• 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!

The Face of Gay Marriage? Video clip from Maine newscast

Without children involved the state has no reason to poke it's nose in your bedroom, so why you would invite the state in when a few documents from legalzoom.com would do the same thing is beyond me.

Does this mean you are going to try and use children to confuse the whole issue again? Don't you get tired of having that whole argument destroyed time and again?
 
that's a ridiculous statement, heard many times.

Truth is ridiculous in your eyes. What a perverted world view you have.

what is your particular problem with gay marriage?

I don't know that I have any problem with gay-marriage.

That doesn't mean I'm going to adopt just any argument in favor of it. Truth has value to me, even though you think truth "ridiculous", so I'm not going to lie just to get my way.

Maybe we should create gay-marriage, maybe society would be better off, but until we do, the right to marry a person of the same sex does not exist, therefore it's not an issue of equality.
 
Truth is ridiculous in your eyes. What a perverted world view you have.



I don't know that I have any problem with gay-marriage.

That doesn't mean I'm going to adopt just any argument in favor of it. Truth has value to me, even though you think truth "ridiculous", so I'm not going to lie just to get my way.

Maybe we should create gay-marriage, maybe society would be better off, but until we do, the right to marry a person of the same sex does not exist, therefore it's not an issue of equality.
why doesn't that right exist, if the right to marry the opposite sex does? where did THAT right come from? as long as a person can't marry who they choose to marry, they are not being treated equally.
 
They don't. There's about 130 rights' difference between marriage and domestic partnership. More if you consider the federal level.

Yeah I've seen those lists, their about as fake as this alleged right to visit a spouse in the hospital, being filled with companies failing on their own to comply with the law or unexplored legal issues.
 
Yeah I've seen those lists, their about as fake as this alleged right to visit a spouse in the hospital, being filled with companies failing on their own to comply with the law or unexplored legal issues.

So then, you are gonna try to peddle your opinion and not anything of substance or fact?

What makes them so fake, jerry?
 
why doesn't that right exist, if the right to marry the opposite sex does?

For the same reason my sammich doesn't exist: You haven't made it yet.

They knew they couldn't do everything when they made this country, that's why they gave us the tools to better it.

where did THAT right come from?

A compelling desire for successful societies to protect relationships which formed and maintained a family.

as long as a person can't marry who they choose to marry, they are not being treated equally.

I can't marry whom I choose to, therefore I'm being treated unequally as well.
 
So then, you are gonna try to peddle your opinion and not anything of substance or fact?

Not while I'm farming achievements, no.

Maybe later tonight.
 
For the same reason my sammich doesn't exist: You haven't made it yet.

They knew they couldn't do everything when they made this country, that's why they gave us the tools to better it.



A compelling desire for successful societies to protect relationships which formed and maintained a family.



I can't marry whom I choose to, therefore I'm being treated unequally as well.
i suspect there are good reasons for that.......
 
i suspect there are good reasons for that.......

Maybe, maybe not, but your criteria doesn't allow for reasons either way, so who cares.

I can't marry just whomever I want, so therefore, by your standard, I'm not being treated equally.
 
Maybe, maybe not, but your criteria doesn't allow for reasons either way, so who cares.

I can't marry just whomever I want, so therefore, by your standard, I'm not being treated equally.
do you want to marry a non related adult? if so, you're right, you aren't being treated equally.
 
That is a totally false statement. Totally false.

Really? Until the last decade or so, can you name anyplace in the world that defined marriage as something other than a legally recognized union between a man and a woman? I honestly can't think of any nation, civilization, or culture--even among primitive indigenous tribes--that marriage has been defined as anything else. By 'legally recognized' I mean that marriage is a legal contract in some places and in all places it implies a more or less permanent union that includes certain expectations of duties, rights, privileges, etc. that vary from group to group.

Even in cultures allowing polygamy nobody married two people at once. Each marriage was between one man and one woman even when that action happened multiple times.
 
Really? Until the last decade or so, can you name anyplace in the world that defined marriage as something other than a legally recognized union between a man and a woman? I honestly can't think of any nation, civilization, or culture--even among primitive indigenous tribes--that marriage has been defined as anything else. By 'legally recognized' I mean that marriage is a legal contract in some places and in all places it implies a more or less permanent union that includes certain expectations of duties, rights, privileges, etc. that vary from group to group.

Even in cultures allowing polygamy nobody married two people at once. Each marriage was between one man and one woman even when that action happened multiple times.

Sparta. It's the example that comes to mind immediately.

It's well known that India had marriages between two men.

And you don't get to move the goal posts here. Your statement was a blanket statement concerning all cultures going back millenia. It is a fairly recent development, relatively speaking, that marriage is a legal institution and not just a cultural/religious one. For you to now place expectations of modern standards to ancient practices only shows that you already know yourself to be wrong about this and are simply trying to do damage control. ;)
 
do you want to marry a non related adult?

Let's say i do....


if so, you're right, you aren't being treated equally.

Poligamy ftw :2wave:

But I think your "non-related" comment is fairly bigoted, as 1: familial relation is a protected class while sexual orientation is not, and 2: people with other inheritable genetic diseases are allowed to marry, so there's no reason not to allow incest.
 
Excerpting just some of the comments directed at my post:

Jackalope writes
Marriage is a contract between two people, from which some people can be excluded b/c of gender. Two people can marry, unless their gender is the same. It's so silly. Actually, silly diminishes the wrong done. It's most definitely a civil rights and equality issue. Nobody is changing the definition, it's not a new contract being defined, it's simply eliminating exclusion b/c it's two people of the same gender rather than two people of different genders.

It's still a simple, straight-up, two-party contract.

It does change the definition if anybody other than a man and woman marry because until recently the definition of marriage was regarded as one man and one woman in all 50 states.


Liblady writes
a civil union isn't a new institution, it's simply a new name for "marriage" outside a church. any marriage outside a church is a civil union, no more, no less.

so, gays should be allowed to civilly marry. get a license, go to a jp (lol.....hopefully) and marry.

And also:
heterosexuals can marry, homosexuals cannot. not equal. simple as that.

Yes it would be a new institution because nothing like it has previously existed. Under current marriage laws in all or most states there are restrictions related to age, close blood relationships, certain communicable diseases, and requirement that both parties be unmarried and consent to the marriage laws. Previous truly discriminatory laws based on race have been eliminated in all 50 states. Not a single states discriminates based on sexual orientation or inquires about that. Homosexual people can marry exactly as heterosexual people marry but they all have to follow the same laws. The laws that relate to gender are no different nor more discriminatory than the laws related to blood relationship, age, communicable diseases, etc. and they apply equally to everybody.

Whether the defnition of marriage should be changed is the debate. Not whether there is equality because there is clearly equality.

Redress writes
You seem badly confused on alot of things, but I am only going to talk about one. When the law is such that it is the same for all, but really only effects one group, then it is not equal. Sometimes there is a good reason for this, but not in this case. There is no harm from allowing gays to marry, no reason to protect society from gays being married, and as such, there is no logical reason not to allow gays to marriage. Hell, gays can hardly do worse at it than strait people do.

Currently the majority of Americans feel that changing the definition of marriage would change marriage into something that it is not and is not intended to be, and would not be in the best interest of Americans whether they be straight or gay. Whether that attitude is or is not the correct one is where the debate should be, and not on whether gays are being discriminated against. They aren't so far as marriage is concerned.

TheNextEra writes
And when gay marriage is legalized, heterosexuals can marry anyone of the same sex just like gays can. Equality achieved as well.

That is true. And marriage will be something quite different from what it now is. Whether that would be a good or bad thing is where the debate should be and not on an issue of equality.
 
Poligamy ftw

I was waiting for the polygamy red herring. You are using all the same tired old arguments that have been destroyed time and again.
 
How can you as an American say you want rights refused to other citizens? FReedom to choose is basic. You may not like it but how can you deny one the right?
 
I was waiting for the polygamy red herring. You are using all the same tired old arguments that have been destroyed time and again.

Uh, he asked....he set it up and sawt me out on that one.
 
How can you as an American say you want rights refused to other citizens? FReedom to choose is basic. You may not like it but how can you deny one the right?

Who is this post directed to?
 
Sparta. It's the example that comes to mind immediately.

It's well known that India had marriages between two men.

And you don't get to move the goal posts here. Your statement was a blanket statement concerning all cultures going back millenia. It is a fairly recent development, relatively speaking, that marriage is a legal institution and not just a cultural/religious one. For you to now place expectations of modern standards to ancient practices only shows that you already know yourself to be wrong about this and are simply trying to do damage control. ;)

I will amend my blanket statement to include isolated obscure citations of possible same sex 'marriages' in ancient cultures, though I am not sure you would be able to make a strong case from any credible source for any official sanction of such. From what I know of the Hindu, Buddhist, and Islamic cultures, it is highly unlikely that there would be official sanction of such in India though I am aware that the disapproval of homosexual activity between men was often better tolerated than that between women. And the Spartan accounts are far to sketchy and suspect to give serious consideration.

I placed no 'expectations of modern standards to ancient practices', but simply said that the definition of marriage has been around for a very long time. I am actually opposed to judging morality and cultures of ancient people by modern criteria. But that is a subject for a different thread.

Also I am not the least bit homophobic. I have absolutely no problem with two guys or two gals falling in love, enjoying sex to the fullest, and I have been a long time advocate for making such unions legal and providing all the protections such unions now lack. You once were an ally with me in that. What happened since I've been away?

I personally think that all children, whether straight or gay, benefit from having a loving mother and father in the home. I know that isn't always possible and that single parents and gay parents can do wonderful parenting, but that does not change my opinion that I think a loving mom and dad are important for all kids. My only resistance to changing the definition of marriage is that I think it will further erode the traditional family until it is no longer recognizable and more and more kids will not have the benefit of a mom and dad in the home. I don't want that to happen.

I could be wrong that changing the definition would put us on that slippery slope, but so far the shrill voices demanding 'equality' have not convinced me that I am.

My dog in this fight is one of pure practicality.
 
Also I am not the least bit homophobic. I have absolutely no problem with two guys or two gals falling in love, enjoying sex to the fullest, and I have been a long time advocate for making such unions legal and providing all the protections such unions now lack. You once were an ally with me in that. What happened since I've been away?

I still think the government shouldn't be involved in legitimizing relationships. I still think civil unions would be the best choice.

However, after watching, first hand, how the gay marriage debate was tainted with deceit, hysteria, and the lowest of radical tactics by the far right here in California, my opinion on maintaining moderacy has changed.

I think there are some forces at play that don't have any motivations beyond hate and a desire to devalue other human beings and this debate is the most convenient way to express that sickness. As long as they are at work, I can't, in good conscience, maintain the neutral attitude toward the rights of my peers that I once held.

Moderates like you will always be appreciated and you will always have my nod of assent to your arguments and beliefs...because they are wholesome and good beliefs. But the extremists on the anti-gm side have turned this moderate away from believing there is a compromise to be had without forcing capitulation through activism.
 
You :mrgreen:

Well in that case...

How can you as an American say you want rights refused to other citizens? FReedom to choose is basic. You may not like it but how can you deny one the right?

Ok so you're not focusing on this specific issue at hand, but rather testing a general principal.

That's just fine.

First, I'd like to point out that I do not oppose gay-marriage. Stating the cut-n-dry fact that it's not a civil rights issue in no-way means that I therefore oppose gay-marriage. If I say the sky is blue are you going to say that I therefore hate red? Of course not. Making an observation does not mandate a conclusion.

Second, there is no right to marry just whomever we want, nor is there any right to marry a person of the same sex. What does not exist can not be denied. Maybe those rights should be created, but they currently do not.

Third, assuming those rights did exist, rights per-se can be denied based on the merits of the harm allowing them would impose on others. We don't allow felons to posses firearms, for example, so the precedent of justly denying rights is clearly there.

My chief concern (as distinguished from objection) with gay marriage, is that it will perpetuate existing problems instead of doing anything to correct those problems.

I'm a pragmatic, goal-oriented person. As such, if I don't see how gay-marriage helps accomplish the goal of reducing the divorce/juvenile-crime/teen-pregnancy rates, then I'll see it as a distraction and I'm more likely to treat gay-marriage with hostility.

"Gays will also have a 50% divorce rate" is not a compelling argument when we don't want a 50% divorce rate to begin with. In this way gay-marriage is seen as making the problem worse by legitimizing divorce.
 
I still think the government shouldn't be involved in legitimizing relationships. I still think civil unions would be the best choice.

However, after watching, first hand, how the gay marriage debate was tainted with deceit, hysteria, and the lowest of radical tactics by the far right here in California, my opinion on maintaining moderacy has changed.

I think there are some forces at play that don't have any motivations beyond hate and a desire to devalue other human beings and this debate is the most convenient way to express that sickness. As long as they are at work, I can't, in good conscience, maintain the neutral attitude toward the rights of my peers that I once held.

Moderates like you will always be appreciated and you will always have my nod of assent to your arguments and beliefs...because they are wholesome and good beliefs. But the extremists on the anti-gm side have turned this moderate away from believing there is a compromise to be had without forcing capitulation through activism.

Thank you for your kind and reasonable words.

In all due respect, however, present company excluded, I think gay people are not winning any points by emulating the very tactics that you resent among unreasonable rightwing extremists. Many people, even in California, who voted to defend gay marriage would have preferred to do it as I would prefer to do it. But I think some of the radical extremist leftwing California courts left them with little option than to fight back for what they believe even if the 'war' included provisions they would not have chosen. I think even in California there are a lot more folks who share my views than there are of the activists that offend you. Many of those rightwing activists offend me too as do some of the extremist pro-gm side.

It is too bad that the extremists were allowed to frame the debate.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your kind and reasonable words.

In all due respect, however, present company excluded, I think gay people are not winning any points by emulating the very tactics that you resent among unreasonable rightwing extremists. Many people, even in California, who voted to defend gay marriage would have preferred to do it as I would prefer to do it. But I think some of the radical extremist leftwing California courts left them with little option to fight back for what they believe even if the 'war' included provisions they would not have chosen. I think even in California there are a lot more folks who share my views than there are of the activists that offend you. Many of those rightwing activists offend me too as do some of the extremist pro-gm side.

It is too bad that the extremists were allowed to frame the debate.

What was really infuriating about the whole thing is that weeks leading up to the vote, the debate had remained mostly civil without many signs of ugliness that hot button issues tend to show.

And then, out of the blue, ads started airing telling people that the schools would indoctrinate their children to be homos, that mom and dad would not be allowed terminology, ads referencing debunked studies from the 1950's. And then we find out that it wasn't even California dollars being spent on these ads...that it was some radical group in Utah injecting the funds and reframing the entire debate into something ugly and destructive.

And the way they campaigned to the African American churches, knowing that they would be out in force to vote in this election...and any other time they wouldn't have given them the time of day.

No, after seeing what we're up against, I decided then that I couldn't stand by and maintain my neutrality anymore. And I am still far from extreme in my views but I am far less forgiving of anything I percieve as misinformation on the topic. My motto is "Never be caught unaware again".
 
To Jallman:

Again it was unfortunate that the extremists were allowed to frame the debate. I think reasonable people have to not allow the extremists on any side of any debate determine what side we will come down on. But I like to keep things precise too. It's what keeps me active on these discussion boards. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom