• 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!

What is the primary reason behind your support for same-sex marriage? [W:539/549]

What is the primary reason behind your support for same-sex marriage?

  • Because I’m gay/lesbian

    Votes: 3 2.2%
  • Because it’s an equal rights issue

    Votes: 78 57.4%
  • Because gays/lesbians love each other too

    Votes: 6 4.4%
  • Because I despise bigots/haters

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • Because I don’t want to be labeled a bigot

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I’m opposed to gay marriage

    Votes: 13 9.6%
  • I don’t care, either way

    Votes: 16 11.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 19 14.0%

  • Total voters
    136
  • Poll closed .
I'm one of those who pisses off supporters of "traditional" marriage and SSM at the same time. I'm for both and have been since the early 90's. If the religious folk want a separate meaning assigned to their traditional marriage, but are willing to recognize secular unions as being essentially the same thing as traditional marriage and that those entered into it are granted the same "rights", well we could be done with this debate. IMO those opposed to recognizing unions between SS couples are just resisting the inevitable.

bolded: the same could be said of the supporters of SSM. if they would accept a secular union as being essentially the same thing as a traditional marriage and that those entered into it are granted the same rights, we could be done with this debate. but they won't because they continue to claim that "separate but equal" is not good enough.

i have suggested many times on this forum that the govt issue 'civil union' licenses to consenting adults wishing to get 'married' and then if a couple wants a 'traditional' marriage then they can find a church to recognize their civil union as a "marriage"
 
bolded: the same could be said of the supporters of SSM. if they would accept a secular union as being essentially the same thing as a traditional marriage and that those entered into it are granted the same rights, we could be done with this debate. but they won't because they continue to claim that "separate but equal" is not good enough.

i have suggested many times on this forum that the govt issue 'civil union' licenses to consenting adults wishing to get 'married' and then if a couple wants a 'traditional' marriage then they can find a church to recognize their civil union as a "marriage"

This is the wrong course of action for two reasons.

First, religion does not own marriage. They didn't come up with marriage and they don't have any legal claim to marriage. We know marriage originated long before any religion that is practiced today. And we know that in many places, religion had no to little involvement in marriage. Even Christianity didn't care about marriage til around the 11th Century, or round abouts.

Second, changing the word to anything else would cost money, whether it is for everyone or for just same sex couples or non-religious couples. There is no reason to waste taxpayer money just to appease people who wrongly believe they own the word "marriage" when they don't.
 
This is the wrong course of action for two reasons.

First, religion does not own marriage. They didn't come up with marriage and they don't have any legal claim to marriage. We know marriage originated long before any religion that is practiced today. And we know that in many places, religion had no to little involvement in marriage. Even Christianity didn't care about marriage til around the 11th Century, or round abouts.

Second, changing the word to anything else would cost money, whether it is for everyone or for just same sex couples or non-religious couples. There is no reason to waste taxpayer money just to appease people who wrongly believe they own the word "marriage" when they don't.

as I have said multiple times...it's not about having the rights...it's about having the name and the societal acceptance than comes with it.

changing the word will not cost any more money than rewriting the existing laws to include gay couples. that is a weak argument
 
Then please share your hypothesis for why HIV in gays is at an all time high.

Because there are a lot of people with HIV out there and just like some heterosexuals, there are some homosexuals that do not use proper protection.

Heck if you are concerned about people spreading HIV, then encourage safe sex practices. Preventing people from getting married is a failed hypothesis. Encouraging monogamy is a good way to prevent HIV and marriage encourages monogamy. Even for those who might go outside their marriage for sex, with or without their spouse's permission, they are more likely to actually practice safe sex than if they were not in a relationship out of concern for their partner's health. Marriage doesn't encourage people to have unsafe sex more often. It only brings those who were doing it on the sly and/or behind closed doors out into the open.
 
Im shocked that so many find this an equal rights issue. There is no right to marriage. This is about gaining benefits not rights. And you can marry anyone you like . Having the government acknowledge it is another matter. I say get the government out of the marriage business.
 
The link speaks about homosexual activity being a sin so would a chaste same sex marriage be acceptable?

No as a marriage must be consummated
 
No as a marriage must be consummated

Not necessarily. Some jurisdictions do not require marriages to be consummated. The UK for one I believe. In many places not consummating the marriage are grounds
for divorce but that isn't the same thing.

And as far as I know the Roman Catholic church recognizes unconsummated marriages as valid since you cannot just walk away from one but need to have the marriage dissolved.
 
Not necessarily. Some jurisdictions do not require marriages to be consummated. The UK for one I believe. In many places not consummating the marriage are grounds
for divorce but that isn't the same thing.

And as far as I know the Roman Catholic church recognizes unconsummated marriages as valid since you cannot just walk away from one but need to have the marriage dissolved.


No the Catholic church does not. Its a reason for annulment. The purpose of marriage in the catholic church is to perpetuate more Catholics :)

And you were speaking of sin. i dont think the government recognizes those as legal precedent.
 
The link speaks about homosexual activity being a sin so would a chaste same sex marriage be acceptable?
Marriage MEANS the union of 1 man with 1 woman. Changing the dictionary definition does NOT COUNT. A chaste same sex marriage is theoretically possible but highly unlikely.
 
No the Catholic church does not. Its a reason for annulment. The purpose of marriage in the catholic church is to perpetuate more Catholics :)

And you were speaking of sin. i dont think the government recognizes those as legal precedent.

I thought so too but just googling around I found a fair number of catholic websites that point blank stated marriages do not need to be consummated - the phrase they used was "unconsummated but valid" As an example if the bride or groom dies after the conclusion of the ceremony but before consummation in the eyes of the church they were married.

Actually that makes me wonder about civil marriages. In New York State a marriage license is required to have a wedding ceremony, whether civil or religious. The ceremony is required, just getting the license isn't enough. So I wonder if the groom dies immediately after the ceremony are they treated as married for purposes of inheritance, insurance etc.
 
Marriage MEANS the union of 1 man with 1 woman. Changing the dictionary definition does NOT COUNT. A chaste same sex marriage is theoretically possible but highly unlikely.

But that isn't what your original post stated. If you wish to state this position, that's fine. But it wasn't your original argument.

Why would a chaste same-sex marriage be any more unlikely than a chaste non-same-sex marriage? And in truth for my argument to be valid it only needs to be possible.
 
I thought so too but just googling around I found a fair number of catholic websites that point blank stated marriages do not need to be consummated - the phrase they used was "unconsummated but valid" As an example if the bride or groom dies after the conclusion of the ceremony but before consummation in the eyes of the church they were married.

Actually that makes me wonder about civil marriages. In New York State a marriage license is required to have a wedding ceremony, whether civil or religious. The ceremony is required, just getting the license isn't enough. So I wonder if the groom dies immediately after the ceremony are they treated as married for purposes of inheritance, insurance etc.

Well if neither complains who will ever know? It is still one of the very few grounds for anulment
 
But that isn't what your original post stated. If you wish to state this position, that's fine. But it wasn't your original argument.

Why would a chaste same-sex marriage be any more unlikely than a chaste non-same-sex marriage? And in truth for my argument to be valid it only needs to be possible.
I venture you would find very few of either. But if anyone cannot recognize that two men are prone to having far more sex than a man and women is just kidding themselves. Most hetro sexuals get married incase they have kids or because they want to have them. This isnt the case with homosexuals as they cannot produce children through their union. Besides gay marriage is an oximoron :)
 
If you do not like same sex marriage then dont marry someone of the same sex. What gives you the right to tell other adults what liberties or freedoms they can enjoy are you guys wannabe dictators or some ****?

Anti-same sex marriage = pro-dictatorship.
 
as I have said multiple times...it's not about having the rights...it's about having the name and the societal acceptance than comes with it.

changing the word will not cost any more money than rewriting the existing laws to include gay couples. that is a weak argument

You're wrong Oscar, changing the word would cost more than allowing same sex couples to enter. Both would have to be done.

The only laws that need be "rewritten" to allow same sex couples to marry are the laws that now prevent same sex couples from getting married. The actual way marriage works is gender neutral. Nothing needs to be changed.

But both changing those laws and changing all the wording in every piece of paperwork pertaining to marriage the government has would need to be changed for the proposal to change the word marriage to something else. Major change, would take money to enact.
 
Marriage MEANS the union of 1 man with 1 woman. Changing the dictionary definition does NOT COUNT. A chaste same sex marriage is theoretically possible but highly unlikely.

So you personally know the lives of every single gay couple that ever existed and know that they never remained chaste? I highly doubt it.

But it isn't any of your business what others do or don't do sexually in their marriages. There are plenty of people, particularly Catholics, who find remarrying after divorce "living in sin" and wrong. People are still legally able to do it and there is nothing you nor anyone else can do about it.

Religion has no place in the legal marriage issue.
 
Last edited:
Im shocked that so many find this an equal rights issue. There is no right to marriage. This is about gaining benefits not rights. And you can marry anyone you like . Having the government acknowledge it is another matter. I say get the government out of the marriage business.

There is a right to marriage according to the SCOTUS.

The government is not going to get out of the marriage business as long as the people want the government to recognize legal family and the government is in charge of the court system that would deal with divorce.
 
So you personally know the lives of every single gay couple that ever existed and know that they never remained faithful? I highly doubt it.
You can bet its close to non existent.

Men are horney and will screw almost anything they find appealing and even some they dont. Now you get two or men together who find men attractive and what do you think happens? Theres a reason every nation in history until recently has frowned on homosexuality in general. Theres also a reason most encouraged marriage and love had nothing to do with it.
 
Because it is a civil rights issue and because for me personally it will likely mean a difference of hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of my lifetime.
 
You can bet its close to non existent.

Men are horney and will screw almost anything they find appealing and even some they dont. Now you get two or men together who find men attractive and what do you think happens? Theres a reason every nation in history until recently has frowned on homosexuality in general. Theres also a reason most encouraged marriage and love had nothing to do with it.

Well I read it wrong, but it is more than possible for it to happen. There are plenty of men who can control themselves.

And what constitutes "remaining chaste" anyway? According to research between 30% and 40% of homosexual men do not have anal sex. So is masturbation sex? What about mutual masturbation? Oral? What would it take to remain "chaste"?
 
Because it is a civil rights issue and because for me personally it will likely mean a difference of hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of my lifetime.

How is it a civil rights issue? No one has the right to marry the one they love. Its a privilege given by the state not a right. Just like a drivers license. You want a civil union to get benefits be my guest. Actually id rather you didnt and the same for anyone who is married.
 
How is it a civil rights issue? No one has the right to marry the one they love. Its a privilege given by the state not a right. Just like a drivers license. You want a civil union to get benefits be my guest. Actually id rather you didnt and the same for anyone who is married.

Everyone has the right to equal protection so long as marriage is recognized by the government. This has been confirmed several times by the SCOTUS. Loving v VA, Turner v Safley, Zablocki v Redhail. All of these struck down laws that prevented people from getting married for various reasons. And all said that marriage was a right.
 
You can bet its close to non existent.

Men are horney and will screw almost anything they find appealing and even some they dont. Now you get two or men together who find men attractive and what do you think happens? Theres a reason every nation in history until recently has frowned on homosexuality in general. Theres also a reason most encouraged marriage and love had nothing to do with it.

Ahhh hum Ancient Greece

Homosexuality in ancient Greece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom