• 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!

Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

downthecenter said:
Most on the left and right have a hard time doing anything but spewing diatribes. My own feelings are that I hope people will find a way to meet in the middle. There is no reason that we can't somehow afford homosexuals the same rights as those in hetero marriages and not call it marriage.
Click to expand...

This is all nice and reflects what I have said; unfortunately, their agenda does not include a solution, but merely forcing their views down everyone's throat for political purposes.

If you don't believe me, just look at all the protests and promises of law breaking already occurring in California. If they wanted to resolve this in a respectful mature way, we would already have resolved it instead of having politicians and mayors like Gavin Newsome tell the voters to shove their values up their a-holes.
 
Truth Detector said:
I don't discriminate or hate; that is your forte'. I take offense with your desperate attempts to suggest that I do.

There is nothing hateful or indiscriminate about merely questioning the reasons same sex couples so desperately want to redefine a term that has been with us for over 2000 years and FALSLEY claim it as a RIGHT.
Click to expand...

Something like Prop 8 goes beyond just questioning it.

The purpose of marriage between a man and a woman is to provide a contract that binds them in a solemn promise before God for life to procreate and create and raise children as a FAMILY. Gays cannot procreate, it is a LIFE style. Only a MAN and a WOMAN can.
Click to expand...

What about heterosexual couples that are incapable of procreating or choose not to? Should they also be denied marriage?
 
dclxvinoise said:
What about heterosexual couples that are incapable of procreating or choose not to? Should they also be denied marriage?
Click to expand...

It is a rare instance; do you think we should make laws for every possible biological situation? They can still procreate with new techniques using the sperm or eggs from the female.

How does this change the basic tenet of Marriage?

The purpose of marriage between a man and a woman is to provide a contract that binds them in a solemn promise before God for life to procreate and create and raise children as a FAMILY. Gays cannot procreate, it is a LIFE style. Only a MAN and a WOMAN can.

Why don't you explain why Gay activists cannot be content with Civil Unions?
 
Truth Detector said:
The purpose of marriage between a man and a woman is to provide a contract that binds them in a solemn promise before God for life to procreate and create and raise children as a FAMILY.
Click to expand...


God? So only Christian marriages are valid now? :shock:
 
rivrrat said:
I dunno. Why weren't black people happy with separate schools. I mean, they were getting an education, so WTF was the problem?
Click to expand...

Your desperate attempt to equate marriage between a man and a woman with racism is noted; and it is still absurd.
 
Truth Detector said:
This is all nice and reflects what I have said; unfortunately, their agenda does not include a solution, but merely forcing their views down everyone's throat for political purposes.

If you don't believe me, just look at all the protests and promises of law breaking already occurring in California. If they wanted to resolve this in a respectful mature way, we would already have resolved it instead of having politicians and mayors like Gavin Newsome tell the voters to shove their values up their a-holes.
Click to expand...

I understand how you feel. Believe me it is a tiresome thing trying to explain to a dyed in the wool lib that I neither hate them nor gays, that all I hope for is that both sides will simply stop with the diatribes and push for some common ground. I like you don't believe that "marriage" should be the word, because it offends people on the right. But not coming to a solution and giving equal rights to all is not what this country is about. In my original quote and now, I am on your side.
 
Truth Detector said:
It is a rare instance; do you think we should make laws for every possible biological situation? They can still procreate with new techniques using the sperm or eggs from the female.
Click to expand...

It's not that rare, especially for couples who choose not to procreate. I don't think that they should make laws for every possible biological situation, but I think that there are enough homosexuals across the US who want to get married to warrant making it legal.

How does this change the basic tenet of Marriage?

The purpose of marriage between a man and a woman is to provide a contract that binds them in a solemn promise before God for life to procreate and create and raise children as a FAMILY. Gays cannot procreate, it is a LIFE style. Only a MAN and a WOMAN can.
Click to expand...

Whom is that "basic tenet" according to and why are they justified in defining what marriage is or isn't?

Why don't you explain why Gay activists cannot be content with Civil Unions?
Click to expand...

Why should they have to be? Why aren't churches content with the government allowing gay marriage, and not forcing them to perform them if it goes against their belief system?
 
dclxvinoise said:
They also aren't the only ones who perform marriages.
Click to expand...

That's true -- I was simply noting that the 'only Christian marriages' argument was flawed.
 
Truth Detector said:
You think the idea of God is purely a Christian idea? Obviously your notions about religion are quite limited.
Click to expand...

Well, your specific use of the word "God" combine with the rabid fervor over gay marriage led me to believe you were a Christian.

But anyway... if it's a "promise before God" only marriages performed by a religious official are valid now?
 
Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Your desperate attempt to equate marriage between a man and a woman with racism is noted; and it is still absurd.

rivrrat said:
How is it absurd?
Click to expand...

I can only lead you to water; I cannot make you drink it.

If you are attempting to equate marriage to racism, and think there is nothing absurd about it, I cannot help you.
 
Whats the difference between civil partnerships and gay marriage in Americas definition of it?
 
Truth Detector said:
Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Your desperate attempt to equate marriage between a man and a woman with racism is noted; and it is still absurd.



I can only lead you to water; I cannot make you drink it.

If you are attempting to equate marriage to racism, and think there is nothing absurd about it, I cannot help you.
Click to expand...

I'm equating discrimination with discrimination.
 
Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
It is a rare instance; do you think we should make laws for every possible biological situation? They can still procreate with new techniques using the sperm or eggs from the female.
dclxvinoise said:
It's not that rare, especially for couples who choose not to procreate. I don't think that they should make laws for every possible biological situation, but I think that there are enough homosexuals across the US who want to get married to warrant making it legal.
Click to expand...

It is rarer than the norm. But your absurd argument to the contrary suggests that there are couples who may choose to not have a child; that doesn’t negate the FACT that they can change their mind or that they cannot procreate.

The gay community is a teeny tiny minority; and you continue to avoid my question; why is it they are not content with Civil Unions, why does it HAVE to redefine marriage, a term we have understood and accepted for over 2000 years?
 
Heretic said:
Well, your specific use of the word "God" combine with the rabid fervor over gay marriage led me to believe you were a Christian.

But anyway... if it's a "promise before God" only marriages performed by a religious official are valid now?
Click to expand...

I haven't been to a Church since I was a kid; your assumption is noted, something that a lot of people tend to do when debating purely at an emotional level.

Marriage has been a religious ceremony for centuries. The fact that the US has co-opted it and licensed it doesn't change that FACT.

Why can't you answer my questions? Why is it you are not content with Civil Unions, why does it require us to redefine marriage, a term we have understood and accepted for over 2000 years?
 
Truth Detector said:
why is it they are not content with Civil Unions, why does it HAVE to redefine marriage, a term we have understood and accepted for over 2000 years?
Click to expand...

I don't see how openly admitting your argument is nothing more than a vapid semantic one helps your case. "The gays can get 'married', but they can't get married!" Honestly...
 
Truth Detector said:
Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
It is a rare instance; do you think we should make laws for every possible biological situation? They can still procreate with new techniques using the sperm or eggs from the female.


It is rarer than the norm. But your absurd argument to the contrary suggests that there are couples who may choose to not have a child; that doesn’t negate the FACT that they can change their mind or that they cannot procreate.
Click to expand...

It may be rarer than the norm, but by your standards these people shouldn't be allowed to marry. After all, you assert that the gay community is a teeny tiny minority, just as the people who choose not to have a child or are incapable of conceiving.

The gay community is a teeny tiny minority; and you continue to avoid my question; why is it they are not content with Civil Unions, why does it HAVE to redefine marriage, a term we have understood and accepted for over 2000 years?
Click to expand...

I didn't avoid your question at all. I just don't see a reason why they have to have civil unions and not marriage. It is still discrimination then. You also haven't answered my question of who defined those tenets of marriage. The tradition of marriage hasn't changed for over 2,000 years only because in recent decades society has progressed to the point where people don't have as much to fear about coming out. Before this time people had many misconceptions about homosexuality and sex in general. These things have progressed, so I don't see why these tenets of marriage shouldn't progress as well. You ask why, I ask why not?
 
rivrrat said:
I'm equating discrimination with discrimination.
Click to expand...

Marriage is not discrimination. It is a ceremony between a man and a woman to create a binding contract in the eyes of God to procreate and have children.

Now I ask you the same question everyone else is desperately avoiding; why is it gays are not content with Civil Unions, why do they HAVE to redefine marriage, a term we have understood and accepted for over 2000 years?

Carry on; your desperate attempts to suggest otherwise are noted.
 
Why can't gays understand that we're trying to spare them the misery?
 
Truth Detector said:
Marriage is not discrimination. It is a ceremony between a man and a woman to create a binding contract in the eyes of God to procreate and have children.
Click to expand...
Denying it to one group of people IS discrimination.

Now I ask you the same question everyone else is desperately avoiding; why is it gays are not content with Civil Unions, why do they HAVE to redefine marriage, a term we have understood and accepted for over 2000 years?
Click to expand...
Why should they be content with being discriminated against? With "separate but equal"? Not to mention the fact that civil unions don't give the same legal privileges.

Why weren't blacks happy not being allowed to marry whites? Why weren't women happy not being allowed to vote?

I agree that marriage SHOULD be a religious ceremony ONLY. I don't think the state should be involved at all. No rights or priviileges should be granted to anyone, it should just be a religious thing.

However, that's NOT the way it is. It's not a religious ceremony, it's a legal contract that CAN be celebrated with a religious ceremony but certainly does not have to be. And as it is now, what the anti-gay marriage folks are doing is legalizing discrimination in the name of religion for something that is a legal contract.
 
Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
It is a rare instance; do you think we should make laws for every possible biological situation? They can still procreate with new techniques using the sperm or eggs from the female.


It is rarer than the norm. But your absurd argument to the contrary suggests that there are couples who may choose to not have a child; that doesn’t negate the FACT that they can change their mind or that they cannot procreate.
dclxvinoise said:
It may be rarer than the norm, but by your standards these people shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Click to expand...

How is that? Now you are attempting to divine a meaning I never stated?

My Statement:

The purpose of marriage between a man and a woman is to provide a contract that binds them in a solemn promise before God for life to procreate and create and raise children as a FAMILY. Gays cannot procreate, it is a LIFE style. Only a MAN and a WOMAN can.

How is that suggesting that a man and a woman who may choose not to have children don’t meet this requirement? Are you suggesting that they won’t?

dclxvinoise said:
I didn't avoid your question at all. I just don't see a reason why they have to have civil unions and not marriage. It is still discrimination then.
Click to expand...

Well there you go; you think we should all abide by YOUR opinion. But that doesn’t make a compelling argument. There is nothing discriminating about marriage. It is no more discriminating than a small minority attempting to re-define it.


dclxvinoise said:
You also haven't answered my question of who defined those tenets of marriage. The tradition of marriage hasn't changed for over 2,000 years only because in recent decades society has progressed to the point where people don't have as much to fear about coming out. Before this time people had many misconceptions about homosexuality and sex in general. These things have progressed, so I don't see why these tenets of marriage shouldn't progress as well. You ask why, I ask why not?
Click to expand...

Now you are asking me to educate you in your feigned ignorance?

A Divine Institution.

The Bible presents marriage as a divine institution. If marriage were of human origin, then human beings would have a right to decide the kind of marital relationships to choose. Marriage, however, began with God. It was established by God at the beginning of human history when He "created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1). As the Creator of marriage, God has the right to tell us which principles should govern our marital relationships.

If God had left us no instructions about marriage after establishing it, then marriage could be regulated according to personal whims. But He has not left us in the dark. In His revelation contained in the pages of the Bible, God has revealed His will regarding the nature and function of marriage. As Christians who choose to live in accordance with God’s will, we must study and respect those Biblical principles governing marriage, divorce, and remarriage. In some instances, the laws of a state regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage ignore or even violate the teachings of the Bible. In such cases, as Christians, "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

The Institution of Marriage

Another great essay on the topic:

Definitions
These perspectives share a concern to define marriage, whether as a means to trace the evolutionary development of its different types or as a prelude to the identification of its distinctive functions in society. Many attempts have been made to identify the essential nature of marriage and to list its purposes, a project often as revealing of the observer's assumptions as of the observed practices. Across cultures, the ceremonial and social phenomena conventionally defined as marriage assume myriad forms and serve varied purposes, yet marriage is usually defined as the formal ideological recognition of a sexual relationship between one man and one woman (monogamy) ; among one man and two or more women (polygamy: polygyny) ; or among one woman and two or more men (polygamy: polyandry). Because sexual intercourse is approved in this relationship, the children of a marriage usually possess a status superior to children born beyond its boundaries.

In an argument against such essentialism, the anthropologist Edmund Leach rejected universal definitions and instead approached marriage as a ‘bundle of rights’. Among the classes of rights allocated by institutions ‘commonly classed as marriage’, Leach noted that in different societies ‘marriage’ may serve:

(i) to establish the legal father of a woman's children;
(ii) to establish the legal mother of a man's children;
(iii) to give the husband a monopoly in the wife's sexuality;
(iv) to give the wife a monopoly in the husband's sexuality;
(v) to give the husband partial or monopolistic rights to the wife's domestic or other labour services;
(vi) to give the wife partial or monopolistic rights to the husband's labour services;
(vii) to give the husband rights over the property of his wife;
(viii) to give the wife rights over the property of her husband;
(ix) to establish a joint fund of property, a partnership, for the benefit of the children of the marriage; and
(x) to establish a socially significant ‘relationship of affinity’ between the husband and his wife's brothers.

Leach's essay, and the debate it provoked in the late 1950s, had a seminal influence on approaches to marriage as an ethnographic problem, as a culturally specific set of beliefs, practices, and institutions. Because marriage did not establish all of these types of rights in any known society, Leach concluded that the ‘institutions commonly described as marriage do not all have the same legal and social concomitants’ and that the meaning of marriage in any society could emerge only from detailed investigation of its ethnographic context. At the same time, Leach's essay typified an approach that has focused on how marriage may structure relationships between individuals and among groups, and has stressed the interrelationship of principles of descent, rules of residence, and issues of power over property.

marriage: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com

I will give you and others the last word; I have made my argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom