• 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
that's not my concern. what I want to know is, what does society gain from allowing gays to get married?

Equality for all, as guaranteed by the founding documents of our country.
 
oh really? when the majority doesn't want it, as seen in california?

Unfortunately, when you allow the people to be outright lied to, as happened in California, it's hard to have a fair vote. The pro-8 people got a lot of money to make hysterical commercials about things that Proposition 8 didn't even address and weren't true to begin with, in general they got to claim the sky was falling if people voted against the proposition.
 
marriage is the union of a man and a woman. marriage is available to everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

And at one time, marriage was the union of a man and a woman of the same color. Most people regard that as a quaint notion today, one that is ludicrous and irrational in a more enlightened time.

You cannot logically defend your view, it's simply a blind statement of fact without any evidence that it's actually true.

Try again.
 
How am I supposed to know?

You're the one that brought it up, surely you have some sort of explanation as to why you think it's a "biological error."

Jerry said:
An error of a biological nature.

Der der derrrrrr. Brilliant, Einstein.

Jerry said:
Gay marriage is not a basic right, so there is nothing to deny.

Why should we deny people ANYTHING based on something they have no control over? Even if it IS a biological error, what does it have to do with marriage?

Jerry said:
I would support that, yes, for the exact same reason I oppose incest.

1 of the 2 core purposes of marriage is to promote procreation if healthy children. Gays, hemophiliacs and familial couples cannot do this.

And no, gay couples cannot reproduce any more than an infertile couple can. And yes, infertility is grounds for divorce.

But you don't support banning infertile people from getting married in the first place? If not, why not?
 
Last edited:
Equality for all, as guaranteed by the founding documents of our country.

gays are already treated equally.

Unfortunately, when you allow the people to be outright lied to, as happened in California, it's hard to have a fair vote. The pro-8 people got a lot of money to make hysterical commercials about things that Proposition 8 didn't even address and weren't true to begin with, in general they got to claim the sky was falling if people voted against the proposition.

so when the majority votes a way you don't like, it's not "fair." you can see why that's difficult to argue with?

You cannot logically defend your view, it's simply a blind statement of fact without any evidence that it's actually true.
Try again.

I cannot logically defend my view, remember?
 
One of the reasons cited by opponents of gay marriage is the effect it'll have on marriage in America. That has got me wondering. How will gay marriage affect the marriages of those who oppose it. Will it make them want to divorce their partner because they feel their marriage is no longer as valid as it was before gay people were allowed to marry? Or will nothing change?

How profound; you have the WRONG premise.
 
Yet they can't marry... Which makes them unequal to heterosexual couples. Go figure.

It's not illegal for gays to get married actually, in any state. Believe it or not, two men could hold a wedding in a consenting church in the middle of Alabama, exchange vows, say 'I do', kiss, and the police would not and could not stop them (because it is not illegal).

The difference between gay and straight marriage is not the legal right to perform it, but it's recognition (in way of receiving financial benefits from the government)

My solution is quite simple. the state needs to stop recognising marriage outright. People don't deserve special benefits for getting married, gay straight or otherwise. Marriage needs to be nothing more than a personal ceremony of commitement.
 
Sometimes, I think this country is just too stupid for democracy.

As our founding fathers feared, we are too stupid to self govern, and this democracy is leading back into slavery as all democracies have.
 
My father, stepmother and 2 sisters would disagree with your soon to be step son.

My parents got divorced when I was three. Both of them remarried when I was 7. They are still happily married to their new spouses. I guess we can agree that it varies by family.
 
My solution is quite simple. the state needs to stop recognising marriage outright. People don't deserve special benefits for getting married, gay straight or otherwise. Marriage needs to be nothing more than a personal ceremony of commitement.

I disagree. Marriage is a social institution and is the preferable state in which to raise the children; the State has good reason for encouraging it, and should continue to do so.
 
I disagree. Marriage is a social institution and is the preferable state in which to raise the children; the State has good reason for encouraging it, and should continue to do so.

Giving them money encourages the wrong kind of marriage (insincere marriage)

A healthy marriage is bourne of love between two people, something the federal reserve can't sponsor. A healthy relationship is not formed by the government throwing chunks of meat between them.
 
You're the one that brought it up, surely you have some sort of explanation as to why you think it's a "biological error."

This is a different question.

You originally asked why it happened, and to that I have no conclusive answer.

As to why I think born-homosexuality is a biological error:
IMO born-homosexuality is a biological malfunction, unlike race or gender, and that makes all the difference to me.

I say that I view born-homosexuality is some kind of error because a homosexual woman's brain interprets female pheromones as though it were a man and not a woman. Also, a homosexual man's brain interprets male pheromones as though it were a woman and not a man. One Example

The resulting instinct of a homosexual woman is to procreate with another woman, and of a homosexual man to procreate with another man. Obviously, the vagina does not produce sperm nor can the anis incubate a child. It is apparent to me these instincts are operating contrary to the biological functions of physical gender, and therefore I observe some kind of error occurring.

Please note that I did not nor am I claiming that homosexuality is a psychosexual disorder. The APA basis it’s diagnostic criteria on a person’s ability to function in society, and my opinion is not based on a person’s ability to function in society, but on biological congruency.

I do not support gay marriage or civil unions because I view homosexuality as being incongruent with the purpose and function of marriage just as it is incongruent with the purpose and function of physical gender.

As I understand it today, the gay marriage argument removes procreation and raising children from the primary purpose of marriage, and I believe that is damaging to a society.

Der der derrrrrr. Brilliant, Einstein.

Precisely my point.

Why should we deny people ANYTHING based on something they have no control over? Even if it IS a biological error, what does it have to do with marriage?

If we were to look at gay marriage in a vacuum, I wouldn't really care about it.

It doesn't exist in a vacuum, though, and the modern pro-gm argument removes the procreation of healthy children from the purpose of marriage, and it is this which harms the sociological institution of marriage.

But you don't support banning infertile people from getting married in the first place? If not, why not?

The government's vested interest in marriage is promoting couples raising children.

Any couple not raising children is of no concern to the state.

This rules out the majority of gay couples.

Of the gay and strate couples raising children, the state has a vested interest in the health and safety of those children. This means the state has no interest, in fact has grounds to oppose, familial unions and second marriages with small children. Reasonable opposition to the step-parent dynamic rules out the majority of gay couples with pre-existing children.

The rare exception of a lesbian couple buying an exotic procedure to produce sperm from a woman, or another rare exception of a transgendered woman halting medication so as to conceive a child with a man, do not come remotely close to establishing a compelling interest of the state to promote these unions.
 
Last edited:
Marriage is a social institution and is the preferable state in which to raise the children;

Just out of curiosity, do you have any objective reasoning or sociological studies verifying this belief?
 
Yet they can't marry... Which makes them unequal to heterosexual couples. Go figure.

Actually as Unrein mentioned, they can marry.
They don't receive government benefits for being married.
In response to what others have posted this is one of the differences between interracial marriage struggle of the past and the same sex struggle today.
Interracial marriage was ILLEGAL a person would be arrested for violating the law if they were married, in ANY form.
That is not the case with the modern day same sex couples. They may marry. They are essentially asking the government to BECOME INVOLVED IN THEIR PERSONAL LIVES. Contrary to the chant that they want the government to get out of their lives.
Another note that applies to the equality of Prop 8.
Unlike race that by nature excludes people as a group, (because it is a state of being that can't be changed) "same sex marriage" is an action that anyone can choose. As is opposite sex marriage, obviously. So defining "legal marriage", for the purposes of benefits, applies to everyone equally.
 
Another note that applies to the equality of Prop 8.
Unlike race that by nature excludes people as a group, (because it is a state of being that can't be changed) "same sex marriage" is an action that anyone can choose. As is opposite sex marriage, obviously. So defining "legal marriage", for the purposes of benefits, applies to everyone equally.

Race isn't a choice but intraracial or interracial marriage IS.

If you were to define marriage between two people of the same color, you'd still follow your logic of equallity, since ALL people can marry someone of the same skin...EQUALLY. Right?

Your confounding the relationship choice with the actual condition of the parties. Homosexual marriage is a 'choice' but gender is not. Interracial marriage is a choice but race is not. Do you see the connection?

Race is to Gender as interracial marriage is to homosexual marriage.
 
Race isn't a choice but intraracial or interracial marriage IS.

If you were to define marriage between two people of the same color, you'd still follow your logic of equallity, since ALL people can marry someone of the same skin...EQUALLY. Right?

Your confounding the relationship choice with the actual condition of the parties. Homosexual marriage is a 'choice' but gender is not. Interracial marriage is a choice but race is not. Do you see the connection?

Race is to Gender as interracial marriage is to homosexual marriage.

Loving confirmed that the mutual restriction established equality under the law, therefore it's a valid point here as well.
 
gays are already treated equally.

And what color is the sky in your reality? Apparently you don't live in the same one the rest of us do.

so when the majority votes a way you don't like, it's not "fair." you can see why that's difficult to argue with?

Had the majority been informed of the facts and still voted for Prop 8, that would have been one thing, but the simple reality is, they were systematically lied to by a religious group with an agenda. No, that's not fair.

I cannot logically defend my view, remember?

At least you finally admit it.
 
Back
Top Bottom