• 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!

Gay marriage is approved by popular vote in Maine, Maryland

No I think all Americans should have equal rights and they do....I am just against changing the definition of marriage, be it for Gays. Polygamy, inter family, etc.
But you were ok with changing the definition of marriage to allow inter-racial marriage. So don't pretend that you are always against changing the definition of marriage. You are only against changing it when you don't agree with the change.
 
Let's say more and more states legalize gay marriage (hell maybe even all states), and I'm assuming you are married (if not's let's hypothetically say you are):.....

If the answer to those questions is no (and it is no), then your idea of your marriage being somehow less meaningful is just made up, it's imaginary and you're manufacturing it to sort of repress your own fear and hate. You're living in an imaginary universe where things magically affect each other without rhyme or reason.

You have to realize that I see marriage as a very different sort of thing than most other people do. For me it's more of a business arrangement with emotional attachments (not love). What I am suggesting has little to do with any relationship I am or might ever be in. It has to do with the ideal of Marriage as a broad concept and the damage done to that ideal by moving beyond the limits of acceptability.

Actually, YOU make your marriage meaningful and valuable. It's based on how YOU choose to define your relationship with your spouse. It's not my responsibility or anyone else's responsibility to affect or influence your marriage with things that happen outside your household. Conservatives often love to talk big about individual liberty and not allowing external forces to influence you because you make your own destiny, but when it comes to issues like this, oh boy, the hypocrisy knows no bounds.

I believe in a slightly different ideal than most other so-called "Conservatives". I believe that Right and Wrong/Law and Order are the highest callings in the world; not Freedom or Liberty. Freedom and Liberty are fine for those who have proven an ability to live within the ideals of Right and Wrong/Law and Order. Those who are unable to maintain themselves inside those limits do not deserve Freedom or Liberty.
 
WOW. With every election result I see this morning, I get more and more disgusted with the American people.

I am quickly reaching a point where I'm not sure there is any chance that this country can be saved..... FROM ITSELF and ITS CITIZENS.

Yeah its bad, really bad. Do you know that as I write this, within less than a quarter mile there might be two guys having sex! I mean how much are they going to mess up your life!! OMG!!!
 
But you were ok with changing the definition of marriage to allow inter-racial marriage. So don't pretend that you are always against changing the definition of marriage. You are only against changing it when you don't agree with the change.

In states where gay marriage is legal, is it legal for a man to marry his brother or father?
 
You have to realize that I see marriage as a very different sort of thing than most other people do. For me it's more of a business arrangement with emotional attachments (not love). What I am suggesting has little to do with any relationship I am or might ever be in. It has to do with the ideal of Marriage as a broad concept and the damage done to that ideal by moving beyond the limits of acceptability.
But here's the thing, that "limit of acceptability" is changing, it's moving. That's not because of me or because of you, it's because of what is now a majority of Americans who are saying and believing something different.

You see marriage as a different thing than most people do, okay, so everyone else should follow your narrow vision? That's my point right there, people view marriage differently from person-to-person. There's no way to prove that "traditional marriage" is inherently right. Just because it's what has dominated society for thousands of years doesn't mean it's inherently correct. This is something even pro-slavery folks would have said too, "it's the tradition, so it's inherently right".
 
In states where gay marriage is legal, is it legal for a man to marry his brother or father?

Is it legal to marry a parent or sibling for anyone else?
The incest laws haven't changed.
 
But here's the thing, that "limit of acceptability" is changing, it's moving. That's not because of me or because of you, it's because of what is now a majority of Americans who are saying and believing something different.

You see marriage as a different thing than most people do, okay, so everyone else should follow your narrow vision? That's my point right there, people view marriage differently from person-to-person. There's no way to prove that "traditional marriage" is inherently right. Just because it's what has dominated society for thousands of years doesn't mean it's inherently correct. This is something even pro-slavery folks would have said too, "it's the tradition, so it's inherently right".

You make the mistake of believing something is Right simply because the Majority of people want to see it that way. I on the other hand believe that Right and Wrong exist totally outside of the concept of personal opinion, and cannot be changed or modified by personal opinion.
 
Is it legal to marry a parent or sibling for anyone else?
The incest laws haven't changed.
zstep18 said:
What does gay marriage have to do with incest again?

Its not any different. Why is it illegal to marry a close relation, when its physically impossible for genetic abnormalities to occur from the relationship?

If its ok to change the definition of marriage to include people of the same sex, then why is there a law banning marriage between relations?

As Boo Radley stated earlier, its all about more freedom.
 
Its not any different. Why is it illegal to marry a close relation, when its physically impossible for genetic abnormalities to occur from the relationship?

If its ok to change the definition of marriage to include people of the same sex, then why is there a law banning marriage between relations?

Because there is a certain expectation of intimacy involved in marriage. And intimacy, as is found in those who are married, between family members, particularly immediate family (as in those that you were raised with), actually has a mental aversion that develops during our early childhoods. When it doesn't develop, it is almost always due to some form of child abuse or undue influence to force the relationship starting at a very early age. They have even found this intimacy aversion develops in those who are not related but are raised together.
 
Last edited:
You make the mistake of believing something is Right simply because the Majority of people want to see it that way. I on the other hand believe that Right and Wrong exist totally outside of the concept of personal opinion, and cannot be changed or modified by personal opinion.

Which is ironic because your personal opinion is that it cannot be changed by personal opinion. This is some amazing circular logic.
 
Why is it illegal to marry a close relation, when its physically impossible for genetic abnormalities to occur from the relationship?

Genetic abnormalities DO occur as a result of incestual relationships.
 
You make the mistake of believing something is Right simply because the Majority of people want to see it that way. I on the other hand believe that Right and Wrong exist totally outside of the concept of personal opinion, and cannot be changed or modified by personal opinion.
But what basis do you justify that with? What says you're right besides your personal view of the world?

You're essentially using your personal view to say that personal views are not allowed LOL
 
Genetic abnormalities DO occur as a result of incestual relationships.

But again, its physically impossible for gay relations to create offspring, so why is it not allowed?
 
Its not any different. Why is it illegal to marry a close relation, when its physically impossible for genetic abnormalities to occur from the relationship?

If its ok to change the definition of marriage to include people of the same sex, then why is there a law banning marriage between relations?

As Boo Radley stated earlier, its all about more freedom.

Incest laws are not being challenged. If it comes up for a vote then I will look at the issues surrounding this one topic. Same sex marriage and incest are in no way related, and stand or fall on their own merits.
 
Genetic abnormalities DO occur as a result of incestual relationships.

And what would they be exactly? Can you list examples, and do you realize that genetic mutation occurs even in clones?


Tim-
 
Incest laws are not being challenged. If it comes up for a vote then I will look at the issues surrounding this one topic. Same sex marriage and incest are in no way related, and stand or fall on their own merits.

Its challenged all the time, especially between first cousins.

In the arena of same-sex marriages, the challenge revolved around denying someone the right to a marriage.

You would support denying someone the right the marry a close relation, regardless of sexual orientation?
 
Last edited:
Its challenged all the time, especially between first cousins. In the arena of same-sex marriages, it revolves around denying someone the right to a marriage. You would support denying someone the right the marry a close relation, regardless of sexual orientation.

First cousins should be allowed to get married. They are not normally raised together, so no intimate relationship aversion should be expected to result and there increased risk for genetic problems for first generation first cousins' offspring only increases from the average couple about 2%, which isn't that significant (the average couple has about a 2% risk of genetic problems, first cousins is about 4%).

I predict that this will very likely be the next fight for marriage we see and it probably won't even be that big. I'm willing to bet that there will be very few who are actually against this, at least compared to other types of relationships and their fights (interracial, same sex, more than 2, siblings). Heck, Sarah and Abraham of the Bible were married and they were half-siblings. More states now allow first cousins to get married than those that allow same sex couples to marry.
 
And what would they be exactly? Can you list examples, and do you realize that genetic mutation occurs even in clones?


Tim-

I don't know off the top of my head, but I was always under the impression that they tend to create very bad genetic abnormalities.
 
I get more and more disgusted with the idea that MORALITY and VALUES are not the defining characteristics of this nation's society and government. Just like every other "equality" movement other than the racial one, this movement seeks to destroy thousands of years of perfectly good societal norms without showing any significant advantage to the society as a whole.

Since, as I've told you repeatedly, morals and values are relative, YOUR perception that your morals and values should be those of this country's are irrelevant to anyone but yourself. So speaking about them as if they are givens is inaccurate.
 
Mostly because we no longer accept that RIGHT and WRONG are immutable concepts.

Right and wrong have never been immutable concepts. That's the basis of why you are wrong about pretty much everything.
 
I don't know off the top of my head, but I was always under the impression that they tend to create very bad genetic abnormalities.


Look, I am not advocating allowing incest so please don't get me wrong, but I was addressing the legitimacy and equivalence of the presented argument that among consenting adults, how does it vary? Using the well it's bad for you genetically argument doesn't fly as extensive studies have been done in this area in the last 20 years and nothing really conclusive has been determined one way or the other. I agree that psychologically there is a legitimate argument for reasons against it, and that's good enough for me, but whether your moral idignation is religiously based or scientifically based makes a huge difference when arguing the facts.


Tim-
 
Back
Top Bottom