• 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!

Is the legalization of SS marriage a cause for the decline of heterosexual marriage?

Is SS Marriage a Reason for the decline.


  • Total voters
    67
Re: Is the legalization of SS marriage a cause for the decline of heterosexual marria

So, in the case of Judaism, you're the expert because you were a religious Jew; however, in the case of Christianity, you're the expert because you were and are not a Christian.

That makes sense. :roll:

Claiming esoteric knowledge by way of membership and then ****ting on that lame idea is rather strange behavior.

I like how infrequently you have anything to say about the topics we're actually discussing, and instead get by on whining about arguments from other threads where you and others were lying about other people's religions.

What "lesser status"? Are you suggesting that "Holy Matrimony" is a higher status than "civil union"? If so I totally agree with you but then I'd also suggest that regulating it through the law is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment.

I'm saying that "marriage" is a higher status than "this thing that's like marriage but we're not calling it marriage because society favors a religion". Marriage is not yours. You don't get to steal it. And you have no idea how the first amendment works.

Likewise, nothing to say on the actual topic, just the same uninformed crap you bring up in every thread that has to do with homosexuality. Oh, except that women are egotistical because fewer of them are forced to marry for a decent life.
 
Re: Is the legalization of SS marriage a cause for the decline of heterosexual marria

I don't think love has anything to do with it legally actually.

why does marriage have to be about love? Most of the world it's a business/political/social transaction.

I am saying this because when people say the love argument... it's sole purpose is just to appeal to emotions and has nothing to do with it.
You're describing most political discussion.
 
Re: Is the legalization of SS marriage a cause for the decline of heterosexual marria

I'm not against SSM.... but can't people do that anyway? Without the government telling you so?
Yes, but that doesn't excuse the government's distinction of gender in recognizing a contract between two private individuals. Who are they to tell us who we cannot and cannot enter that contract with? Shouldn't they be required to demonstrate a compelling reason to restrict that particular choice?
 
Re: Is the legalization of SS marriage a cause for the decline of heterosexual marria

but I thought it was about love?

Why are you defending the government's restriction on who we enter a contract with?
 
Re: Is the legalization of SS marriage a cause for the decline of heterosexual marria

i'm saying that "marriage" is a higher status than "this thing that's like marriage but we're not calling it marriage because society favors a religion". Marriage is not yours. You don't get to steal it. And you have no idea how the first amendment works.

Likewise, nothing to say on the actual topic, just the same uninformed crap you bring up in every thread that has to do with homosexuality. Oh, except that women are egotistical because fewer of them are forced to marry for a decent life.

So, in your opinion, is marriage just a set of rights granted by the state or is there a spiritual component? I guess what I'm asking is what, in your opinion, makes it a higher status than a civil union?
 
Re: Is the legalization of SS marriage a cause for the decline of heterosexual marria

So, in your opinion, is marriage just a set of rights granted by the state or is there a spiritual component? I guess what I'm asking is what, in your opinion, makes it a higher status than a civil union?

It's more complicated than just "a set of rights", but it is a legal entity. How you or anyone else feels about something spiritually has no bearing on anyone else or in determining the law. Spiritual feelings are not the source of benefits or restrictions on anyone. This is, of course, not merely opinion, but rather how this country does its lawmaking.
 
Re: Is the legalization of SS marriage a cause for the decline of heterosexual marria

It's more complicated than just "a set of rights", but it is a legal entity. How you or anyone else feels about something spiritually has no bearing on anyone else or in determining the law. Spiritual feelings are not the source of benefits or restrictions on anyone. This is, of course, not merely opinion, but rather how this country does its lawmaking.

If it's more than just a set of rights then what's the "more" part? If it isn't spiritual then it must be something so what is it?
 
Re: Is the legalization of SS marriage a cause for the decline of heterosexual marria

Why are you defending the government's restriction on who we enter a contract with?
I'm playing a little devil's advocate.

I personally think marriage should be changed to a civil union... and any individuals can participate in the union.
 
Re: Is the legalization of SS marriage a cause for the decline of heterosexual marria

So, in your opinion, is marriage just a set of rights granted by the state or is there a spiritual component? I guess what I'm asking is what, in your opinion, makes it a higher status than a civil union?

Depends on the type of marriage being talked about, context.

For legal marriage, it is just about becoming legal spouses and gaining the rights, benefits, etc. that come with that legal relationship.

For individuals, there might be a spiritual component, but that is part of the "personal marriage".

No civil unions have ever in the US been equal to marriage. Plus, the only reason they are being "offered" now is because some people are upset about same sex couples using the word marriage, not because those people really want to give up their marriages. They just don't want to share something they don't even own.
 
Re: Is the legalization of SS marriage a cause for the decline of heterosexual marria

That doesn't change the fact that the act itself contradicts nature.



You know what consummation is and I'm not going to explain it to you.

I'd suggest to you the the fact that something is widely practiced for a couple of thousand years is evidence that it is not contradicting nature but is in fact in mans nature.
 
Re: Is the legalization of SS marriage a cause for the decline of heterosexual marria

If it's more than just a set of rights then what's the "more" part? If it isn't spiritual then it must be something so what is it?

"More" as in there is more to a legal status than just rights. There are duties, privileges, and categorization within the law. It ranges from taxes to how a car rental company treats the spouse of the person doing the renting. It affects bank loans, medical privacy, inheritance, and adoption. Even if you claim that a civil union is the same as a marriage, it isn't treated that way in the thousands of things that affect us due to marital status. The very act of having a separate status creates inequality.

Meanwhile, your calls for "no marriage for anyone" is taking marriage from people who have it, all because you don't want gays to have it, too. If you had your way, I wouldn't be able to have a heterosexual marriage because I'm not religious. You're still creating a secondary, lesser status. That we've been calling it marriage for centuries means that any separate status, called anything else, will not be equal, no matter how equal you claim it to be. You have no right to take that from me, and the government has no legitimate interest in doing so. Likewise, the government has no legitimate interest in taking it away from gay couples.
 
Re: Is the legalization of SS marriage a cause for the decline of heterosexual marria

Depends on the type of marriage being talked about, context.

For legal marriage, it is just about becoming legal spouses and gaining the rights, benefits, etc. that come with that legal relationship.

For individuals, there might be a spiritual component, but that is part of the "personal marriage".

No civil unions have ever in the US been equal to marriage. Plus, the only reason they are being "offered" now is because some people are upset about same sex couples using the word marriage, not because those people really want to give up their marriages. They just don't want to share something they don't even own.

Now I'm just confused. If there's a difference between "legal marriage" and "personal marriage" then why is there so much resistance to codifying that difference in law?
 
Re: Is the legalization of SS marriage a cause for the decline of heterosexual marria

Now I'm just confused. If there's a difference between "legal marriage" and "personal marriage" then why is there so much resistance to codifying that difference in law?

Religion.
 
Re: Is the legalization of SS marriage a cause for the decline of heterosexual marria

The decline in marriage started falling long before SSM was an issue... long before...
 
Re: Is the legalization of SS marriage a cause for the decline of heterosexual marria

I voted no.



The reason why marriage is less common now is....wait for it.....the ECONOMY.


Less couples are willing to commit to having children, and without children, being married increases the tax rate for a couple, vs two single people. To marry or not has once again returned to it's roots...an economic decision.
 
Re: Is the legalization of SS marriage a cause for the decline of heterosexual marria

"More" as in there is more to a legal status than just rights. There are duties, privileges, and categorization within the law. It ranges from taxes to how a car rental company treats the spouse of the person doing the renting. It affects bank loans, medical privacy, inheritance, and adoption. Even if you claim that a civil union is the same as a marriage, it isn't treated that way in the thousands of things that affect us due to marital status. The very act of having a separate status creates inequality.

Meanwhile, your calls for "no marriage for anyone" is taking marriage from people who have it, all because you don't want gays to have it, too. If you had your way, I wouldn't be able to have a heterosexual marriage because I'm not religious. You're still creating a secondary, lesser status. That we've been calling it marriage for centuries means that any separate status, called anything else, will not be equal, no matter how equal you claim it to be. You have no right to take that from me, and the government has no legitimate interest in doing so. Likewise, the government has no legitimate interest in taking it away from gay couples.

All that stuff you mentioned is part of the legal construct of "marriage" and wouldn't change by replacing that term with "civil union" in the law. You still haven't come up with anything that, legally, differentiates "marriage" from "civil union".

As far as "nobody can be married", I didn't say that at all. What I said was that the term "marriage" would be reserved to the individuals who chose to use it.
 
Re: Is the legalization of SS marriage a cause for the decline of heterosexual marria

Religion.

That sure seems to be what it's boiling down to and if that's the difference then it seems we may have a first amendment issue when it comes to the state sanctioning "marriage".
 
Re: Is the legalization of SS marriage a cause for the decline of heterosexual marria

You're describing most political discussion.

Most political discussion is drivel.
 
Re: Is the legalization of SS marriage a cause for the decline of heterosexual marria

Now I'm just confused. If there's a difference between "legal marriage" and "personal marriage" then why is there so much resistance to codifying that difference in law?

Marriage in terms of legal status is just that. I do not want or expect me to explain or share the spiritual nature of my bond.

What marriage means to a couple spiritually is up to them.
 
Re: Is the legalization of SS marriage a cause for the decline of heterosexual marria

Marriage in terms of legal status is just that. I do not want or expect me to explain or share the spiritual nature of my bond.

What marriage means to a couple spiritually is up to them.

I'd agree. However, if that's the case then why is there so much resistance to the suggestion that the state ONLY recognize "civil unions" and leave the term "marriage" off the book altogether?
 
Re: Is the legalization of SS marriage a cause for the decline of heterosexual marria

I'd agree. However, if that's the case then why is there so much resistance to the suggestion that the state ONLY recognize "civil unions" and leave the term "marriage" off the book altogether?


Shouldn't that be a question asked of those that worked to ban Civil Unions?

Like in my State:

"Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.​



Instead of working for a compromise, the effort was to ban both while they felt they had the - ahhh - "power". Never thinking that so soon public opinion would shift so quickly for same-sex Civil Marriage. Now of course, suddenly "Civil Unions" are supposed to be an acceptable compromise.



>>>>
 
Re: Is the legalization of SS marriage a cause for the decline of heterosexual marria

Separate but equal is unconstitutional.

"Separate but equal" refers to the unhappy doctrine the Supreme Court established in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. It upheld the right of states to discriminate by race in public accommodations, provided the accommodations were equal.

That doctrine has nothing whatever to do with homosexuals. Any state law that singles blacks out for disparate treatment creates a "suspect classification" for 14th Amendment equal protection purposes. That means it will be reviewed under the Supreme Court's "strict scrutiny" standard, which is extremely hard to meet. That is not the case with homosexuals. Laws that single them out for disparate treatment do not create a suspect classification. The Court has never held that such laws call for anything other than ordinary rational basis review.

As long as you and other posters here keep trying to claim that laws which discriminate against blacks stand on the same constitutional footing with laws that discriminate against homosexuals, I will keep pointing out how false and misleading that claim is. The effort by homosexuals to compare what few disadvantages they still have in some places to the serious, pervasive oppression American blacks had to endure even for a century after the end of the Civil War is dishonest, disgusting, and an insult to those blacks. It's like claiming that your ingrown toenail is just as bad as someone else's broken neck, because after all, they are both injuries.
 
Re: Is the legalization of SS marriage a cause for the decline of heterosexual marria

I'd agree. However, if that's the case then why is there so much resistance to the suggestion that the state ONLY recognize "civil unions" and leave the term "marriage" off the book altogether?

I am not sure it is as much resistance as familiarity with the terms .

I actually am ok with all legally recognized weddings being called "civil union". So even the most religious person would have a civil union. Whether that individually wanted to call it marriage - would be a case of individual preference or if the prefer, declaration by their church.
 
Re: Is the legalization of SS marriage a cause for the decline of heterosexual marria

I am not sure it is as much resistance as familiarity with the terms .

I actually am ok with all legally recognized weddings being called "civil union". So even the most religious person would have a civil union. Whether that individually wanted to call it marriage - would be a case of individual preference or if the prefer, declaration by their church.

That's EXACTLY where I'm coming from.

There's a lot of resistance on the religious side (justifiable, IMHO) to "marriage" for homosexuals but not much resistance at all for gays living together and having the same basic rights of property transfer, power of attorney, etc. All this would do is change a simple term that's holding a lot of stuff up but if you look at the threads where I've mentioned it I've seen TONS of resistance and ALL of it has been from liberals/progressives. Not one Conservative on this site has said "boo" about it.
 
Re: Is the legalization of SS marriage a cause for the decline of heterosexual marria

Heterosexual marriage is currently in decline, do you believe homosexual marriage is one of the reasons for that decline?

Yes
No
Other

Heterosexual marriages have been in a decline for far longer than the SSM debate has been going on. So answer is...no.
 
Back
Top Bottom