• 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
Cristina said:
Gay people cannot marry the consenting adult of their choice.
Click to expand...

marriage is the union of a man and a woman. marriage is available to everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

the union of a man and a man is not a marriage, because marriage is the union of a man and a woman. until that definition changes, that's the way it is.
 
emdash said:
marriage is the union of a man and a woman. marriage is available to everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

the union of a man and a man is not a marriage, because marriage is the union of a man and a woman. until that definition changes, that's the way it is.
Click to expand...

When interracial couples were prevented from marrying, what was the definition of marriage then?
 
Eko Ren said:
Are you even American? What the hell kind of question is that?

Ahem. Sorry.

Rather, what I meant to say was:

No.
Click to expand...

well, then. you say the majority will be happy with gay marriage, ignoring the fact that the majority just overturned gay marriage in one of the most liberal states of the union. I say, although it is impossible to tell until it comes to a vote in every state, that your assumption that most people want gay marriage is unfounded and probably wrong. given that, I do not accept your answer to my question of what society will gain in allowing gay marriage.

I hope this is clear.
 
emdash said:
the burden of proof is yours. I'm not the one who wants something to change.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who wants the law to discriminate. Where in the world did you learn that the burden of proof is on whoever wants something to change? :confused:

emdash said:
I already gave one answer, which you ignored. if it's not good enough for you, there's nothing I can do about it.
Click to expand...

Actually you did NOT give an answer. You said "it's not my concern." Let's try again: How does society benefit from gays not being allowed to marry?

emdash said:
gay people have the same rights as straight people.
Click to expand...

Men (unlike women) do not have the right to marry a man. Women (unlike men) do not have the right to marry a woman. Gender discrimination, pure and simple.

Way to ignore my other point, by the way. ;)
 
Last edited:
Cristina said:
When interracial couples were prevented from marrying, what was the definition of marriage then?
Click to expand...

the union of a man and a woman.
 
emdash said:
marriage is the union of a man and a woman. marriage is available to everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

the union of a man and a man is not a marriage, because marriage is the union of a man and a woman. until that definition changes, that's the way it is.
Click to expand...


Main Entry:
mar·riage
Pronunciation:
\ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date:
14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Okay, riddle me this: what is the purpose of a marriage?

I'll give you a hint: it relates to society as a whole on a micro level.

I'm rather curious as to what your occupation is at this point.
 
Eko Ren said:
Actually, since your premise is a call for action, in that it is a restriction, as opposed to simple tolerance, which is inaction, the burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...

my premise is not a call for action. I like things just the way they are.
 
emdash said:
the union of a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

With one little rule throw in - the man and woman had to be the same color. I conclude the definition of marriage was a little different then, still between men and women, but excluding interracial couples. Now marriage excludes homosexual couples, which is just as bad.
 
emdash said:
my premise is not a call for action. I like things just the way they are.
Click to expand...

Apparently, you don't. You don't like the fact that gays want to get married.

You do realize that's how things are?

And, in that you want to restrict it (action) as opposed to tolerate it (inaction), the burden of proof is on you.

I take it you're used to people assuming they're wrong when they argue with you.
 
I wish no one brought racial issues into this.

You haven't answered half of my questions, M-. Giving in?
 
Eko Ren said:
Main Entry:
mar·riage
Pronunciation:
\ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function:
noun
Click to expand...

I notice you didn't highlight the definition that negated your entire argument.

Eko Ren said:
Okay, riddle me this: what is the purpose of a marriage?
I'll give you a hint: it relates to society as a whole on a micro level.
Click to expand...

why don't you just tell me what it is, to save time?
 
Eko Ren said:
Apparently, you don't. You don't like the fact that gays want to get married.

You do realize that's how things are?

And, in that you want to restrict it (action) as opposed to tolerate it (inaction), the burden of proof is on you.

I take it you're used to people assuming they're wrong when they argue with you.
Click to expand...

I like that they want to get married.

I also like that they can't get married.

I want to keep it the way it is (inaction) as opposed to make it legal (action).
 
Cristina said:
Sorry mate, just trying to twist his argument - although there isn't really any need, is there, given that he can't answer a simple question.;)
Click to expand...

Cheers, dear, it's just that conservatives, in my experience, tend to jump all over crap like that and convolute an issue... especially when they're clearly wrong...

...hahaha, no offense M-, just being a bastard.
 
Eko Ren said:
I wish no one brought racial issues into this.

You haven't answered half of my questions, M-. Giving in?
Click to expand...

I'm trying to keep up with you, cristina, kandahar et al. patience jedi.
 
emdash said:
I notice you didn't highlight the definition that negated your entire argument.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not sure how familiar you are with the language, but in English, each definition of a word stands on its own. Would you like me to go back and edit it to make you feel better? (You'll still be wrong.)

why don't you just tell me what it is, to save time?
Click to expand...

It's a "civil union", or much like a corporate partnership, it's a merger, if you will, between two families.

Of course, it clusters individuals into more manageable and functional familial structures, but economically speaking, it also serves to balance, inflate, and sustain legacies.

One way or another, if you'll notice, it's still all very irrelevant to sexual orientation.
 
Eko Ren said:
...but anyway, you get the point. The fact is that marriage shouldn't be confined to any sort of relationship. It raises the question as to what is legitimate in a society that has abandoned most of these archaic restrictions.
Click to expand...

The question should be raised, because it is a question that is necessary for a functional society to be able to answer.

The State recognizes marriages and extends them all manner of legal and financial privileges for a reason; when discussing who should and who should not be allowed to marry, it is only logical that we stop and consider what that reason is, so that we can determine whether or not extending those privileges serves society's purposes.

Cristina said:
Gay people cannot marry the consenting adult of their choice.
Click to expand...

Neither can straight people, if the consenting adult of their choice is their first cousin (in most States). Nor if either of the consenting adults is currently married. Not to mention all of the bureaucratic hoops one must jump through if the consenting adult of their choice is a foreigner.

Really, there are quite a number of limits on the consenting adults one can legally marry-- and they are all based on the notion that since the State extends legal benefits to marriage, the State has the right to impose whatever limitations on marriage as it sees fit.
 
Cristina said:
With one little rule throw in - the man and woman had to be the same color. I conclude the definition of marriage was a little different then, still between men and women, but excluding interracial couples. Now marriage excludes homosexual couples, which is just as bad.
Click to expand...

I resent when people try to claim that the issues are completely parallel, finding it extremely offensive. perhaps you are unaware of the discrepancy since you are not here in the US, but I can assure you that the treatment of gays at its worst does not come close to the atrocities blacks have suffered in north america since the slave trade began. I specifically remember you making a claim before that blacks in CA are responsible now for the exact same discrimination they faced under the jim crow laws and under slavery, and I am asking you for a second time to brush up on your american history or simply choose another analogy to use in your argument.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
The question should be raised, because it is a question that is necessary for a functional society to be able to answer.

The State recognizes marriages and extends them all manner of legal and financial privileges for a reason; when discussing who should and who should not be allowed to marry, it is only logical that we stop and consider what that reason is, so that we can determine whether or not extending those privileges serves society's purposes.
Click to expand...

That's sounded like a bunch of conjecture. On what grounds should a person be excluded from legal union aside citizenship? A functional society wouldn't be so distracted with such nonsensical, petty questions. Children are allowed to marry in some states, for Godsakes. It really isn't that important a question, and it has far fewer implications than you're suggesting.

Neither can straight people, if the consenting adult of their choice is their first cousin (in most States).
Click to expand...
That is because incest is illegal in most states. Of course one cannot be legally bound illegally, wtf kind of argument was that?
Nor if either of the consenting adults is currently married.
Click to expand...
How is that relevant to gay marriage? Once again, this isn't because we necessarily want to exclude married people, but because bigamy is illegal.
Not to mention all of the bureaucratic hoops one must jump through if the consenting adult of their choice is a foreigner.
Click to expand...
Oh, a country can't legally bind and acknowledge the union of someone who isn't a citizen? GTFO! Dude. Honestly. That's like saying "We should make air illegal because attempting to breathe it underwater can kill you."

Really, there are quite a number of limits on the consenting adults one can legally marry-- and they are all based on the notion that since the State extends legal benefits to marriage, the State has the right to impose whatever limitations on marriage as it sees fit.
Click to expand...

Bold=100% false. The state imposes no limitations on marriage itself, but only nullifies it on the premise of oblique illegality.
 
Last edited:
Eko Ren said:
To claim that the endeavors of people that you do not know nor interact with in any way affects you to the point that you would change a big decision you've made in your life discloses a very high degree of insecurity.

If people believe that gay marriage compromises the legitimacy of marriage on religious grounds, then hardly anyone in a society that is so liberal about premarital and anal sex is married at all.
Click to expand...

Society is extremely complex, many institutions and prejudices have latent functions and intersections that we cannot easily comprehend.

I support gay marriage but such a change must approached cautiously like all change.
 
Eko Ren said:
Main Entry:
mar·riage
Pronunciation:
\ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date:
14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Okay, riddle me this: what is the purpose of a marriage?

I'll give you a hint: it relates to society as a whole on a micro level.

I'm rather curious as to what your occupation is at this point.
Click to expand...
Ah dictionaries, because they of course hold the solution to all social problems.:mrgreen:
 
Wessexman said:
Society is extremely complex, many institutions and prejudices have latent functions and intersections that we cannot easily comprehend.

I support gay marriage but such a change must approached cautiously like all change.
Click to expand...

Wellie well. I agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom