• 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

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Pick as many as you like, add your own, if you want.

I really really want those opposed to same sex marriage to participate in this one.

Oops. Forgot to add "I won't be, none of my business". So I vote "other".
 
Last edited:
This should be interesting.

Let's see how many idiots we have on these forums.

I voted "I won't be, I'm not getting married." But even if I was my life is not somehow lessened by the decisions of two people I have no connection to.
 
Mine is "other" for the following reason:

"I may be getting married in the dramatically far-far-far future, so if all the homosexuals are out fornicating with each other under wedlock, then who the hell is going to cut my girl's hair for the wedding?"
 
If there is gay marriage then it'll look straight marriage look bad because of the comparatively higher likelyhood of divorce or financial instability.
 
If there is gay marriage then it'll look straight marriage look bad because of the comparatively higher likelyhood of divorce or financial instability.

And yet you are a libertarian?
 
A mock poll, intended to mock people... I probably shouldn't bother to reply, but hope of intelligent debate springs eternal, so...

Here's what I posted on this subject in another thread:

But still, there are so many things that concern me [about normalizing/legalizing gay marriage]. What effects will this have on children growing up in the coming decades? Is gay-ness purely a matter of genetics or is it often a choice, or a matter of early learned/mimicked behaviors? I don't know, and I doubt the ivory-tower eggheads know either, but it worries me.

Will activists insist that schools teach second-graders that gay marriage is normal and acceptible and fine and that anyone who says otherwise is a bigot? Even if the kid's parents are opposed on religious grounds? We seem to be headed that way already.

I really do worry that setting the precedent, the principle, of radically altering a traditional institution like marriage (that is in enough trouble already!) for the sake of the 1% to maybe 7% of the population that might want to do that, could open the door to lawsuits/legislation by forty-dozen different special intrests/fetishists/etc GAWD KNOWS WHATALL suing to have marriage redefined to accomodate their special circumstance. Our culture is so damn "diverse" already that we can barely stay together as a nation...way too many "ism's"... I don't know if we can handle much more shaking up of the foundational institutions of our society. Honestly, it worries me.

As someone who leans libertarian, I am tempted to say "do your thing, I'll do mine; respect my space and we're cool."
However, I'm enough of a conservative to wonder and worry about the overall, long-term effects on society, including the Law of Unintended Consequences, of so radically changing a traditional institution that has long been the main building-block of society.
 
A mock poll, intended to mock people... I probably shouldn't bother to reply, but hope of intelligent debate springs eternal, so...

Here's what I posted on this subject in another thread:

Law of Unintended Consequence? Really? Doesn't seem like a logical law to base anything on...

You never know the consequence, as a good Kantian would say, so you should act with good intentions.
 
A mock poll, intended to mock people... I probably shouldn't bother to reply, but hope of intelligent debate springs eternal, so...

Here's what I posted on this subject in another thread:

So as a supposed libertarian, you think that government should be used as a vehicle to preserve and enforce cultural and religious norms?

This is a perfect example of why I have said time and time again that maybe 10% of those that claim to be libertarian actually are. With the rest just being typical conservatives or republicans that call themselves libertarian because they think it sounds cool.

Those are all valid points of discussions as to the philosophical / moral / religious aspects of the issue, but they have nothing at all to do with whether or not the state should recognize same sex marriages or not.
 
"Will activists insist that schools teach second-graders that gay marriage is normal and acceptible and fine and that anyone who says otherwise is a bigot? Even if the kid's parents are opposed on religious grounds? We seem to be headed that way already."

---Goshin

Schools teach second-graders that belief in any religion is fine and no particular one is correct, something that I'm sure many parents are opposed to on religious grounds. It's called private school, if you're really all that opposed.

As for the rest of your arguments, substituting interracial marriage for gay marriage brings up the same concerns (as of 50 years ago) and the consequences don't seem to have been drastic.
 
Dude, in my very first "greeting" post, I said that I was small-L libertarian-ish, Constitutionalist, Conservative. I never claimed to be a full-on capital-L Libertarian. I never have fit under a label very well.
 
I put "other" because of the irreparable harm done to my store of wife and ex-wife jokes.
 
Dude, in my very first "greeting" post, I said that I was small-L libertarian-ish, Constitutionalist, Conservative. I never claimed to be a full-on capital-L Libertarian. I never have fit under a label very well.

This has nothing to do with capitalization of letters.

Why does your lean say libertarian? Make is say something else then.

Are you suggesting I go find your greeting post and read it every time before I reply to your posts?
 
Please define ''harmed''.
 
Please define ''harmed''.

"Harm"

Pronunciation: \ˈhärm\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hearm; akin to Old High German harm injury, Old Church Slavic sramŭ shame

Date:before 12th century

1 : physical or mental damage : injury
2 : mischief, hurt
3 : wrong, evil

"Harmed" is the past-tense form of "harm."
 
This has nothing to do with capitalization of letters.

Why does your lean say libertarian? Make is say something else then.

Are you suggesting I go find your greeting post and read it every time before I reply to your posts?


I'm sorry, Cil, did you say something?

Oh, you said you get to define what "libertarian" means when someone is labeled "lean libertarian"?

No, I don't think you do.


G.
 
"Harm"

Pronunciation: \ˈhärm\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hearm; akin to Old High German harm injury, Old Church Slavic sramŭ shame

Date:before 12th century

1 : physical or mental damage : injury
2 : mischief, hurt
3 : wrong, evil

"Harmed" is the past-tense form of "harm."


I was wondering if anyone has actually said they would be harmed?
 
I'm sorry, Cil, did you say something?

Oh, you said you get to define what "libertarian" means when someone is labeled "lean libertarian"?

This is what I said:

Why does your lean say libertarian? Make is say something else then.

This is what you think I said:

I get to define what "libertarian" means when someone is labeled "lean libertarian."

They are different things.

Let's get back to the thread topic, ask me a question.
 
Let's get back to the thread topic, ask me a question.

I would, if I thought I was likely to get an intelligent, intresting debate out of it. Sadly, that appears very unlikely, based on the thread so far.


Going to bed sounds much more appealing just now. Nite.


G.
 
Dude, in my very first "greeting" post, I said that I was small-L libertarian-ish, Constitutionalist, Conservative. I never claimed to be a full-on capital-L Libertarian. I never have fit under a label very well.

Look all I am saying is that its easy to say that I believe in liberty and freedom as it relates to me. That aspect of freedom is easy. Even a dictator embraces that. We all want our own personal freedom and we are all quick to point out when its infringed.

However, its much harder to extend the same philosophy of freedom that we embrace ourselves to others that we don't agree with. Thats hard. Its hard to say that I don't agree with this groups beliefs or how they live their life, but my personal beliefs alone, even if I am in the majority, are not sufficient justification for denying them a right or privilege.
 
With a 50% divorce rate, why do gays want to get married?
 
Are homosexuals that are prone to getting married, on average, rich or poor?

Because if they are poor, I'll certainly be harmed due to the reduction in tax revenue that comes from joint filing as the debt will go up more and I'll get taxed later to pay for it.

I'm half serious if anyone is wondering.
 
Look all I am saying is that its easy to say that I believe in liberty and freedom as it relates to me. That aspect of freedom is easy. Even a dictator embraces that. We all want our own personal freedom and we are all quick to point out when its infringed.

However, its much harder to extend the same philosophy of freedom that we embrace ourselves to others that we don't agree with. Thats hard. Its hard to say that I don't agree with this groups beliefs or how they live their life, but my personal beliefs alone, even if I am in the majority, are not sufficient justification for denying them a right or privilege.

When you start being as consistent as you want me to be, we'll talk about it.

That ain't tonite, for sure.

G.
 
Back
Top Bottom