• 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 Would You Be Harmed By Society's Acceptance of Same Sex Marriage?

How Will You Personally Harmed By Same-Sex Marriages in Society?

  • My spouse will leave me.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I'll have come up with a reason to say "no".

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • My son's special friend would be my son-in-law.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I could never again rent a honeymoon suite in a hotel.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I won't be, I'm not getting married.

    Votes: 3 16.7%

  • I won't be, I'm already married to the opposite sex.

    Votes: 3 16.7%

  • Other.

    Votes: 12 66.7%
  • Total voters
    18
SouthernDemocrat said:
If the state stops sanctioning marriage entirely then you have an entire host of legal and practical problems that arise.

First off, we live in a global society. If you want to adopt abroad, most nations require legal marriage recognition. If you own property abroad with your spouse, most other nation's property and tax laws are based around legal recognition of marriages.

Secondly, you have the entire issue of joint property ownership and custody. You also have the problems of speaking for your spouse in the event they are incapacitated. Sure, one can work around some of that by entering into private legal agreements, but it could make for extremely complicated legal arrangements in many families.

Also, marriage is not necessarily a religious institution. Many couples get married by the justice of the peace.

Finally, its juvenile that some people would want to do away with legal marriage recognition simply because a group they don't agree with would get that recognition. Moreover, its never going to happen anyway.
Click to expand...

This post is worth thanking twice, well said.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
If the state stops sanctioning marriage entirely then you have an entire host of legal and practical problems that arise.

First off, we live in a global society. If you want to adopt abroad, most nations require legal marriage recognition. If you own property abroad with your spouse, most other nation's property and tax laws are based around legal recognition of marriages.

Secondly, you have the entire issue of joint property ownership and custody. You also have the problems of speaking for your spouse in the event they are incapacitated. Sure, one can work around some of that by entering into private legal agreements, but it could make for extremely complicated legal arrangements in many families.

Also, marriage is not necessarily a religious institution. Many couples get married by the justice of the peace.
Click to expand...

All of this can be solved with civil unions and some cursory diplomacy.

Finally, its juvenile that some people would want to do away with legal marriage recognition simply because a group they don't agree with would get that recognition.
Click to expand...

My position on gay marriage is a bit complex, so I'll forgive your misinterpretation of it.

As a personal matter, I don't care about gay marriage at all. If gays recieved the "right" to marry I wouldn't even think twice about it - it doesn't mean a damn thing to me. However, I take serious issue with the legal reasoning employed by people on both sides of the argument - particularly proponents of gay marriage.

Basically, my involvement in these arguments is nothing more than an attempt to maintain the integrity of Constitutional law and force certain people to confront their inconsistency in the application of that law.

Moreover, its never going to happen anyway.
Click to expand...

Most likely but this does not mean I'm wrong.
 
Ethereal said:
All of this can be solved with civil unions and some cursory diplomacy.
Click to expand...

Then what would be the difference between the "civil union" and legal recognition of marriage?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Who's "we"?

Who's "everyone"?

Sensible people opposed being robbed to provide welfare, for strictly obvious and current reasons.

And guess what? If you can't come up with an objection based on current society, and you just admitted you can't, you have no reason to assume it will be harmful to future generations.
Click to expand...

Thalidomide wasn't seen to be dangerous in the short term but after awhile they came to recognize it caused terrible birth defects.
 
Harshaw said:
Then what would be the difference between the "civil union" and legal recognition of marriage?
Click to expand...

One is simply a contractual arrangement whereas the other incurs positive social recognition and pecuniary benefits in the way of tax breaks. I do not feel it is the proper role of government to legitimize people's lifestyle choices, nor do I feel it is right for people to receive special treatment because of those lifestyle choices.

Instead of sanctioning and institutionalizing marriage, the government should simply enforce contracts; the social meaning of said contract should be a private matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom