• 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!

Opinions on Homosexuality

Are you for or against gay rights?

  • For Gay Rights

    Votes: 61 95.3%
  • Against Gay Rights

    Votes: 3 4.7%

  • Total voters
    64
Nobody is rational about sex.

An entirely rational man would make a few deposits to the sperm bank, then having done his duty to his species, he'd have himself neutered so that his dick couldn't lead him around by the libedo and get him in trouble. :mrgreen:

Which has what to do with marriage?

Any marriage based on sex is generally a bad idea no matter who is involved.
 
Like someone once said:


"It doesn't matter what you do in the bedroom as long as you don't do it in the street and frighten the horses."


:tongue4: :mrgreen:
 
Marriage is not about sex. Why is this such a hard concept for people to accept?

Legal marriage is about making two adults legally each other's closest relative. This comes with responsibilities, as well as rights and benefits because the government wants to encourage stable relationships since they have been shown to greatly benefit society as a whole. Plus, the government wants to try to protect adults who are in relationships of a certain type, particularly when each play different roles economically in what they provide to the relationship, when such relationships end poorly.

I agree whole heartedly with this post.

I would just like to say that while marriage is not about sex...marriage does lead to sex. There is a difference. ;)
 
Am I for SSM and homosexuals being able to adopt? Yes.

Am I for taking away the rights of states to define marriage? No.

Why should the states have that right when it directly inhibits the rights of certain citizens. They should be able to define marriage in a way that treats everyone the same. Legalized bigotry should not be tolerated.
 
I wouldn't say that my view on homosexuality reflects my view of gay rights. But I do support gay rights.
 
Or how about they stop acting like ****ing freaks in the middle of the street, in the middle of the day, when decent people and their children can see them? Remember when people used to care about that?

As was stated by Kali heterosexuals do those things also. Why do you express a double standard in your rant?
 
First of all, there is no such thing as gay rights, so I didnt vote in the poll. There are only individual rights that apply to each person equally. Among the rights you have is to associate with whomever you choose and engage in whatever living arrangements and sexual practices you wish with the only caveat being that they be between consenting adults. The issue isnt do you have the right to marry, it is must the state recognize any contractual arrangement as a marriage? And who decides? This doesnt strike me as an issue for judges to determine, but for the public to determine. Should marriage be between one man and one woman? Why not two men? Why not two men and one woman? Why not brother and sister? Father and son? That none of those groups can be rightly denied the freedom to choose to live in such arrangements is, or should be, beyond question. That society must recognize each of those arrangements as a marriage is another matter. And I believe it is one of those societal things that should be decided by popular vote.

It isn't that no one should be denied a right to a certain contract (since we are talking about marriage, which is a legal contract), but rather the reason for denying a person a right to enter into a contract with another who could legally enter into the same contract with someone else if not for x characteristic. The limitation must be based on some state interest and related to furthering that state interest in its application in order to pass Constitutional muster.

I already went into multiple partners in a marriage or a person being involved in multiple contracts at one time and why there is a reasonable argument of how such a limitation can stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.

As for too-close-relation marriages (siblings or parent/child), it is for the most part unnecessary due to blood relations already having many of the rights that marriage sets up and becomes contrary to the goal of encouraging stable relationships since a purely platonic relationship between relatives is likely not going to last the entire life because people, for the most part, are very likely to find a person they are not related that they would much rather be married to and legally have as their closest relative.

And I realize you didn't mention it, but neither children nor animals can legally sign most contracts/legal paperwork. So, if they are unable to legally take responsibility for themselves, then why should we allow them to take on some similar legal responsibilities for another adult?
 
Marriage is not about sex. Why is this such a hard concept for people to accept?

Legal marriage is about making two adults legally each other's closest relative. This comes with responsibilities, as well as rights and benefits because the government wants to encourage stable relationships since they have been shown to greatly benefit society as a whole. Plus, the government wants to try to protect adults who are in relationships of a certain type, particularly when each play different roles economically in what they provide to the relationship, when such relationships end poorly.

Small corrections.

1. It only comes with benefits. Any thing called a right that is included behaves in the exact same manner as the benefits so therefore they are all benefits.

2. They provide these benefits to the relationships they do because they personally approve of those relationships with the idea these relationships are the best for the society. The stable relationships factor is just connected to the former.

There really IS no real good reason the government should be involved in marriage, sorry.
 
Last edited:
This dead horse has been cremated and made into fabulous nail polish. My thoughts? I think it's a sin. Before you rage, the Bible states to hate the sin and not the sinner. I have a gay male cousin and a bisexual female cousin; oddly, they don't storm and rage against me for my opinion. As for gay marriage I've been against it for quite a while, but now I no longer oppose it 'cause we're not a theocracy. What really pisses me off is when people call me a hateful bigot in that nasally socially-liberal voice simply for thinking it's a sin. Those are the people that need a lesson in logic. According to Traditional Christianity, if it's as sinful as the Bible says, we're gonna be screwed in the afterlife; all this modern social views aren't a part of the "straight and narrow path" to heaven, IMO. :shrug: Oh yeah, and I like Elton John's older music, lol.

I have no problem with a person thinking homosexuality is a sin. It's when they take that religious opinion and express it to prevent gays and lesbians from having the same rights as everyone else that pisses me off. You seem to have it correct when you say the US is not a theocracy and religion should not be the rule of the land.
 
Why should the states have that right when it directly inhibits the rights of certain citizens. They should be able to define marriage in a way that treats everyone the same. Legalized bigotry should not be tolerated.

States issue the marriage licenses. Marriage is defined by society. It's only your opinion that homosexual marriages are an innate US right. It's the state's right to define marriage and many states have legally done so through referendums presented to voters.
 
I agree whole heartedly with this post.

I would just like to say that while marriage is not about sex...marriage does lead to sex. There is a difference. ;)

True. And certainly most healthy marriages do involve healthy sexual relations. But sex is in no way an absolute necessity in marriage.

It becomes hard to explain because people having sex seems to be what people focus on when it comes to marriage, but then again some restrictions are necessary due to the fact that most marriages do involve sex and sexual relationships between certain people are almost always unhealthy/abusive relationships.
 
I think the only 'right' I do not support gays on is marriage, otherwise I'm completely on their side. Born-homosexuality is a naturally reoccurring birth defect like any other. Chosen-homosexuality is very often a sex-related stress disorder. That's how I interpret the data and digest the conversations we have here. They do. Today, gays enjoy full and complete access to free association. I have no problem with that. I don't necessarily, but would encourage every couple of every kind to work on deeper issues of faith, finance and living. Love is not enough. That would depend on the preference. Without 'going there' I'm sure you and I would agree that certain preferences are off the table regardless. My family didn't approve of my wife, and her family of me, so gays aren't alone here. You know all these uber-religious folks who go around saying gays are going to hell for being gay? Those same people tell me, personally, that I'm also going to hell for supporting gays in the military, gay adoption, and for just not worshiping exactly like they do in their church. So I don't think my views would change very much. Heteros can't get married to the same-sex, so gay marriage shouldn't even be on the 'equality' table. Also, the 50% divorce rate isn't something you want to join.

The bold: They can marry the person they think they love though. That makes it an equality issue.
 
States issue the marriage licenses. Marriage is defined by society. It's only your opinion that homosexual marriages are an innate US right. It's the state's right to define marriage and many states have legally done so through referendums presented to voters.

States do not have an ultimate right to define marriage as whatever they want. They must abide by the Constitution and cannot discriminate without showing how such discrimination meets a legitimate state interest and relates, somehow, to that state interest.
 
States do not have an ultimate right to define marriage as whatever they want. They must abide by the Constitution and cannot discriminate without showing how such discrimination meets a legitimate state interest and relates, somehow, to that state interest.

Yes, but the US Constitution doesn't protect homosexuals as a class equal to race, religion, etc. It's perfectly legal under the constitution for a state to say that marriage is between one man and one woman, just as it's perfectly fine for them to include same sex relationships in that definition.
 
Small corrections.

1. It only comes with benefits. Any thing called a right that is included behaves in the exact same manner as the benefits so therefore they are all benefits.

2. They provide these benefits to the relationships they do because they personally approve of those relationships with the idea these relationships are the best for the society. The stable relationships factor is just connected to the former.

There really IS no real good reason the government should be involved in marriage, sorry.

No. There have been plenty of studies that show that the government has a good reason to be involved in at least some restrictions on marriage and certainly in at least keeping track of who is married. Plus, as long as the government gives certain rights/benefits to blood relations, then they should be involved in marriage to ensure that a person's choice of their closest relative becomes more important than blood relation. The most efficient way of doing this is with a legal marriage contract.
 
States issue the marriage licenses. Marriage is defined by society. It's only your opinion that homosexual marriages are an innate US right. It's the state's right to define marriage and many states have legally done so through referendums presented to voters.

Many states also defined marriage as a union between two people of the same race. That changed and with good reason. Why do you think it's right for some who are consenting adults to be discriminated against. Though you say you are for same sex marriage you are happy to allow the states to deny that privilege. I find your words of support toward same sex marriage very hollow. You can say them as long as your state denies the right. Seems like you have the safety net on your side.
 
:roll: Here we go again...

Why not two men and one woman? (or visa versa)

Answer: Monogamy reduces major social problems of polygamist cultures

This applies to polyandry also which is what your example is.

Why not brother and sister?

Answer: In otherwords incest....Children born from incestuous relationships are more prone to both mental and physical problems.

Father and son?

Answer: Not allowed because a father (or mother) can subtly coerce their child into things like this. Making them think that it is OK and perfectly natural for daddy or mommy to be boinking their child...and this kind of teaching can last well into adulthood and even until they die. And if it is instead a "Father and daughter" or a "mother and son" type of deal then you again go into incest along with coercing.

Man/woman and animal marriage

Answer: The most basic ability in order to go into a marriage is that it MUST be consentual. And animals cannot consent.

Man/woman and child marriage

Answer: Not only is that pedophilia but again, a child cannot legally consent to a marriage because they are not mentally capable of doing so.

These are just simple, basic common sense answers. If you want more detail then I would suggest doing your homework and looking this stuff up yourself.
No, I asked you to do it because it was you who claimed marriage to be a "fundamental right." You then provide absurd rationale for granting power to the state to step in and violate this same "fundamental right." Perhaps you havce forgotten, or perhaps you live outside the US, but the role of the government is to secure the rights of the individual, not seek ways to trample them. Dont lecture me about rights, particularly fundamental rights, then turn and flack for state sponsored rights violations.
 
No. There have been plenty of studies that show that the government has a good reason to be involved in at least some restrictions on marriage and certainly in at least keeping track of who is married.

Please provide a link to such studies or provide some of their arguments. Thank you.

Plus, as long as the government gives certain rights/benefits to blood relations, then they should be involved in marriage to ensure that a person's choice of their closest relative becomes more important than blood relation.

Such as?
 
Yes, but the US Constitution doesn't protect homosexuals as a class equal to race, religion, etc. It's perfectly legal under the constitution for a state to say that marriage is between one man and one woman, just as it's perfectly fine for them to include same sex relationships in that definition.

The US Constitution protects everyone. And sexuality is a class that has fallen under 3rd tier protection under the 14th Amendment in past cases.

And anti-SSM laws are restrictions based on a class you mentioned, sex. As I have said many times, it is not the sexuality of a person that prevents them from entering into a same sex marriage, it is the sex. Two homosexuals can get married right now and have their marriage legally recognized by the fed and all 50 states. They just have to be a man and a woman. Two heterosexuals of the same sex cannot get married right now legally and be fully recognized legally because they are the same sex. Sex, not sexuality is the class being discriminated against. Just as race, not the attraction of a person to members of a different race, is what was the determining factor when it came to miscegenation laws.
 
Simple logistics of the marriage contract and the laws that currently go with it. The laws and contract are set up to deal with 2 people and only two people in the relationship. It would take some fundamental changes in those laws in order to accommodate more than two people in a marriage or a person being involved in two marriage contracts at the same time.
In other words, to build upon my response to Kal'Stang, an individuals "fundamental right" to something is violable by the state because it might be a paperwork hassle. Sorry, not buying that. If I have a fundamental right to something, it is the obligation of the state to secure that right. How complicated it might be in doing so is irrelevant.
 
The US Constitution protects everyone. And sexuality is a class that has fallen under 3rd tier protection under the 14th Amendment in past cases.

And anti-SSM laws are restrictions based on a class you mentioned, sex. As I have said many times, it is not the sexuality of a person that prevents them from entering into a same sex marriage, it is the sex. Two homosexuals can get married right now and have their marriage legally recognized by the fed and all 50 states. They just have to be a man and a woman. Two heterosexuals of the same sex cannot get married right now legally and be fully recognized legally because they are the same sex. Sex, not sexuality is the class being discriminated against. Just as race, not the attraction of a person to members of a different race, is what was the determining factor when it came to miscegenation laws.

It protects everyone, but not under the basis of sexual orientation. It is silent regarding this and homosexuals are not recognize at the Constitutional level as being a protected class.

It is legal to discriminate against sex in some cases. If the ERA passed back in the 70's your argument would be correct. The government discriminates against sex by forcing only males to sign up for selective service and drafting. They discriminate against sex by having male and female only areas (like restrooms). It is legal for a state to say that a man can only legally marry a woman and visa versa.
 
No, I asked you to do it because it was you who claimed marriage to be a "fundamental right." You then provide absurd rationale for granting power to the state to step in and violate this same "fundamental right." Perhaps you havce forgotten, or perhaps you live outside the US, but the role of the government is to secure the rights of the individual, not seek ways to trample them. Dont lecture me about rights, particularly fundamental rights, then turn and flack for state sponsored rights violations.

Loving V Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail, Turner v Safley are all cases that state that marriage is a fundemental right. So while yeah I said it...I said it based on those cases.

And yes the role of our government is to secure our rights. What do you think SSM is about? But that does not mean that you have an absolute right to those rights. If you use one of those rights in a situation that can or will hurt another human being then you can be held criminally liable. The most common example of this is yelling FIRE! in a theater. If you did that you would be charged for a crime, despite your right to free speech. You also cannot use your free speech right to incite violence.

Whether you realize it or not there are always exceptions to every rule. But in the US the ONLY way that the state has a right to tread on a persons rights is if that right harms a person or society. Can you name me one single harmful thing that SSM will do to society or any single person outside of that marriage? And prove it?

BTW, yes I am an American citizen.

And none of what I stated was "absurd rational". If it was then you could easily dispute it. The fact that you didn't and instead went of on a tangent about me supposedly not knowing how our government and our rights work shows that you had no valid rebuttle.
 
Loving V Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail, Turner v Safley are all cases that state that marriage is a fundemental right. So while yeah I said it...I said it based on those cases.

Its not so much the question if marriage is a right but if government attached to the state is a right. When will people notice the distinction?

Oh and the screaming fire in a crowded theater example is poor since no harm could occur from such action.
 
Loving V Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail, Turner v Safley are all cases that state that marriage is a fundemental right. So while yeah I said it...I said it based on those cases.

And yes the role of our government is to secure our rights. What do you think SSM is about? But that does not mean that you have an absolute right to those rights. If you use one of those rights in a situation that can or will hurt another human being then you can be held criminally liable. The most common example of this is yelling FIRE! in a theater. If you did that you would be charged for a crime, despite your right to free speech. You also cannot use your free speech right to incite violence.
My marrying two women harms no one, yet you advocate the state violate my fundamental right to marry who I choose. Why?

Whether you realize it or not there are always exceptions to every rule. But in the US the ONLY way that the state has a right to tread on a persons rights is if that right harms a person or society. Can you name me one single harmful thing that SSM will do to society or any single person outside of that marriage? And prove it?
When you can show me how polygamy or incestuous marriages harm any single person outside of that marriage.


And none of what I stated was "absurd rational". If it was then you could easily dispute it. The fact that you didn't and instead went of on a tangent about me supposedly not knowing how our government and our rights work shows that you had no valid rebuttle.
It was absurd rationale for allowing the state to violate a "fundamental right."
 
Its not so much the question if marriage is a right but if government attached to the state is a right. When will people notice the distinction?

Huh?

Oh and the screaming fire in a crowded theater example is poor since no harm could occur from such action.

Wrong. If a person yells fire in a crowded theater it can incite a panic and when people panic they shove and make people fall and stomp on those people with no regard to their safety. Thereby hurting them...all because some idiot yelled "FIRE!"
 
Back
Top Bottom