• 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 right to marry whoever

which are Constitutional rights?

  • Total voters
    51
katiegrrl0 said:
Yes this is true if one limits their view on marriage. I did cover this by mentioning all the different ways marriage can be. It is cheating because we have been taught or they they tried to brainwash us into believing we can only love one other person at a time. But according to the phrase what what people think you are correct. The problem is, it limits the view of humans and love. You call it breaching a trust. I call it limiting humanity and the ownership clause only creates sneaking and cheating.
Click to expand...

Limiting yourself to one person is kind of one of the whole points to the relationship configuration. It might not be a natural course of action, but it establishes stability and helps avoid potential problems that come about from more open approaches.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
Yes this is true if one limits their view on marriage. I did cover this by mentioning all the different ways marriage can be. It is cheating because we have been taught or they they tried to brainwash us into believing we can only love one other person at a time. But according to the phrase what what people think you are correct. The problem is, it limits the view of humans and love. You call it breaching a trust. I call it limiting humanity and the ownership clause only creates sneaking and cheating.
Click to expand...
I'm going to have to go with Herin on this one. It's straight cheating if they are doing behind another's back. Now I will agree with you that simply being married to one person and having a relationship with another is not automatically cheating and that there has been much "brainwashing" to tell us otherwise. But it is a breach of trust if you are not making your partner(s) aware of those you see outside of them.
 
Henrin said:
Limiting yourself to one person is kind of one of the whole points to the relationship configuration. It might not be a natural course of action, but it establishes stability and helps avoid potential problems that come about from more open approaches.
Click to expand...

Relationships are not necessarily limited to two individuals, nor are they limited to romantic interest. You have a working relationship with all your coworkers, do you not? Sure you could view it as a group of individual relationship, but it is also legitimate to view it as a group relationship. Such also works for romantic relationships.
 
Rentoc said:
We used to always consider marriage the union of 1 man and 1 woman. Now it's 1 whatever and 1 whatever. Why can't it now be 1 or more whatever and 1 or more whatever. If it is peoples right to "marry" whomever they wish, why can't the whomever be multiple?
Click to expand...
That is historically incorrect. Through the out time there have always been same sex marriages and polygamy. Not in all cases has a governing body recognized them, but hey even the US didn't recognize the marriages of the slaves they brought over from Africa. Marriage has taken on a variety of forms throughout human history and we had polygamy here in the U.S. Still do in fact. For that matter SSM has always been with us. Simply because the participants had to keep it hidden doesn't mean they were not married.
 
radcen said:
Why can't it simply be a preference? Why does it have to be denigrated to "brainwashing"?

It should be noted that even in open and/or poly relationships, issues resulting from jealousy are not uncommon.
Click to expand...
The teaching about marriage had been known one woman one man. This is the way it was taught and there is no denying this. There were no options until we exposed the fallacy of the teaching. There are other options. In a sense it is brainwashing and it certainly has to do with personal choice, with the exception of the many who lived in sham marriages to hide the fact they did not agree with the status quo. Those who falsely submitted to simulated heterosexual relationships when they would have loved to be in a same sex marriage. It was not their choice. It was the teaching not the personal choice. Call the teaching what you will but in many cases it was not choice is was what it was.
I did not say that jealousy doesn't exist in poly relationships. This is why poly is not for everyone, just as same sex and hetero marriage is not for everyone.
 
maquiscat said:
Relationships are not necessarily limited to two individuals, nor are they limited to romantic interest. You have a working relationship with all your coworkers, do you not? Sure you could view it as a group of individual relationship, but it is also legitimate to view it as a group relationship. Such also works for romantic relationships.
Click to expand...

I already admitted that.
 
Henrin said:
There is zero evidence to suggest that a vagina, penis, testiles, ovaries or the uterus would exist without procreation.
Click to expand...

There is zero evidence to suggest that these body parts would NOT exist without procreation.

It is frankly absurd to suggest gays are doing anything worthwhile or intended.
Click to expand...

Since "worthwhile" is a subjective term it is frankly absurd to suggest that there is any absolute measure as to whether or not gays are doing anything worthwhile.
 
Henrin said:
Limiting yourself to one person is kind of one of the whole points to the relationship configuration. It might not be a natural course of action, but it establishes stability and helps avoid potential problems that come about from more open approaches.
Click to expand...
It seems like it has not eliminated many of the problems as almost half the 1 on 1 marriages end in divorce courts. I see no stability in this at all. A person does just as well with a coin flip. The idea of the relationship at first was arbitrary. It then locked in. It did not stop a person from sleeping with the maid at the wife's request.
 
maquiscat said:
There is zero evidence to suggest that these body parts would NOT exist without procreation.
Click to expand...

Why would the vagina, ovaries or uterus exist without procreation. Come on, give me a theory. For men, why would they have a penis and ejaculate if not for procreation? You won't find an answer because the evidence suggests they exist for that function.

Since "worthwhile" is a subjective term it is frankly absurd to suggest that there is any absolute measure as to whether or not gays are doing anything worthwhile.
Click to expand...

Maybe in some contexts, but not in the one I used it in. What are gays doing that is beyond enjoying themselves? The entire reason those pleasures exist is to motivate them to have sex, but there is nothing that leads me to believe it's supposed to come from someone of the same sex. Though I suppose people can do what they want, but still, my point stands.
 
maquiscat said:
I'm going to have to go with Herin on this one. It's straight cheating if they are doing behind another's back. Now I will agree with you that simply being married to one person and having a relationship with another is not automatically cheating and that there has been much "brainwashing" to tell us otherwise. But it is a breach of trust if you are not making your partner(s) aware of those you see outside of them.
Click to expand...
If you read the response to Herin I did say in the rules we have he is correct and yes it is cheating. I don't quote a source here but the percentage of marriages experiencing "cheating" runs between a low of around 20% according to some studies and as high as 60% according to other studies. Whatever number you pick there is a lot of bed switching. You can call it cheating and breaking faith with this one person and I will agree to that. The idea though of owning ones sexuality by two words "I do" is really silly. To enter marriage with this idea is the real leap of faith.
 
Rentoc said:
We used to always consider marriage the union of 1 man and 1 woman. Now it's 1 whatever and 1 whatever. Why can't it now be 1 or more whatever and 1 or more whatever. If it is peoples right to "marry" whomever they wish, why can't the whomever be multiple?
Click to expand...

no, you used to discriminate when it came to marriage. For years black and white marriages were banned/illegal, until the supreme court ended that injustice. Now the injustice of only straight people being allowed to marry has ended.

And it is not 1 whatever, it is 2 people/2 persons/2 loved ones.

The principle of marriage was not altered by the supreme court, it is still the union of 2 people who want to profess their love and their eternal desire to stay together in a committed relationship together. Polygamy is changing the nature and principle of marriage totally.
 
Peter King said:
Polygamy is changing the nature and principle of marriage totally.
Click to expand...

How is polygamy, which is as old as monogamous marriage itself, or nearly if you go with the Adam and Eve history, changing the nature and principle of marriage? It was a common enough practice at least through the New Testament period, as noted in Romans, and more than likely well into the 13th century, when the Catholic Church decreed under Pope Innocent that marriages was their domain, and no one could marry save through them.
 
Andalublue said:
When I've had sex with my boyfriends the pieces always seem to fit just fine, thanks! And, we were very, very intimate.
Click to expand...

Boys don't have holes meant for that. You managed to fit the square block through the triangle hole. Congrats.
 
It may take a while, but I feel sure that this precedent will eventually be used to get polygamy/polyandry/polyamory and/or other forms of multiple-marriage legalized.

There's simply no good reason to deny people the right to form the kind of family they want, once you've kicked over the traditional definition.



Yeah, I know, it's more complicated. That doesn't justify denying these people their rights under our current rationale on such things.

Yeah, I know, some existing examples of polygamy are viewed as abusive or coercive (ie splinter Mormon extremists). That's no reason to deny poly-marriage to those adults who voluntarily choose it, many of whom may not be religiously motivated at all.... the majority of the poly-marriage people I've known (who live that way without legal endorsement at this time) were neither Mormon nor particularly religious otherwise.


It may take a while but it will be legal one day, and it won't be too long before the first movements in that direction begin.
 
Goshin said:
It may take a while, but I feel sure that this precedent will eventually be used to get polygamy/polyandry/polyamory and/or other forms of multiple-marriage legalized.

There's simply no good reason to deny people the right to form the kind of family they want, once you've kicked over the traditional definition.

Yeah, I know, it's more complicated. That doesn't justify denying these people their rights under our current rationale on such things.

Yeah, I know, some existing examples of polygamy are viewed as abusive or coercive (ie splinter Mormon extremists). That's no reason to deny poly-marriage to those adults who voluntarily choose it, many of whom may not be religiously motivated at all.... the majority of the poly-marriage people I've known (who live that way without legal endorsement at this time) were neither Mormon nor particularly religious otherwise.

It may take a while but it will be legal one day, and it won't be too long before the first movements in that direction begin.
Click to expand...
Agree completely, and IMO the parallels are most certainly there. As long as all are consenting adults, of course.
 
maquiscat said:
Same sex couple are sexually compatible with each other. Well some are, and some aren't just as some opposite sex couples are not sexually compatible. Your "puzzle pieces" idea a a red herring at best. Procreation is nothing when it comes to sex or marriage. Outside of procreation the male/female thing is meaningless, save in light of one's personal religious calling. Intimacy occurs regardless of the genders involved. Additionally, intimacy can refer to the physical or emotional aspects, or even both. I've been physically intimate with women and not emotionally, while I am emotionally intimate with my husband but not physically.
Click to expand...

I don't mean the ability to make offspring. I mean "what anatomy is used for what?". And male-male and female-female relations don't have matching pieces. And this extends beyond anatomy too. Psychologically, relationships differ between genders. Male-male, male-female, and female-female relationships differ emotionally, physically, sexually, and all sorts of other -ally's. The kind of intimacy required for rational sexual activity is only even potentially present in male-female relationships.
 
Radical said:
I don't mean the ability to make offspring. I mean "what anatomy is used for what?". And male-male and female-female relations don't have matching pieces. And this extends beyond anatomy too. Psychologically, relationships differ between genders. Male-male, male-female, and female-female relationships differ emotionally, physically, sexually, and all sorts of other -ally's. The kind of intimacy required for rational sexual activity is only even potentially present in male-female relationships.
Click to expand...
While I won't disagree with you that all the -ally's differ between the different types, there is nothing to indicate any kind of negativity in those differences. At the most diverse we are discussing the differences between apples, oranges and grapes, all fruits, but different. Nothing negative in those difference, save maybe to an individual. I would say we are closer to discussing the difference between red delicious, golden delicious and fuji, all apples but still different.

As to body parts, hands are exactly the same and still fit together, as do mouths. The pleasure functions of the body parts in question are not dependent upon those of the opposite gender in the same locations. Since the activity is pleasure sex that is being discussed, not procreation, there are no set parameters on what can be used to achieve the goal. Your concept of "rational sexual activity" has no rational basis in any field of science.
 
Of course not. It is a natural right to associate with anyone you wish and to form alliances with them.

This marriage stuff has nothing to do with the right of association only concerns itself with the special rights that governments gives to "married" couples, based on long term sexual relationships. This should not be a governmental concern. I believe that the government has a right to discriminate in the granting of special rights and special responsibilities. For example only persons of a certain age may enter into contracts-age discrimination. Only persons of a certain age may be subject to military drafts. Grants for educational funding should be granted with consideration of the age and capabilities of recipients. However, such discriminating laws should be minimal.
 
Why stop there? Currently marriage is based on some public policy belief that long term sexual relationships are deserving of special benefits. Only heterosexual couples who expressed this long term sexual commitment were granted these benefits and now SS couples who express this long term sexual commitment have these benefits as well. But one should ask, why does the government concern itself with one's sexual arrangements? Why not get away from the current sexual nature of marriage and extend it to anyone, regardless of sexual natures-siblings, favorite uncle & nephew/niece, great platonic friends. etc.? Clearly marriage should be extended to polygamists, polyandrists, etc but why not others? Why limit it to that sexual component, which should not be a government concern anyway?
 
maquiscat said:
While I won't disagree with you that all the -ally's differ between the different types, there is nothing to indicate any kind of negativity in those differences. At the most diverse we are discussing the differences between apples, oranges and grapes, all fruits, but different. Nothing negative in those difference, save maybe to an individual. I would say we are closer to discussing the difference between red delicious, golden delicious and fuji, all apples but still different.

As to body parts, hands are exactly the same and still fit together, as do mouths. The pleasure functions of the body parts in question are not dependent upon those of the opposite gender in the same locations. Since the activity is pleasure sex that is being discussed, not procreation, there are no set parameters on what can be used to achieve the goal. Your concept of "rational sexual activity" has no rational basis in any field of science.
Click to expand...

First, don't make the claim "Your concept of "rational sexual activity" has no rational basis..." when you don't know what it is.

Pleasure sex is not what I'm discussing. Pleasure sex is equally debase. Our disagreement seems to be much more foundational. Sex for a rational being is about unity, not pleasure or procreation (For an empirical proof, google "oxytocin". Fascinating little hormone). Procreation and pleasure are empirical aspects of sex, but to reduce sex to the empirical is, by definition, debase. So what is a homosexual couple unifying around? Bodily pleasure? That's irrational. Procreation? That's impossible. The only rational answer is "family". The couple wants to be a family together (this doesn't mean kids, family of 2 is fine).

But nature has already established what a family is for our species. Homosexual couples often desire the right thing, but via an impossible means. Our species has a pre-determined family unit consisting of fathers and mothers. Chimp families extend to about 25, all closely related. Mom takes care of her child primarily. A rare trait in mammals, the primate dad often assists the mother in child care. That is our heritage. The unity is male and female. Homosexual couples literally cannot have union.

If we evolved from octopuses I couldn't argue this.
 
Radical said:
Pleasure sex is not what I'm discussing. Pleasure sex is equally debase.
Click to expand...

Subjective. Simply because it it debase to you does not make it universally debase.

Our disagreement seems to be much more foundational. Sex for a rational being is about unity, not pleasure or procreation (For an empirical proof, google "oxytocin". Fascinating little hormone). Procreation and pleasure are empirical aspects of sex, but to reduce sex to the empirical is, by definition, debase. So what is a homosexual couple unifying around? Bodily pleasure? That's irrational. Procreation? That's impossible. The only rational answer is "family". The couple wants to be a family together (this doesn't mean kids, family of 2 is fine).

But nature has already established what a family is for our species. Homosexual couples often desire the right thing, but via an impossible means. Our species has a pre-determined family unit consisting of fathers and mothers. Chimp families extend to about 25, all closely related. Mom takes care of her child primarily. A rare trait in mammals, the primate dad often assists the mother in child care. That is our heritage. The unity is male and female. Homosexual couples literally cannot have union.
Click to expand...

I like that. A 2 person family is fine, but then you claim the family is a mother and father. Without the children there is no mother or father. Period. Family is not simply about parents and kids. I have a family that is outside my blood family. I have my married family that consists of a husband and two wives. Nor does sex make a family or bring unity. An individual can be non functional in the crouch region, or be lacking equipment, and still find unity and family. You are trying to tie together things as absolutes, that in reality, although common together, exist quite well independently.
 
maquiscat said:
Subjective. Simply because it it debase to you does not make it universally debase.
Click to expand...

Individuals within our species do not differ enough to claim that this is subjective. You can say "that's false", but it certainly spreads over everyone in our species. By "debase" I mean "degrading the object in question". So, pleasure sex is degrading sex to a purely hedonistic act, and that is false in rational beings. Rational beings make sex much more complicated.

Also, if it really is subjective, you have no base from which to argue with me. Subjectivity removes any and all common ground. Pleasures and pains are subjective, but logic is objective and integrated into rational creatures. The a rational creature not only has a bunch of chemicals firing in intercourse, but there is an understanding of the act, a whole dance we perform prior and after. It's called romance. Purely hedonistic sex is possible, but it leaves both men and women with a kind of wanting because there was no romance.

maquiscat said:
I like that. A 2 person family is fine, but then you claim the family is a mother and father. Without the children there is no mother or father. Period. Family is not simply about parents and kids. I have a family that is outside my blood family. I have my married family that consists of a husband and two wives. Nor does sex make a family or bring unity. An individual can be non functional in the crouch region, or be lacking equipment, and still find unity and family. You are trying to tie together things as absolutes, that in reality, although common together, exist quite well independently.
Click to expand...

Yes, a guy that has no genitalia can find family and unity. But that's off topic. We're talking about a homosexual union of a specific romantic type; gay marriage. This guy wouldn't be doing any homosexual activity. He won't be doing sexual activity at all. And members of a family don't have to have sex (that's usually incest, and that's weird). But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about "what is sex", where I claim sex is for a kind of unity, and "homosexual union", which I claim is impossible due to the nature of our species.

Look, here's it to you blunt: Homosexual couples don't work. I've lived in the Montrose area of Houston for 5 years or so. I have lots of 70 year old gay friends. They echo me on this. Guys get together, within 4 months someone cheats, and the split up. They never move in together because they expect the break up to happen very fast. And they say it's even worse with lesbian relationships. The girls get together, immediately move in together, and within 4 months hate each other, but now they're both stuck on the lease agreement. Gay couples that actually stay together are nearly as rare as unicorns. Why? Because there is no real unity. Our minds aren't built for that. A wire is crossed somewhere, and that's where some people look for romance. The unity is never found. Rarely you get a couple that stays together, and that's the extent of the bonding between the couples. And those are the guys that aren't having sex that often. They're more like brothers than husbands.

To reiterate, homosexuality is an evolutionary defect. Sex is still about unity, but the defect makes the individual attracted to the wrong gender to achieve such a unity. Embracing the defect is irrational. This does not mean homosexuals are less than anyone else.
 
Goshin said:
It may take a while, but I feel sure that this precedent will eventually be used to get polygamy/polyandry/polyamory and/or other forms of multiple-marriage legalized.

There's simply no good reason to deny people the right to form the kind of family they want, once you've kicked over the traditional definition.



Yeah, I know, it's more complicated. That doesn't justify denying these people their rights under our current rationale on such things.

Yeah, I know, some existing examples of polygamy are viewed as abusive or coercive (ie splinter Mormon extremists). That's no reason to deny poly-marriage to those adults who voluntarily choose it, many of whom may not be religiously motivated at all.... the majority of the poly-marriage people I've known (who live that way without legal endorsement at this time) were neither Mormon nor particularly religious otherwise.


It may take a while but it will be legal one day, and it won't be too long before the first movements in that direction begin.
Click to expand...

Probably going to catch hell for this. but what is wrong with polygamy/polyandry/polyamory?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom