• 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!

Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

Would you vote to legalize same gender marriages?


  • Total voters
    113
a777pilot said:
I agree. So why the big push to call it what it is not....a marriage. Draw up a legal document and have it enforced by the courts. But marriage it is not.
Because a document that includes all of the benefits and logistics of a marriage document is a marriage document. The same reason why all death certificates are called 'death certificates'.

Jerry said:
Yeah well from a "legal" standpoint marriage is necessary for the survival of Men. Gay relationships...not that vital....unless they're raising children, but then it's about family, as I said.
Contracts need not be 'vital' to society for two individuals to enter into them. A contract is only illegitimate if one or more parties are coerced into signing it and/or the contract states an agreement to do something illegal (killing someone, for example). If two individuals voluntarily and mutually agree to enter into a contract that fits that bill, it's being 'vital' or not to society is irrelevant. I can draw up a binding contract promising my roommates that I will shower only between the hours of 7:00 and 9:00 AM. Vital to society? Hell no. A legitimate contract, surely.

There is not one legitimate reason for preventing two individuals from entering into a voluntary and peaceful contract.

Jerry said:
So far, gay relationships don't seem to be about raising children, so since the government's only interest in the legal institution of marriage is not apparently present in gay relationships, there's no reason to legalize gay marriage.
Of course there is. I'll reiterate: Gays, like everyone else should have the basic right (and do in all other facets of life) to enter into voluntary, peaceful contracts.

-NC
 
Last edited:
Yeah well from a "legal" standpoint marriage is necessary for the survival of Men. Gay relationships...not that vital....unless they're raising children, but then it's about family, as I said.

So far, gay relationships don't seem to be about raising children, so since the government's only interest in the legal institution of marriage is not apparently present in gay relationships, there's no reason to legalize gay marriage.

The government's interest in marriage as simply a vehicle for raising children is not universally accepted, even among all traditionalists. There is a clear distinction between "marriage AND family", and this is clearly illustrated by the legality (and broad acceptance) of partners who do not wish to have children. And while raising children in a more stable environment is certainly one of the tenets, there are others as well. There is also government’s interest in marriage as "an institution that sustains democratic self-government the idea that marriage helps constitute (or domesticate) adults as good citizens". Perceived connections between marriage and civic virtue were historically important to governmental policies concerning freed slaves, immigrants, and child protection (Source: http://www.hofstra.edu/PDF/law_lawrev_foreword_vol32no1.pdf).

Marriage is a civil right as per Loving v. Virginia, which therefore gives those who claim this is a "rights-based" issue plenty of legal ground. To me and many others, marriage is not simply about raising children or having families, and it can include other couplings besides simply one man and one woman.
 
Contracts...A contract....contract....enter into a contract....a binding contract....contract......contract.....

...etc, etc. ad-nausium.

Marriage is a sociological organism vital to the survival of Man (Skinner, Troxil, Loving), not a mere contract like every other.
Of course there is. I'll reiterate: Gays, like everyone else should have the basic right (and do in all other facets of life) to enter into voluntary, peaceful contracts.

-NC

Hey anyone who wants to enter this type of "contract" to serve the purpose this "contract" is all about is welcome to it, imo. Show me a significant demographic of brothers and sisters adopting children out of the system and I'll even support incest.

But you have to serve the purpose, otherwise you have no business messing with it.
 
The government's interest in marriage as simply a vehicle for raising children is not universally accepted, even among all traditionalists. There is a clear distinction between "marriage AND family", and this is clearly illustrated by the legality (and broad acceptance) of partners who do not wish to have children. And while raising children in a more stable environment is certainly one of the tenets, there are others as well. There is also government’s interest in marriage as "an institution that sustains democratic self-government the idea that marriage helps constitute (or domesticate) adults as good citizens". Perceived connections between marriage and civic virtue were historically important to governmental policies concerning freed slaves, immigrants, and child protection (Source: http://www.hofstra.edu/PDF/law_lawrev_foreword_vol32no1.pdf).

Marriage is a civil right as per Loving v. Virginia, which therefore gives those who claim this is a "rights-based" issue plenty of legal ground. To me and many others, marriage is not simply about raising children or having families, and it can include other couplings besides simply one man and one woman.

I never said marriage was only about raising children.

I said that was the government's interest in marriage.

You want to get married? Fine, go buy some rings from WallMart and have a service. No one's stopping anyone from having a ceremony and living together. What you do in your bedroom is your personal business.

But if you're not raising children, there's no reason to give you a marriage license, so don't even ask for one.

If gays as a population show that the typical gay relationship is about the family and raising children, then Conservatives like myself will sign off on it and turn the other way to all the gay couples who are not raising children just as we do for all the hetero couples who are not raising children.

Though imo those childless hetero couples have no business getting married either, and if the government were to step in and remove the marriage license of childless couples, I wouldn't oppose that.
 
Last edited:
I have a question for you Jerry, do you think only people who intend to raise children should get married?
 
I have a question for you Jerry, do you think only people who intend to raise children should get married?

I thought I was already quite clear on my opinion there: yes.

Couples who have had, currently have, or intend to have children.

If you don't have kids, you don't affect me, so I don't care about you.
 
Last edited:
Why? So i assume that you believe straight couples shouldn't be married either if they do not intend to raise children?
 
Why do you think only people who intend to raise children should be able to get married?

Raising children is the only interest the government has in marriage.

No children, no government interest.

The legal buffs of marriage are meant to assist those raising children, so taking those buffs when you do not have children is an abuse of liberty.
 
Raising children is the only interest the government has in marriage.

No children, no government interest.

The legal buffs of marriage are meant to assist those raising children, so taking those buffs when you do not have children is an abuse of liberty.

That's laughable. Social stability is the only interest the government has in marriage, that's what married people tend to bring to the table. Children are often a by-product of marriage, they are not the main focus by a long shot.
 
That's laughable. Social stability is the only interest the government has in marriage, that's what married people tend to bring to the table. Children are often a by-product of marriage, they are not the main focus by a long shot.

See this is exactly the sort of argument we're not taking seriously.
 
Of course there is. I'll reiterate: Gays, like everyone else should have the basic right (and do in all other facets of life) to enter into voluntary, peaceful contracts.

-NC

I agree

Which is why I support civil unions for everyone.

Elimination of marriage as a legal contract, leaving it solely a religious one.

Which, in my mind, will likely eliminate the whole issue in the secular political arena.

Religious political arena is a whole other story.
 
...etc, etc. ad-nausium.

Marriage is a sociological organism vital to the survival of Man (Skinner, Troxil, Loving), not a mere contract like every other.
Altering my posts into a constant stream of one word is not an 'argument'. Additionally, you have not disputed, nor can you while remaining attached to reality, that marriage is a contract. The 'sociological organism' aspect is secondary when we are considering legalization. This is a legal issue because a contract is a legal documents. Opponents of same-sex marriage frequently ignore the legal aspect of the debate because there is no legal argument against extending this contractual right to gays.

We're talking about a hypothetical legislator voting to change the law that would affect contracts...And you don't want this to be a legal issue? Unreasonable.


Jerry said:
Hey anyone who wants to enter this type of "contract" to serve the purpose this "contract" is all about is welcome to it, imo. Show me a significant demographic of brothers and sisters adopting children out of the system and I'll even support incest.

But you have to serve the purpose, otherwise you have no business messing with it.
There is no part of the contract that binds the couple into making children. To assert so is to ignore reality. An impotent man marrying a woman whose tubes have been tied are just as 'married' as a man and a woman who have 8 children.

Impotent man + Woman w/tied tubes: Children as Man + Man : Children.

The Mark said:
I agree

Which is why I support civil unions for everyone.

Elimination of marriage as a legal contract, leaving it solely a religious one.

Which, in my mind, will likely eliminate the whole issue in the secular political arena.

Religious political arena is a whole other story.
I would have no problem with this solution either.

-NC
 
Last edited:
I never said marriage was only about raising children.

I said that was the government's interest in marriage.

Whereupon I replied that no, raising children is not the government's only interest in marriage. There is also the recognition of marriage as an institution that sustains the idea that marriage helps constitute (or domesticate) adults as good citizens. In addition, the argument can be made rather successfully that at this point in its history, Western culture is concerned primarily with the happiness of individual adults, not the needs of children or the needs of the society. There are many who now ask not what the role of government is in marriage, but if there should be one at all. If so, the question ought to be whether the state has an interest in the continuation of the marriage. If it does, then it's my belief that the state should be doing everything in its power to ensure the continuation and inclusion of those autonomous, rational individuals who seek it, rather than their dissolution or exclusion based on something like the willingness to rear children.

You want to get married? Fine, go buy some rings from WallMart and have a service. No one's stopping anyone from having a ceremony and living together. What you do in your bedroom is your personal business.

But if you're not raising children, there's no reason to give you a marriage license, so don't even ask for one.

On the contrary, there is every reason to provide legal recognition to same-sex couples as long as there is legal benefit to the institution. It doesn't matter whether you are raising children or not. Marriage is certainly a malleable institution. There is zero reason for it to suddenly be set in stone for the benefit of those who seek the exclusion same-sex couples based on all current criteria.

If gays as a population show that the typical gay relationship is about the family and raising children, then Conservatives like myself will sign off on it and turn the other way to all the gay couples who are not raising children just as we do for all the hetero couples who are not raising children.

Though imo those childless hetero couples have no business getting married either, and if the government were to step in and remove the marriage license of childless couples, I wouldn't oppose that.

While I think it is commendable that you as a conservative are willing to 'sign off on it' if such criteria is met, there are those who will oppose such a thing simply because of their backwards views on homosexuality. Imho, I think most conservatives currently tend to fall into the latter category, but that's simply my own speculation. I think this will change as time goes on (hopefully) as homosexuality and same-sex couples become more and more accepted.
 
Last edited:
Altering my posts into a constant stream of one word is not an 'argument'. Additionally, you have not disputed, nor can you while remaining attached to reality, that marriage is a contract. The 'sociological organism' aspect is secondary when we are considering legalization. This is a legal issue because a contract is a legal documents. Opponents of same-sex marriage frequently ignore the legal aspect of the debate because there is no legal argument against extending this contractual right to gays.

Yeah exapt I referred to 3 SCOTUS rulings :roll:

The sociological institution is primary, taking all priority over legality in every incident, in every way. The law is secondary because the law is meant to reflect society, not society the law.

Legally gay-marriage is like woman's right to vote was: the right does not exist. Women took their issue all the way to SCOTUS who ruled that the constitution did not give them the right to vote. Hence the need for an amendment to create that right.

There never was any right to marry someone of the same gender. No one has this federal right today. No one. In this way the pro-gm case is weaker than woman's suffrage.

We're talking about a hypothetical legislator voting to change the law that would affect contracts...And you don't want this to be a legal issue? Unreasonable.

Gay-marriage was never and is not a civil rights issue.

There is no part of the contract that binds the couple into making children. To assert so is to ignore reality. An impotent man marrying a woman whose tubes have been tied are just as 'married' as a man and a woman who have 8 children.

It makes sense that you would think that because you begin with the error of dismissing the sociological institution of marriage over law. The law is a tool, not the whole institution itself. There is much more to marriage which pre-exists and survives law.

Impotent man + Woman w/tied tubes: Children as Man + Man : Children.

That's not English.
 
Whereupon I replied that no, raising children is not the government's only interest in marriage. There is also the recognition of marriage as an institution that sustains the idea that marriage helps constitute (or domesticate) adults as good citizens. In addition, the argument can be made rather successfully that at this point in its history, Western culture is concerned primarily with the happiness of individual adults, not the needs of children or the needs of the society. There are many who now ask not what the role of government is in marriage, but if there should be one at all. If so, the question ought to be whether the state has an interest in the continuation of the marriage. If it does, then it's my belief that the state should be doing everything in its power to ensure the continuation and inclusion of those autonomous, rational individuals who seek it, rather than their dissolution or exclusion based on something like the willingness to rear children.

Ahh well there you go then: I oppose gay-marriage because it expands a legal institution which shouldn't exist at all.

On the contrary, there is every reason to provide legal recognition to same-sex couples as long as there is legal benefit to the institution. It doesn't matter whether you are raising children or not. Marriage is certainly a malleable institution. There is zero reason for it to suddenly be set in stone for the benefit of those who seek the exclusion same-sex couples based on all current criteria.

Since the raising of children is the government's interest in marriage, there is no reason to give the legal buffs to any couple who hasn't had, doesn't have, and/or never intend on having children.

While I think it is commendable that you as a conservative are willing to 'sign off on it' if such criteria is met, there are those who will oppose such a thing simply because of their backwards views on homosexuality. Imho, I think most conservatives currently tend to fall into the latter category, but that's simply my own speculation. I think this will change as time goes on (hopefully) as homosexuality and same-sex couples become more and more accepted.

The reason you mostly hear from our kooks is because most of us are busy minding our own business and tending to our own lives to care about protests and activism.
 
Jerry said:
The sociological institution is primary, taking all priority over legality in every incident, in every way. The law is secondary because the law is meant to reflect society, not society the law.

Legally gay-marriage is like woman's right to vote was: the right does not exist. Women took their issue all the way to SCOTUS who ruled that the constitution did not give them the right to vote. Hence the need for an amendment to create that right.

There never was any right to marry someone of the same gender. No one has this federal right today. No one. In this way the pro-gm case is weaker than woman's suffrage.
One could argue that the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause would extend the right to marriage to any consenting adults that would like to partake in it. I, however, haven't made that argument, I've specifically said that I believe that marriage should be a right enjoyed by gay couples. I've not said that it is their right. By passing legislation 'giving' them that right, we create a positivist right based upon the belief that there should be equal access to the privileges and immunities afforded to married couples.

Jerry said:
Gay-marriage was never and is not a civil rights issue.
This is a non-sequitur, I've never called it a civil rights issues. Civil rights pertain to rights from government oppression. Gays are not being 'repressed' by not being allowed to marry each other, they're being denied a legal right that they should be entitled to.

Jerry said:
It makes sense that you would think that because you begin with the error of dismissing the sociological institution of marriage over law. The law is a tool, not the whole institution itself. There is much more to marriage which pre-exists and survives law.
It's not so much a 'thought' as a statement of fact. A couple with no children and no plans to have children signs the enters into the same agreement as a couple who are ready to have twins. So, in reality, the government's stance on marriage is no where near as absolute as your statement, and I'm paraphrasing, that without children, the gov't has no interest in marriage. That is simply not true.

Jerry said:
That's not English.
It's an analogy, that is how they are written.

Within the context of child-bearing capability (which is the government's reason for interest in marriage, according to you):A man and a woman incapable of having children are to marriage what two men are to marriage.

Whether or not you think that the government should only be interested in the child-creation aspect of marriage is irrelevant as our government, in reality, shows 'interest' in the marriage of individuals incapable of creating children. It is inconsistent, therefore, to prevent gay couples from marrying, as the government's interest in marriage is very clearly not limited to its child-creation function.

Essentially: Society has no interest in preventing gays from marrying. It gains nothing from doing so.

-NC
 
Last edited:
One could argue that the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause would extend the right to marriage to any consenting adults that would like to partake in it. I, however, haven't made that argument, I've specifically said that I believe that marriage should be a right enjoyed by gay couples. I've not said that it is their right. By passing legislation 'giving' them that right, we create a positivist right based upon the belief that there should be equal access to the privileges and immunities afforded to married couples.

Well there ya go, I don't believe everyone should have access to those legal buffs, but only those who are going to serve the purpose for those buffs existing in the first place.

This is a non-sequitur, I've never called it a civil rights issues. Civil rights pertain to rights from government oppression. Gays are not being 'repressed' by not being allowed to marry each other, they're being denied a legal right that they should be entitled to.

Only couples who have children are entitled.

It's not so much a 'thought' as a statement of fact. A couple with no children and no plans to have children signs the enters into the same agreement as a couple who are ready to have twins. So, in reality, the government's stance on marriage is no where near as absolute as your statement, and I'm paraphrasing, that without children, the gov't has no interest in marriage. That is simply not true.

You people keep quoting these exceptions which prove the rule as thought they back your argument, when in fact the only support mine.

It's an analogy, that is how they are written.

I see analogies written here every day. Whatever you wrote was illegible.

Within the context of child-bearing capability (which is the government's reason for interest in marriage, according to you):A man and a woman incapable of having children are to marriage what two men are to marriage.

Whether or not you think that the government should only be interested in the child-creation aspect of marriage is irrelevant as our government, in reality, shows 'interest' in the marriage of individuals incapable of creating children. It is inconsistent, therefore, to prevent gay couples from marrying, as the government's interest in marriage is very clearly not limited to its child-creation function.

Essentially: Society has no interest in preventing gays from marrying. It gains nothing from doing so.

You are by far not the first person to say that this week, so I'll tell you just as I have too every other person who also thought this was an original argument bearing some level of merit: Childless couples have always been benign exceptions which prove the rule. If we need to now ban those exceptions to prevent gays from exploiting them, then fine, let's ban them.


***
I can see that you're a person who puts thought into your posts. Please continue to do so. So far I'm not seeing any new information in your posts that I haven't already come across in my 3 years on DP, but I'm sure that in time you could become a real player here.
 
Last edited:
Ahh well there you go then: I oppose gay-marriage because it expands a legal institution which shouldn't exist at all.

That's your opinion. My opinion is in support of gay marriage. My debate focuses on your belief that the government's only interest in promoting marriage is for the benefit of raising children, which isn't the case. There are a number of other reasons government is interested in marriage, and very compelling arguments for inclusion based upon those reasons.


Since the raising of children is the government's interest in marriage, there is no reason to give the legal buffs to any couple who hasn't had, doesn't have, and/or never intend on having children.

But it's not the only interest, and yes, there is every reason to give any rational, autonomous couple who seeks legal recognition of their marriage contract for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
 
To reiterate, and to perhaps spark further debate:

I would NOT vote to legalize same sex marriages.

This is because I do not believe that the government has any business making any decision in a religious matter, which is in my mind solely what marriages should be about.

My position is that the only remedy to the issue is to separate the legal aspect of marriage from the religious aspect. Let the various religious institutions hash out which of their number will allow gay marriages, and those who do not wish to acknowledge such do not have to.

On the legal side, allow a civil union of some sort for everyone, and if Jerry and others who believe as he can convince enough people, make it exclusive to raising children.
 
Jerry said:
Well there ya go, I don't believe everyone should have access to those legal buffs, but only those who are going to serve the purpose for those buffs existing in the first place.
Then we may just have to agree to disagree here. Not a bad discussion at all.

Jerry said:
Only couples who have children are entitled.
If this is true then one of the following must also be true:
-'Married' couples without children or 'married' couples who cannot have them are not actually 'married'
-They are, but you do not believe they should be recognized as such

Assuming the latter is true, that simply highlights the inconsistency in believing that only those who have children are entitled.

Jerry said:
You people keep quoting these exceptions which prove the rule as thought they back your argument, when in fact the only support mine.
The 'exceptions' to the rule exhibit the rule's inconsistency and unfairness.

Jerry said:
I see analogies written here every day. Whatever you wrote was illegible.
They can be written straight out or in the manner I typed. The latter used to appear on the SATs, before the College Board eliminated them.

Jerry said:
You are by far not the first person to say that this week, so I'll tell you just as I have too every other person who also thought this was an original argument bearing some level of merit: Childless couples have always been benign exceptions which prove the rule. If we need to now ban those exceptions to prevent gays from exploiting them, then fine, let's ban them.
While I disagree with its conclusion, this at least makes your argument consistent, and I respect that.

Jerry said:
I can see that you're a person who puts thought into your posts. Please continue to do so. So far I'm not seeing any new information in your posts that I haven't already come across in my 3 years on DP, but I'm sure that in time you could become a real player here.
Thank you and likewise. These gay marriage debates are getting rather stale for me as well, I've popped around internet forums for 5 or so years and it is one of those topics that I think of 'retiring' from. Good debate though :)

-NC
 
Back
Top Bottom