• 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 will gay marriage affect your marriage?

How will gay marriage affect your marriage?

  • It wont

    Votes: 36 85.7%
  • It'll make me want to divorce my partner

    Votes: 6 14.3%

  • Total voters
    42
I don't have an issue with Polygamy. Polygamists can marry as many people as they want. And if the Incest is consentual betwen adults, they can do it without being married. It's a non-sequitor argument. If someone doesn't think the government should be involved in marriage, it's a universal belief.

I don't care if 27 cousins marry each other. Why should I care?

See, I think we do care about a lot of this stuff, and when we say we don't we aren't being completely truthful.

You don't think these things could be harmful for society in the longrun? Polygamy affects children and it has a creepiness about it. Don't say we shouldn't be concerned about creepiness, cause sometimes there's mental illness involved when things get too creepy. Plus polygamists gotta cost the government a lot with additional welfare, but some things although seemingly fair, would be unfair to others who don't partake. Polygamists usually have too many kids, so they would get way too many tax breaks that monogamists wouldn't get. I'm still leaving the kid factor in there, so monogamists who have no kids, well, that would be their tough luck, I guess.

The government could still rein in some unions if they were civil relationships as long as they get tax breaks. Now if there are no tax breaks then I guess the government would have to address it from a moralistic viewpoint, and government does dole out morals cause we have laws on the books against murder, stealing, so why not decency? I'm not sure government can really get out of marriage because of the kid factor. Seems like there needs to be some stability for them.

See when you allow say polygamy, it won't just be consenting adults. There will be those letches who like the young girls. If incest is allowed, it won't be just consenting adults cause most of the letch's involved in this activity start the kids out young, so it would be impossible to enforce and you'd end up with a whole lot of unstable people running around because of their childhood environmets. I'd say there would be abuse everywhere you turned.
 
See, I think we do care about a lot of this stuff, and when we say we don't we aren't being completely truthful.

I assure you, I'm being completely truthful. I really and truly don't think teh governemtn should involve itself in marriages. End of story.

You don't think these things could be harmful for society in the longrun? Polygamy affects children and it has a creepiness about it. Don't say we shouldn't be concerned about creepiness, cause sometimes there's mental illness involved when things get too creepy. Plus polygamists gotta cost the government a lot with additional welfare, but some things although seemingly fair, would be unfair to others who don't partake. Polygamists usually have too many kids, so they would get way too many tax breaks that monogamists wouldn't get. I'm still leaving the kid factor in there, so monogamists who have no kids, well, that would be their tough luck, I guess.

Are you really using the "It's creepy so it should be banned" argument? That is something I'll leave that to its own merits because it refutes itself far better than I could refute it.

The government could still rein in some unions if they were civil relationships as long as they get tax breaks. Now if there are no tax breaks then I guess the government would have to address it from a moralistic viewpoint, and government does dole out morals cause we have laws on the books against murder, stealing, so why not decency? I'm not sure government can really get out of marriage because of the kid factor. Seems like there needs to be some stability for them.

Murder and stealing are forms of anti-social behavior and there is a clear victim that is not invented out of thin air by unaffected people.


See when you allow say polygamy, it won't just be consenting adults. There will be those letches who like the young girls. If incest is allowed, it won't be just consenting adults cause most of the letch's involved in this activity start the kids out young, so it would be impossible to enforce and you'd end up with a whole lot of unstable people running around because of their childhood environmets. I'd say there would be abuse everywhere you turned.

Slipper slope argumetns fail because Polygamy =/= pedophilia. Pedophiia is illegal for many reasons. Making Polygamy legal does not change those reasons. It doesn't justify pedophilia. It doesn't condone pedophilia. It has absolutely positively NOTHING to do with pedophilia.
 
I assure you, I'm being completely truthful. I really and truly don't think teh governemtn should involve itself in marriages. End of story.

OK.

Are you really using the "It's creepy so it should be banned" argument? That is something I'll leave that to its own merits because it refutes itself far better than I could refute it.

Nope, maybe you are.

Murder and stealing are forms of anti-social behavior and there is a clear victim that is not invented out of thin air by unaffected people.

You apparently didn't read what I said. There are victims of pedophilia, and if you legalize polygamy there will be more victims of pedophilia. Murder and stealing are illegal because if they weren't it would be random, just as pedophilia may well be in the future if polygamy were legalized.

Slipper slope argumetns fail because Polygamy =/= pedophilia. Pedophiia is illegal for many reasons. Making Polygamy legal does not change those reasons. It doesn't justify pedophilia. It doesn't condone pedophilia. It has absolutely positively NOTHING to do with pedophilia.

Legalizing polygamy would mean more people would be doing it, so there would be more opportunity to abuse the priviledge. You'll always have some people who commit crimes, but not as many do when they might get caught and tossed in jail.

There are also those who feel pedophilia should be legalized, and the ages of consent lowered way down. This is really part of the slippery slope, I just didn't mention it.
 
Oh, really? Who "said" that?
I think what they said was that interracial marriage would lead to blacks getting uppity and above their station, and would lead to more biracial children and to the degradation of the white race.

And look, it's all happened. And it's good. :mrgreen:

I'll bet even the most pessimistic of them never imagined that in 40 scant years, a biracial man would be the President of the United States.
I hope they're flailing in helpless horror in their wheelchairs right now, or else spinning in their graves.

I'd like to see some kind of source that says that this was one of the arguments used against interracial marriage.

I learned that this argument was used when I reviewed some liturature by Cass Sunstein and Andrew Koppelman in reserching this issue a couple years ago.

The comment 'what's next next, men marrying men' was not made as often as 'what's next, men marrying a dog/animal' as so-called "gay-rights" were not a major issue in the public eye at the time; such questions were present in the objections to interacial marriage non the less.
 
I learned that this argument was used when I reviewed some liturature by Cass Sunstein and Andrew Koppelman in reserching this issue a couple years ago.

The comment 'what's next next, men marrying men' was not made as often as 'what's next, men marrying a dog/animal' as so-called "gay-rights" were not a major issue in the public eye at the time; such questions were present in the objections to interacial marriage non the less.

I still need a citation. I am not opposed to book, author, and page number as I have no aversion to the library, but I still need a clear source.
 
I dunno, but the fact that heterosexuals are allowed to marry each other completely invalidates my relationship with my boyfriend and renders it absolutely meaningless.

HUH? how so?
 
Back
Top Bottom