• 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?

  • Yes, I would vote to make gay marriage legal

    Votes: 79 69.9%

  • No, I would vote against making gay marriage legal

    Votes: 28 24.8%

  • I am undecided and wouldn't vote

    Votes: 6 5.3%
  • Total voters
    113
CaptainCourtesy said:
Yes, but under anti-discrimination laws, this argument would fail. A white man not being allowed to marry a black woman is discriminatory under the law, because it prevents something that is legal, with the exception of race.
Click to expand...

Well citing the law to support the law is a bit circular, and one reason I distrust the law, but let me correct something. Whatever conservative lawyers might say (most lawyers are nothing but charismatic idiots anyway, as evidenced by Congress), anti-miscegenation laws logically had no more to do with race than anti-SSM laws have anything to do with gender. The relevant issue in both cases is really sexual preference.

A white man not being allowed to marry a black MAN is not discriminatory under the law. At this time, when it comes to marriage laws, sexual orientation is not recognized as discriminatory.
Click to expand...

That's incorrect. The California Supreme Court cited many decisions to support their contention that sexual orientation is a suspect criteria for discrimination. Though again, I care more about who is being harmed. Gay marriage harms nobody.

In order to change the law, you have to have cause.
Click to expand...

No, the Constitution is written in such a way that limits what sorts of laws can stand up in court. In order to challenge a law, people have to be wronged in some way. Being denied the legal ability to marry who you want who also wants to marry you is being wronged. In some cases, this is secondary to some other interest. But in the case of gay marriage, the only party with any real stake in the matter are the gays who want to get married. Nobody is being wronged by the gay marriage in a way that counters the interests of the gay couples.

The discrimination argument doesn't cut it because gay folks can already marry...just not someone of the same sex.
Click to expand...

I already explained why that doesn't make sense. Denying a group of people the right to marry at all was not what anti-miscegenation laws were about, or anti-SSM marriage laws are about. Blacks could get married, they just couldn't marry Whites. Whites could get married, they just couldn't marry Blacks. Everybody could get married, but they're SOL if they happen to like the wrong person. Putting arbitrary restrictions on rights robs those rights of any meaning. Suppose somebody told you that you can marry, but you have to marry a specific kind of person regardless of whether you like them or not. Would you be able to meaningfully exercise your right to marry? Of course not.

You cannot legislated "love" or "want to". It is not logical. Currently, a man can marry a women, regardless of sexual orientation. Going with the "love" argument, is a loser argument. What if someone "loves" their dog? I've done this debate many, many times. The discrimination is a failed argument. Far too many potholes.
Click to expand...

"want to" is consent. Informed consent is CENTRAL to contracts.

The dog argument is not comparable, because a dog is mentally incapable of comprehending a marriage contract. And without comprehending a contract, meaningful consent cannot be given. Adult lesbians, however, obviously can consent to contracts.
I do not assume sexual orientation is a choice. Nor do I hold that not legalizing gay marriage is right. But it's not about what is right; it's about what can be proven and what is a winning argument. Discrimination is a loser argument. I am pro-GM, and I've already shredded your position on this. An anti-GM person will do better.
Click to expand...

You didn't even come close to shredding it.

"Love" cannot be legislated. Gays can still marry...no one is telling them they cannot. They have the same rights as anyone else.
Click to expand...

Love is only one possible motive. It's presence isn't necessary, I was just hoping that those against gay marriage would learn to have empathy for other people.

The argument is the winning argument in this debate, You did not read the entire thing. It is not only about children, though that would be a cornerstone. Married couples live longer, are healthier, do more to support the government, do better economically, are more stable, socially, etc... The position is not only about children. It's about creating a more solid society. The government has an interest in all of this, and that is how to win this argument. Find what the government has an interest in and exploit it. There is nothing to be gained from the discrimination argument alone and there are far to many solid refutations. The family/society/benefit of the government is the winning argument.
Click to expand...

The government isn't set up to look after it's own interests, but that of the people. Since nobody has a tangible stake against gay marriage, there is no basis to deny gay marriage. The purpose of marriage is not only to benefit society. We don't subject marriages to a test to check to see if it would benefit society. The relevant criteria is that both people consent to the contract, and provided that contract doesn't harm anybody there is no basis to deny it.
 
Last edited:
I would vote no, if it was a bill to expand rights of Civil Unions then by all means yes. Marriage is a cultural/religious term, it shouldnt be changed to please a minority, but I dont see why We cannot offer basically the same rights under a different name.
 
OxymoronP said:
I would vote no, if it was a bill to expand rights of Civil Unions then by all means yes. Marriage is a cultural/religious term, it shouldnt be changed to please a minority, but I dont see why We cannot offer basically the same rights under a different name.
Click to expand...

Appeal to majority is a fallacy for a reason. The majority has no tangible stake in this matter.

pr070816i.gif


Whatever it once was, marriage has become a legal term. If you abolished marriage from legal terminology and had civil unions between any who consent, as far as the law is concerned, that would be okay.
 
Last edited:
Appeal to majority is a fallacy for a reason. The majority has no tangible stake in this matter.
Click to expand...

Why is it a fallacy? What do you mean the majority has no tangible stake in the matter? There is nothing in the definition of marriage stopping interracial marriage. There is something about Same Gender marriage. Since most Americans are Religious marriage is and will remain between a man and a women. Again Civil Unions should be available with the same benefits.
 
Last edited:
OxymoronP said:
Why is it a fallacy? What do you mean the majority has no tangible stake in the matter?
Click to expand...

I thought the graph was a good illustration but here:

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_majority]Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

And I've been trying to figure the 2nd question out myself. Perhaps you can explain what the majority will lose when gays can get married?
 
Last edited:
OxymoronP said:
Perhaps we should force Christians to use a Mennorah on Christmas too.
Click to expand...

That would only be relevant if you assumed that legalizing gay marriage would mean that churches would have to marry gay people. I hope you don't think that, because it would contradict the precedent set by the fall of anti-miscegenation laws.

The term marriage has a definition and it doesnt involve Same Gender.
Click to expand...

The majority's desire to keep a definition the same doesn't outweigh a minority's meaningful access to marriage.
 
Last edited:
That would only be relevant if you assumed that legalizing gay marriage would mean that churches would have to marry gay people.
Click to expand...

No but it would destroy the definition of marriage and its holiness in the eyes of religious people. I am not religious but I care about peoples rights to their culture and it being protected.





The majority's desire to keep a definition the same doesn't outweigh a minority's meaningful access to marriage.
Click to expand...


Marriage is not a right, Civil Unions on the other hand are. Given that they are the same in practical terms, there is no need to force this issue. There are more important Gay right issues to tackle like dont ask dont tell which is the most idiotic and discriminatory practice concieved.
 
OxymoronP said:
No but it would destroy the definition of marriage and its holiness in the eyes of religious people. I am not religious but I care about peoples rights to their culture and it being protected.
Click to expand...

This is why I said tangible. Devotion to a symbol to the extent that you pretend so-called disrespect to it actually harms you is pathologically stupid, verging on evil. It's comparable to the Muslims who got upset over the Dutch cartoonist disrespecting their prophet (but violent ones, of course, are a few steps further into stupidity). Closer to home, it's like buying a flag and burning it and people being ready to beat you up or throw you in jail over it. It's ridiculous and I hope you know it.

But your response puzzles me even beyond such differences. Do celebrities with frivilous marriages destroy the sanctity of their marriages? Does the fact that atheists can get married make them feel their marriages are worth less? Somehow, when a this particular group they consider immoral comes up, suddenly they feel like their marriages are being personally dismantled. It's really sad and paradoxical.

If they don't like gays they don't have to marry them or even have them in their churches.

Marriage is not a right, Civil Unions on the other hand are. Given that they are the same in practical terms, there is no need to force this issue. There are more important Gay right issues to tackle like dont ask dont tell which is the most idiotic and discriminatory practice concieved.
Click to expand...

Equal protection under the law is what is a right, and marriage is in the realm of the law.
 
I dunno.
Legalizing gay marriage means homosexuality is completely natural, a theory that I kinda oppose.
Yet, I wouldn't want to prevent rights from people, so I'd just avoid voting.
 
This is why I said tangible. Devotion to a symbol to the extent that you pretend so-called disrespect to it actually harms you is pathologically stupid, verging on evil.
Click to expand...


You can call them stupid or evil, but you are mistaken. It is your devotion to a word that is stupid and insulting. They actually see meaning in Marriage while for you its a way to get at the evil ones who have oppressed you. Move on find a real cause, and there are many.

It's comparable to the Muslims who got upset over the Dutch cartoonist disrespecting their prophet (but violent ones, of course, are a few steps further into stupidity).
Click to expand...

They have a right to be upset, they dont have a right to call for murder of the artist or riot like madmen, such behavior does not happen in the US.

Closer to home, it's like buying a flag and burning it and people being ready to beat you up or throw you in jail over it. It's ridiculous and I hope you know it.
Click to expand...

No sir, burning the flag is an insult a very serious one. Not only to civlian patriots but to the men and women sworn to protect the people and the flag which represents them.

But your response puzzles me even beyond such differences. Do celebrities with frivilous marriages destroy the sanctity of their marriages?
Click to expand...

Hell yeah they do.

Does the fact that atheists can get married make them feel their marriages are worth less?
Click to expand...

No, it is actually a positive in the eyes of Religion as it at least gives some hope of coming to God. I view many things as dumb, including dressing up on Hollaween but I wouldnt force my views on others just because I dont like something.

Somehow, when a this particular group they consider immoral comes up, suddenly they feel like their marriages are being personally dismantled. It's really sad and paradoxical.
Click to expand...

Really it is quiet rational.

If they don't like gays they don't have to marry them or even have them in their churches.
Click to expand...

And they can also try and protect a word that has holy meaning.

Equal protection under the law is what is a right, and marriage is in the realm of the law.
Click to expand...

Marriage is not a right, it is a term.

its like calling Protein shakes Medicen.
 
Apocalypse said:
I dunno.
Legalizing gay marriage means homosexuality is completely natural, a theory that I kinda oppose.
Yet, I wouldn't want to prevent rights from people, so I'd just avoid voting.
Click to expand...

It's probably false that "natural" can be equated with "good," which is the impression I get from your post. I'm not sure why it matters what's natural.

I also am not sure how allowing people to get married would indicate that they are normal or natural. Plenty of weird people get married. :mrgreen:
 
LiveUninhibited said:
It's probably false that "natural" can be equated with "good," which is the impression I get from your post. I'm not sure why it matters what's natural.

I also am not sure how allowing people to get married would indicate that they are normal or natural. Plenty of weird people get married. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
No, I obviously meant natural.
In nature, you need both a male and a female for reproduction.
Reproduction is the continuance of life.
A gay couple cannot reproduce.
And that's why homosexuality isn't natural.

That's my opinion, anyway.
 
OxymoronP said:
You can call them stupid or evil, but you are mistaken
Click to expand...

To deny people equal access to legal rights (or privileges) is indeed stupid and evil because it is causing suffering for no good reason. That doesn't mean the people themselves are 100% stupid or evil, as I believe there are many kinds of intelligence and that evil people do not really exist, only evil actions.
It is your devotion to a word that is stupid and insulting. They actually see meaning in Marriage while for you its a way to get at the evil ones who have oppressed you. Move on find a real cause, and there are many.
Click to expand...

I'm not gay. They haven't really oppressed me. I feel strongly about many causes.

Meaning in marriage cannot and should not be defined on an institutional level. It means many things to different people. The meaning in their marriage is not actually undermined by the marriages of immoral people. If they believe that, they are projecting.

They have a right to be upset, they dont have a right to call for murder of the artist or riot like madmen, such behavior does not happen in the US.
Click to expand...

I don't have a serious problem with them peacefully protesting, but it is stupid. Why can't they just shrug and say, "Surely Allah has prepared a boiling pot of oil for the hypocrites and the unbelievers. And Allah is merciful, benevolent."

No sir, burning the flag is an insult a very serious one. Not only to civlian patriots but to the men and women sworn to protect the people and the flag which represents them.
Click to expand...

I knew we would find an impasse there. Just remember that symbols aren't as important as real people.

No, it is actually a positive in the eyes of Religion as it at least gives some hope of coming to God. I view many things as dumb, including dressing up on Hollaween but I wouldnt force my views on others just because I dont like something.
Click to expand...

Two atheists getting married bears no correlation to them "coming to god." Marriage has nothing to do with god for them, it's about being with the other person, and often kids. Faithless adults who are alone and isolated are more likely to feel a need clutch onto imaginary friends, unless they happened to marry a religious person. In that case marriage is indeed likely to cause their conversion.

If somebody finds dressing up like a cow fun, then more power to them. That sort of "stupidity" is inconsequential. But when their stupidity leads them to oppress others under the banner of democracy and religion, then it becomes an evil sort of stupidity.
 
Last edited:
Apocalypse said:
No, I obviously meant natural.
In nature, you need both a male and a female for reproduction.
Reproduction is the continuance of life.
A gay couple cannot reproduce.
And that's why homosexuality isn't natural.

That's my opinion, anyway.
Click to expand...

Yeah but reproduction isn't the only possible purpose of marriage. And it's not like we have some kind of population shortage.
 
LiveUninhibited said:
Yeah but reproduction isn't the only possible purpose of marriage. And it's not like we have some kind of population shortage.
Click to expand...
You've missed my point.
It has nothing to do with the current population, it is unnatural in my opinion.
And legalizing gay marriage means that we look at Homosexuality as if it's the same as a female and a male kind of union.
 
To deny people equal access to legal rights (or privileges) is indeed stupid and evil because it is causing suffering for no good reason.
Click to expand...

Marriage is not a right, and tou can deny privileges thats why they are privileges. Also is it really a privilege for Gays to get married, I would think they can come up with their own unique concept and not take a religious one.

That doesn't mean the people themselves are 100% stupid or evil, as I believe there are many kinds of intelligence and that evil people do not really exist, only evil actions.
Click to expand...

Well that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.


Meaning in marriage cannot and should not be defined on an institutional level.
Click to expand...

Fine lets have everyone have civil unions, and leave marriage for the religious or those who want to be traditionalists.

It means many things to different people. The meaning in their marriage is in not actually undermined by the marriages of immoral people. If they believe that, they are projecting.
Click to expand...

What ever it is, marriage is a cultural religous concept it shouldnt be changed for a minorty.


I knew we would find an impasse there. Just remember that symbols aren't as important as real people.
Click to expand...

Symbols are very important sometime more important then men. The highest honor for a soldier was to carry the colors, the symbol of our great nation. A symbol of the blood spilled in the pursuit of freedom and independence. It is not just a flag it is the combined essence of our great nation.

Hell yeah they do.
Click to expand...
What?


If somebody finds dressing up like a cow fun, then more power to them. That sort of "stupidity" is inconsequential. But when their stupidity leads them to oppress others under the banner of democracy and religion, then it becomes an evil sort of stupidity.
Click to expand...

Well we obviously disagree, you have a right to your opinion and I to mine.
 
Apocalypse said:
You've missed my point.
It has nothing to do with the current population, it is unnatural in my opinion.
And legalizing gay marriage means that we look at Homosexuality as if it's the same as a female and a male kind of union.
Click to expand...

I'm sure churches won't see it the same, just as Mormons don't see non-temple marriages as the same, and just as religious people initially didn't for interracial marriages.

Your point is it's unnatural, but what if I were to tell you that natural has nothing to do with bad or good? Or perhaps you could explain to me what "natural" has to do with bad or good?
 
Marriage is more cultural than religious in my opinion.
Religion didn't invent marriage, it just applied religious laws to it when religion was invented.
 
LiveUninhibited said:
Your point is it's unnatural, but what if I were to tell you that natural has nothing to do with bad or good? Or perhaps you could explain to me what "natural" has to do with bad or good?
Click to expand...
If we wanted to live a fake life we'd give up our bodies and live in machines or an imaginative world.
Haven't you watched Matrix? :2razz:
 
OxymoronP said:
Marriage is not a right, and tou can deny privileges thats why they are privileges.
Click to expand...

Why don't you think marriage is a right? People have the right to form contracts, do they not?

Even if it weren't a right, you don't deny privileges on an arbitrary basis though. Driving is a privilege. Does that mean it would be okay to deny black people the right to drive? No.

Also is it really a privilege for Gays to get married, I would think they can come up with their own unique concept and not take a religious one.
Click to expand...

As you well know, marriage is strictly, or even primarily, a religious term these days.

Fine lets have everyone have civil unions, and leave marriage for the religious or those who want to be traditionalists.
Click to expand...

Yeah that'd be fine.

What ever it is, marriage is a cultural religous concept it shouldnt be changed for a minorty.
Click to expand...

This is what we call tyranny of the majority, and it's why we have equal protection clauses. Atheists call themselves married when they get married by a justice of the peace. That's why religious people will ask, "Oh what church did you get married at," in order to find out if the person is one of them and is married in the sense they believe in.

Symbols are very important sometime more important then men. The highest honor for a soldier was to carry the colors, the symbol of our great nation. A symbol of the blood spilled in the pursuit of freedom and independence. It is not just a flag it is the combined essence of our great nation.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that just sounds insane to me. I value people.

What?
Click to expand...

Initially forgot to delete one of your responses that I wasn't going to respond to.


Well we obviously disagree, you have a right to your opinion and I to mine.
Click to expand...

I didn't expect to change your opinion. If anybody's opinion were changed, they'd most likely be lurking and were on the fence.
 
Apocalypse said:
If we wanted to live a fake life we'd give up our bodies and live in machines or an imaginative world.
Haven't you watched Matrix? :2razz:
Click to expand...

A fake life? lol... I think it's a bit of a stretch to equate natural with genuine in this case.

Okay, let me put it this way. The technology that makes our lives better. It's not natural. Natural would be foraging in the forest with a tribe of hunter-gatherers and arguing with the other tribe whether your wind god can kick their rain god's ass, and proving who is right by throwing spears at them.

Take that a few steps further. I don't believe in an afterlife, so any pathway to a longer, better life or immortality would be good, natural or not. Most likely this would require us to do very unnatural things (no, not gay sex), even more extreme than mastering the manipulation of our DNA... though probably not in my lifetime. I will probably cease to exist someday.

That's all a bit off-topic. You come with the assumption that unnatural is bad, and I still don't get it. :)
 
Last edited:
LiveUninhibited said:
A fake life? lol... I think it's a bit of a stretch to equate natural with genuine in this case.

Okay, let me put it this way. The technology that makes our lives better. It's not natural. Natural would be foraging in the forest with a tribe of hunter-gatherers and arguing with the other tribe whether your wind god can kick their rain god's ass, and proving who is right by throwing spears at them.

Take that a few steps further. I don't believe in an afterlife, so any pathway to a longer, better life or immortality would be good, natural or not. Most likely this would require us to do very unnatural things (no, not gay sex), even more extreme than mastering the manipulation of our DNA... though probably not in my lifetime. I will probably cease to exist someday.

That's all a bit off-topic. You come with the assumption that unnatural is bad, and I still don't get it. :)
Click to expand...
Your analogies are way off the line.
By unnatural I've meant that homosexuality prevents the couple from reproducing their genes and creating new lives.
It is bad not simply because it is unnatural, but because it damages the circularity of life.

On a side note, the immortality thing is a whole different subject, and since there is no proof that science can make us immortal, I don't see why should we bother and debate about it.
 
Apocalypse said:
Your analogies are way off the line.
By unnatural I've meant that homosexuality prevents the couple from reproducing their genes and creating new lives.
It is bad not simply because it is unnatural, but because it damages the circularity of life.

On a side note, the immortality thing is a whole different subject, and since there is no proof that science can make us immortal, I don't see why should we bother and debate about it.
Click to expand...

So then you feel it is wrong or unnatural for infertile people to get married? They won't be reproducing.

Personally, I would rather the Mormons reproduce a bit less, seems like they wouldn't mind that the people they want to oppress reproduce a bit less too. :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom