• 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
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always been taught that societal expectation is to get married first and then to have children-- and in any case, even a couple of demonstrable infertility has the capacity to adopt children.

That doesn't change the fact that people who have no interest in ever adopting children can still get married. People who go their entire lives without having children can still be married. In fact, gay couples can adopt children. So again, where is the impetus for not allowing gays to marry again?

Notably, however, adoption agencies consider the issue of whether or not the prospective are parents are already married in making any determinations of their suitability to raise a child.

Actually, in most states, you can adopt children whether or not you're married, so long as you can otherwise provide for children.
 
In fact, gay couples can adopt children. So again, where is the impetus for not allowing gays to marry again?

I'm not opposed to homosexual couples getting married. In fact, I encourage it, especially if they're planning on raising children.
 
I'm not opposed to homosexual couples getting married. In fact, I encourage it, especially if they're planning on raising children.
Shouldn't we check with everyone else in the world first?
 
Here it seems you are trying to further compartmentalize the various functions of marriage. Both Loving and Skinner refer to marriage as critical to human survival, and in context they were not merely referring to children being raised, but consieved in marriage.

It is a package deal.
And yet the human race survived for hundreds of thousands of years without marriage. Wonder how they did that :shock:

I mean... I wonder how people survive who AREN'T married. It boggles the mind.
 
Biologically, I would assume.

Not really no. It's psychological. And there is no such thing as a biological error. Nature has no overlord master plan; mistakes are relative (to purpose or goal). And since there is no inherent purpose or goal in life, there is nothing to propose homosexuallity is an 'error' against. If a specie goes extinct, it only fails occording to human made, subjective standards.

Anticipating reproduction. No. The purpose in life is not even reproduction. That's merely the reality. Nature isn't some entity that before life began decided "Ok, I'am gonna make some creatures, and I want them to reproduce and eat and etc". No, It just occured by incidence. If every living thing stopped reproducing and everything went extinct, what natural 'plan' has failed? There was no plan.

By the way, gays can reproduce (I don't know if you knew).
 
Last edited:
Prove that if one is born homosexual it is a biological error,

He can't, it just makes his intolerance sound justified.

Even though he can't explain why (even if it were a biological error) that means they can't get married.

Is sterility a biological error by your (Jerry) standards? Does that in any way translate to "Deny rights"? No.
 
And yet the human race survived for hundreds of thousands of years without marriage. Wonder how they did that :shock:
Generally they did it within a society with its own complex bonds, institutions, associations, functions, ideas, statuses, beliefs and roles. Just as ours has.
 
If that were true, then all partners who have no children would be denied marriage licenses.

Try again.

No, my statement is accurate. Promoting child rearing is the purpose. However, the government cannot predict whether children will or will not be a result of the union. There are also other purposes, however, for the parameters of this discussion, child rearing is the key one.
 
I've already given a sample of supporting evidence in post 192, and while I may be willing to give additional examples, I have no interest in trying to conclusively prove beyond a reasonable doubt my position in this light weight thread.

OK, but I've debunked your sample in post #192, so I'm not sure what water your position holds.

Here it seems you are trying to further compartmentalize the various functions of marriage. Both Loving and Skinner refer to marriage as critical to human survival, and in context they were not merely referring to children being raised, but consieved in marriage.

It is a package deal.

I am compartamentalizing the argument in order to go along with the parameters of the thread. However, you are correct in that there are numerous benefits to marriage that have nothing to do with child rearing. And I am uninterested in Loving or Skinner. You, yourself have said, many times that they do not pertain to the gay-marriage issue. Further, information shows that children reared in two-parent households, of any combination perform similarly, functionwise. Biology is not a prerequisite to this success.

I never claimed that the study identified errors.

I said that I interpreted the differences illustrated in the study as errors, ie; my opinion.

I hope you can see the difference there.

OK, I stand corrected. You did present it as your opinion. And I showed how your opinion lacks foundation.

This does not address any point of my argument.

You stated this in the post I am quoting...I bolded the important part:

Both Loving and Skinner refer to marriage as critical to human survival, and in context they were not merely referring to children being raised, but consieved in marriage.

You are referring to procreation in marriage. This has been part of the argument, and continues to be.

The typical child raised by gays being equal too children coming from the 50%+ dysfunctional hetero homes is hardly a convincing argument, even if simply raising children were the only element composing a marriage, since the 50%+ dysfunctional homes are another problem. All your saying here is that gay marriage would perpetuate existing dysfunctions. Your point here is at best benign.

The fallacy in your argument is that children brought up in families without both of their biological parents is inherently dysfunctional. This is not accurate. You have offered no evidence that this is true. Conversely, evidence shows that children brought up in two parent households for any configuration succeed, similarly. I have presented this evidence in several threads in the past, threads that you have participated in, Jerry.

As I said, which you chose to ignore before and will thus likely choose to ignore again here: raising children is a part of the deal, only a part, and does not-in-and-of-itself justify allowing a given marriage lest we also allow incest and polygamy.

I agree, that it is only part of the deal. And there are other reasons that have nothing to do with child rearing that would disqualify incest and polygamy.

This entire exchange miss-assumes that the gay marriage movement is based on what is best for children and families.

This is of course not the case, as the pro-gm argument is about legitimizing the gay identity in the public eye. Sex and sexuality is the priority issue, financial benefits second. Children and family take a very distant 3rd place when they're even considered at all.

If the main pro-gm argument were about children and families first, with all else barely mentioned and considered incidental, I would be far more likely to support gay marriage.

The pro-gm position is about a combination of things, but I'm curious as to what you mean by "legitimizing the gay identity". Please explain.
 
No, my statement is accurate. Promoting child rearing is the purpose. However, the government cannot predict whether children will or will not be a result of the union. There are also other purposes, however, for the parameters of this discussion, child rearing is the key one.

Yes that is one of the biggest purposes of marriage as well as its place at the core of the family an important intermediate association between the state and the individual.

However as I said one must try and avoid naked functionalism. The ideological and tradition ideas behind marriage are very important because men do not live by function alone as important as it is. We must take care to preserve the fabric of ideational factors that partly make up marriage in our society as well as the functional ones and therefore change it cautiously and with the maximum amount of continuity with the old beliefs.
 
Yes that is one of the biggest purposes of marriage as well as its place at the core of the family an important intermediate association between the state and the individual.

However as I said one must try and avoid naked functionalism. The ideological and tradition ideas behind marriage are very important because men do not live by function alone as important as it is. We must take care to preserve the fabric of ideational factors that partly make up marriage in our society as well as the functional ones and therefore change it cautiously and with the maximum amount of continuity with the old beliefs.

How does gay marriage cause anything negative with someones straight marriage? How does that inhibit it at all?

I'd really like you to explicitly explain what will go wrong if we were to allow gays to marry (which they already can do whether the state recognises it or not)
 
I'm not opposed to homosexual couples getting married. In fact, I encourage it, especially if they're planning on raising children.

Then you have no problem with gay marriage? Then what are you arguing about?
 
No, my statement is accurate. Promoting child rearing is the purpose. However, the government cannot predict whether children will or will not be a result of the union. There are also other purposes, however, for the parameters of this discussion, child rearing is the key one.

Why is that? The government can certainly be positive that women past child-rearing age, infertile couples, or those who adamantly do not want children will never have them, yet they issue licenses anyhow. In fact, nowhere on any of the paperwork for a marriage license are intending to have children mentioned as a prerequisite for getting married.

So how do you support your claim or are you just making it up?
 
Then you have no problem with gay marriage? Then what are you arguing about?

I'm arguing against the notion that the institution of marriage is trivial, and that changing the institution of marriage is a trivial decision that should be undergone on the basis of such execrably stupid ideas as "the State has no business deciding who can get married and who can't" and "marriage is a civil right".
 
Why is that? The government can certainly be positive that women past child-rearing age, infertile couples, or those who adamantly do not want children will never have them, yet they issue licenses anyhow. In fact, nowhere on any of the paperwork for a marriage license are intending to have children mentioned as a prerequisite for getting married.

So how do you support your claim or are you just making it up?

Not to mention that child rearing doesn't require a marriage license. Far from it.
 
Why is that? The government can certainly be positive that women past child-rearing age, infertile couples, or those who adamantly do not want children will never have them, yet they issue licenses anyhow. In fact, nowhere on any of the paperwork for a marriage license are intending to have children mentioned as a prerequisite for getting married.

So how do you support your claim or are you just making it up?

Firstly, this is not made up, it is one of the purposes that government supports and encourages marriage. Secondly, you are still missing the point. I am not saying that this is the only reason government encourages marriage, nor am I saying that those who do not have children should not get married, or the government would prevent them from getting married. You are getting defensive for nothing. I am discussing the child-rearing position in the context of this discussion.
 
Firstly, this is not made up, it is one of the purposes that government supports and encourages marriage. Secondly, you are still missing the point. I am not saying that this is the only reason government encourages marriage, nor am I saying that those who do not have children should not get married, or the government would prevent them from getting married. You are getting defensive for nothing. I am discussing the child-rearing position in the context of this discussion.

Back in the 18th century the US government got involved in marriage to come with some kind of census as to how many people were living here.
 
How does gay marriage cause anything negative with someones straight marriage? How does that inhibit it at all?

I'd really like you to explicitly explain what will go wrong if we were to allow gays to marry (which they already can do whether the state recognises it or not)
I wasn't suggesting that, I support gay marriage cautiously.

One important conservative plank is too know society is so complex that we can't know what might go wrong if we do not stress continuity and are not cautious.
 
Why is that? The government can certainly be positive that women past child-rearing age, infertile couples, or those who adamantly do not want children will never have them, yet they issue licenses anyhow. In fact, nowhere on any of the paperwork for a marriage license are intending to have children mentioned as a prerequisite for getting married.

So how do you support your claim or are you just making it up?
That is because institutions often have ideational factors beyond its function for society and these can be very important. Marriage helps to create children and to create the core of the important institution of the family but this kind of talk is not why the individual gets married, he does it mostly due to its ideational place within society as the cementment of love, union before god etc etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom