (and most likely don't have the numbers now) to get this done constitutionally.

Look, I'm familiar with the socialist vision of government to "control" their peoples (for their own good). However, I'm a classical liberal. Like the founders of our nation I feel the people are better at determining their needs, wants, and desires than any "ruling class." Simply put, government should represent the will of the people, not simply use people to support the state. I'm not a fan of etatism. I'll leave that for you liberals/leftists/socialists.
 
Back
Top Bottom