• 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!

How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

On a scale of one to ten, how much does it matter?


  • Total voters
    56

Black_Zawisza

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
606
Reaction score
259
Location
United States
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Whether you support or oppose it, how angry would you be if your federal/state government rejected your position?

I don't think that governments ought to get out of the marriage business, for two reasons: a) I don't think it should be involved in it, and b) I think it's the only compromise that both proponents and opponents might accept, aside from the civil union/marriage distinction (which in my experience many anti-SSM folks seem cool with but many that are pro-SSM seem opposed). People should just call themselves married if they feel like it.

I believe that SSM is a grave sin, but I oppose any attempt to criminalize it because people have to right to choose self-destruction; I don't see why opponents care about it. I also don't really understand why so many pro-SSM folks think it's such an important issue; correct me if I'm wrong, but civil unions with all the benefits of marriage are available in many jurisdictions, and as far as I know, most homosexuals seem uninterested in marriage (I saw some stats a while ago about limited numbers of SSMs in Massachusetts, but I can't find it now).

Tuppence for your thoughts?
 
Whether you support or oppose it, how angry would you be if your federal/state government rejected your position?

I don't think that governments ought to get out of the marriage business, for two reasons: a) I don't think it should be involved in it, and b) I think it's the only compromise that both proponents and opponents might accept, aside from the civil union/marriage distinction (which in my experience many anti-SSM folks seem cool with but many that are pro-SSM seem opposed). People should just call themselves married if they feel like it.

I believe that SSM is a grave sin, but I oppose any attempt to criminalize it because people have to right to choose self-destruction; I don't see why opponents care about it. I also don't really understand why so many pro-SSM folks think it's such an important issue; correct me if I'm wrong, but civil unions with all the benefits of marriage are available in many jurisdictions, and as far as I know, most homosexuals seem uninterested in marriage (I saw some stats a while ago about limited numbers of SSMs in Massachusetts, but I can't find it now).

Tuppence for your thoughts?

It might not be an important issue to you but then again I'm sure you would have a different opinion if someone told you you cant get married or your relationship was somehow perverted.
 
Which direction is the scale?
 
Marriage equality is important to me but it's not my top issue. The economy, abortion and our foreign policy is more important to me.
 
It's very important to me, and I think it should be to everybody, when one groups freedom is denied, then all of our freedoms can be denied.
 
It might not be an important issue to you but then again I'm sure you would have a different opinion
I'm pretty sure my position would be no different.

if someone told you you cant get married
Who cares if the state or other people recognizes my marriage, as long as my spouse does?

or your relationship was somehow perverted.
Having a thick skin can be useful. It means that I'm generally okay with the fact that people have offensive opinions.
 
It's very important to me, and I think it should be to everybody, when one groups freedom is denied, then all of our freedoms can be denied.
You might think it pedantic of me, but strictly speaking the only group being denied freedom is everyone. After all, it's not like two heterosexual people of the same sex can get married.

Which direction is the scale?
Oops! Ten being most important, one being least. Could a mod help fix that?
 
Last edited:
It's very important to me, and I think it should be to everybody, when one groups freedom is denied, then all of our freedoms can be denied.

That's how I feel about the unborn ;)

I guess it's all a matter of perspective.
 
I'm pretty sure my position would be no different.


Who cares if the state or other people recognizes my marriage, as long as my spouse does?

I do. If the state doesnt recognize someones marriage then they dont get the benefits/rights that go along with marriage.
 
You might think it pedantic of me, but strictly speaking the only group being denied freedom is everyone. After all, it's not like two heterosexual people can get married.

I think you are partially right. While technically it is denying everyone the right to marry someone of the same sex it really only effects those who wish to get married to the same sex aka homosexuals.
 
Personally, the issue of gay marriage affects me very little. So when it comes to how I live my life and how important gay marriage is to my day-to-day existence, its importance is somewhere around 1 or 2.

But when it comes to my personal political beliefs and how passionate I am about the cause itself? It's something like a 9 or 10. It's really interesting how my favorite topic of interest is generally foreign policy and yet i spend most of my time here arguing for gay marriage lol.
 
I do. If the state doesnt recognize someones marriage then they dont get the benefits/rights that go along with marriage.
That's true. I suppose I intended the discussion to focus mainly on the importance of the distinction between civil union and marriage, but mea culpa for not making that clear. What are your thoughts, assuming civil unions are already in play?
 
Marriage is not a federal issue defined by the constitution, to make it so SHOULD require a constitutional amendment. If my state should vote to allow it then fine by me, if it should vote to keep marraige as it is then fine by me. I will not use that privilege, if it were granted, and don't see how others that may use it, if it were granted, would harm me in any way. My position on SSM is exactly the same as my position for allowing polygamy, it is simply a potential variation upon the current definition of marriage that is, and should stay, a matter of state law. I see neither great harm nor any great advantage to changing the current marriage definition.
 
Last edited:
That's true. I suppose I intended the discussion to focus mainly on the importance of the distinction between civil union and marriage, but mea culpa for not making that clear. What are your thoughts, assuming civil unions are already in play?

Ok well I personally dont agree with creating a separate institution for a group of people even if that institution has the exact same rights as the other because we already decided that separate is not equal.
 
That's true. I suppose I intended the discussion to focus mainly on the importance of the distinction between civil union and marriage, but mea culpa for not making that clear. What are your thoughts, assuming civil unions are already in play?

The only concern I have for inventing a "civil union" (as a form of marriage) is that unless ALL laws using "marriage" were amended to include (equate?) "civil unions" it would then be a useless contract in many respects. We have a lot of "legal precendents" based on marriage and I fear that JUDGES, rather than legislatures, would then seek to make the two equivalent in the eyes of all law, thus making civil unions a "back door trick" to change the REAL (and legal) definition of marriage, that voters, if given the option may have rejected.
 
Ok well I personally dont agree with creating a separate institution for a group of people even if that institution has the exact same rights as the other because we already decided that separate is not equal.

Separate is not equal? What of the military duty assignments and physical fitness satndards? What of "title IX laws" in funding college athletic programs? What of public restrooms? We clearly allow LEGAL gender distinctions to be made even if UNEQUAL.
 
Separate is not equal? What of the military duty assignments and physical fitness satndards? What of "title IX laws" in funding college athletic programs? What of public restrooms? We clearly allow LEGAL gender distinctions to be made even if UNEQUAL.

I think military standards and assignments should be equal for both sexes. Let women into combat roles as long as they can pass the same physical requirements as a man. I dont know enough about athletic program funding to comment on that. Public restrooms are seperated due to differences in male and female anatomy. Marriage is not effected by those differences while using the restroom is.
 
I think military standards and assignments should be equal for both sexes. Let women into combat roles as long as they can pass the same physical requirements as a man. I dont know enough about athletic program funding to comment on that. Public restrooms are seperated due to differences in male and female anatomy. Marriage is not effected by those differences while using the restroom is.
In a restroom, regardless of who you are and which number you're going, you can always use a toilet to do it. Why not just have a big room full of toilets for both sexes? I don't find that a very compelling argument.
 
Last edited:
In a restroom, regardless of who you are and which number you're going, you can always use a toilet to do it. Why not jut have a big room full of toilets for both sexes? I don't find that a very compelling argument.

You certainly could. Although I would say that is more of an argument on creating unisex bathrooms then an argument against SSM.
 
In a restroom, regardless of who you are and which number you're going, you can always use a toilet to do it. Why not just have a big room full of toilets for both sexes? I don't find that a very compelling argument.

It was a compelling enough argument to end racial segregation (but that ALSO took a constituional amendment). No one would even CONSIDER having a college program that required racially "separate but equal" sports programs, yet for gender that was deemed logical, correct and just. As you note, it would be a minor inconvenience (longer lines for men) by having unisex restrooms, yet we see no compelling reason to do it. Many see no compelling reason (state interest) for SSM or polygamy, so we have not allowed those variations on the traditional man/woman marriage. What the pro-SSM crowd wishes to do is say that a RIGHT to SSM now exists, it has just been overlooked in 95% of the world. Marriage, as well as homosexuality, was well known at the time the constitution was written, and they could have been mentioned as "rights" but they were not, in fact, the only individual contract relationship mentioned in the constitution was slavery. Using that SSM is a right "logic", polygamy should be a shoe in, since it is globally much more common, just not seen that way in any U.S. state yet.
 
Last edited:
The government already largely opposes my position, and according to recent votes, so does the electorate. I'll continue to do what I've always done: speak out in support of gay marriage when the issue is presented. Eventually, the pendulum will swing the right way and this will be a notation in the history books, just like interracial marriage and recognizing the right of AAs and women to vote. It's a crying shame it'll be a rough, hate-filled, angry road to get there, but societal advancement never comes easy.
 
It was a compelling enough argument to end racial segregation. No one would even CONSIDER having a college program that required racially "separate but equal" sports programs, yet for gender that was deemed logical, correct and just. As you note, it would be a minor inconvenience for longer lines (for men) by having unisex restrooms, yet we see no compelling reason to do it. Many see no compelling reason (state interest) for SSM or polygamy, so we have not allowed those variations on the traditional man/woman marriage. What the pro-SSM crowd wishes to do is say that a RIGHT to SSM now exists, it has just been overlooked in 95% of the world. Marriage, as well as homosexuality, was well known at the time the constitution was written, and they could have been mentioned as "rights" but they were not, in fact, the only individual contract relationship mentioned in the constitution was slavery. Using that SSM is a right "logic", polygamy should be a shoe in, since it is globally much more common, just not seen that way in any U.S. state yet.

Homosexuality was looked down upon when the constitution was written. Doesnt mean that not allowing SSM is ok.
 
Fairness is always important. When one group is being discriminated against, tha makes the issue important.
 
Whether you support or oppose it, how angry would you be if your federal/state government rejected your position?

I don't think that governments ought to get out of the marriage business, for two reasons: a) I don't think it should be involved in it, and b) I think it's the only compromise that both proponents and opponents might accept, aside from the civil union/marriage distinction (which in my experience many anti-SSM folks seem cool with but many that are pro-SSM seem opposed). People should just call themselves married if they feel like it.

I believe that SSM is a grave sin, but I oppose any attempt to criminalize it because people have to right to choose self-destruction; I don't see why opponents care about it. I also don't really understand why so many pro-SSM folks think it's such an important issue; correct me if I'm wrong, but civil unions with all the benefits of marriage are available in many jurisdictions, and as far as I know, most homosexuals seem uninterested in marriage (I saw some stats a while ago about limited numbers of SSMs in Massachusetts, but I can't find it now).

Tuppence for your thoughts?
SSM is something only %2 of the population would even consider. Of those, few will even attempt, and of those few who attempt, half will divorce. It's argued that this will not affect me either way, good or bad.

So, it's not important to me. My domestic issue is the 2nd Amendment.
 
Let women into combat roles as long as they can pass the same physical requirements as a man.

Physical ability is only half the problem.

Romantic interests brake up fire teams. This is the exact same reason why there is resistance in letting gays serve openly in those roles.
 
Back
Top Bottom