Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

Jerry said:

Are you black?

Click to expand...

Entirely irrelevant and none of your business.

Arcana XV said:

The other lesbian can adopt her partner's biological children. The end result is one couple with children. Isn't that what some of you are saying marriage is all about to begin with, providing a stable environment for the little darlings? What does it matter how they were conceived?

Click to expand...

How many lesbian couples are doing that?

Jerry said:

How many lesbian couples are doing that?

Click to expand...

I have given you numbers and documentation on just that twice now Jerry.

Arcana XV said:

The other lesbian can adopt her partner's biological children. The end result is one couple with children.

Click to expand...

Yeah, children with a stranger's genes in them.
Would you want a stranger's genes in your baby? :2razz:

Isn't that what some of you are saying marriage is all about to begin with, providing a stable environment for the little darlings?

Click to expand...

Some of me has never said such a thing.
Perhaps it was some of you who said it out loud and you got confused. :shrug:

What does it matter how they were conceived?

Click to expand...

I already stated in my first post that this is my own opinion, and I'd avoid voting on this issue.
It matters to me because I see homosexuality as a block to reproduction.

Redress said:

Personal opinion only. I guess it would depend on how you define the term homophobe. To me, it is anyone with an irrational desire to not grant gays full rights, including the right to marry and serve openly in the military.

Click to expand...

There is no right to marry, never was, the fact is that the government got into the business of recognizing the institution years ago, and some places took it to the extreme of arresting religious leaders who dared to perform unsanctioned ceremonies on things like tax evasion, etc.

Some people, like myself, have seen where movements take things to extremes and harass those who don't fall in line with said movement, think Perez Hilton or any militant political group, and those people are a big part of the reluctance of people, especially members of a religion that doesn't recognize the movement's goals to vote yes.

All of that being said, I did vote yes on the statewide ballot initiative in Louisiana to legalize gay marriage as a straight man. I had nothing to lose or gain from my vote and was in a very miniscule 20% yea vote and the issue is dead currently, I personally don't like the government getting into the licensing and recognition business of marriage, but am willing to vote to change the system if I think something is unfair.

Apocalypse said:

Yeah, children with a stranger's genes in them.
Would you want a stranger's genes in your baby? :2razz:
Some of me has never said such a thing.
Perhaps it was some of you who said it out loud and you got confused. :shrug:
I already stated in my first post that this is my own opinion, and I'd avoid voting on this issue.
It matters to me because I see homosexuality as a block to reproduction.

Click to expand...

Would I want a stranger's genes in my baby? I don't know. I'm not infertile. I've never really had to ponder that dilemma. I have my own biological child. If I hadn't been able to produce ovaries I might have considered using another woman's. My ex-husband might have considered using another man's sperm. It's what infertile couples often do. Or we might have gone one step further and adopted a complete stranger. Imagine that.

I understand your instinctual objection. I'm not judging you or anything. I'm just showing you that in this day and age of medical miracles there is no such thing as a block to reproduction.

Arcana XV said:

Would I want a stranger's genes in my baby? I don't know. I'm not infertile. I've never really had to ponder that dilemma. I have my own biological child. If I hadn't been able to produce ovaries I might have considered using another woman's. My ex-husband might have considered using another man's sperm. It's what infertile couples often do. Or we might have gone one step further and adopted a complete stranger. Imagine that.

I understand your instinctual objection. I'm not judging you or anything. I'm just showing you that in this day and age of medical miracles there is no such thing as a block to reproduction.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I got an image of you pulling up to a pedestrian and throwing him in your trunk....

Jerry said:

I'm sorry, I got an image of you pulling up to a pedestrian and throwing him in your trunk....

Click to expand...

Well, what do you expect? The adoption agency turned me down.

CaptainCourtesy said:

I'm not arguing the position. All I'm saying is how those opposed would argue it. I agree with you.

Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter how they would argue it if their argument is illogical, which it clearly is. You have to remember these are the same people who believe in an invisible man in the sky.

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. 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. In order to change the law, you have to have cause. The discrimination argument doesn't cut it because gay folks can already marry...just not someone of the same sex. This is why the family argument will win because there is plenty of research to support it. One cannot argue the discrimination position with any valid research. A gay man can still marry a woman will always stop the argument dead in the water.

Click to expand...

But there was a time when it was illegal for a white man to marry a black woman and vice versa and the reason that it is no longer illegal is because people realized it was a patent violation of equal protection rights under the law. It's a perfect example of something that was once illegal, like gay marriage is in some places today, an which became legal because it was a basic violation of guaranteed Constitutional rights. We guarantee equal rights for all men (and by extension women), not white men, not straight men, *ALL* men. To give rights to one group and not to another is a basic violation of our guaranteed rights. That's about the best cause you can find.

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...

Wrong, it's not. Marriage is a legal contract, any two people who can enter into a legal contract ought to be able to do so. A dog cannot legally enter into a contract, nor can a child. I don't know who you've debated who has failed to point out this very simple fact, but this is simply not a pothole, it's a basic fact.

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...

I've just shredded your claims, do try again.

Separate but equal wasn't. It was stupid 120 years ago and it's stupid now. They must be treated the same under the law.

Click to expand...

But they're not. If a straight person can choose who they wish to marry, assuming the other person agrees and reciprocates, and be married under the eyes of the law, then to tell a gay person that they cannot choose the person they wish to marry and likewise have the same right is discriminatory. Telling them that sure, they can be married, just not to the person they want to marry, is an absurd argument. It's like saying everyone can be married, but only to the people their parents choose for them to marry. That was the custom in many places and it was struck down.

There is nothing to be gained from the discrimination argument alone and there are far to many solid refutations.

Click to expand...

Too bad you haven't presented a single one.

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...

Why change names when we already have a perfectly usable word for it already? Why play semantical games? Marriage hasn't been a primarily religious term for many, many years anyhow, you can walk down all the aisles in all the churches you want, you're not married until you get that piece of paper from the state. The ceremonies don't mean squat, it's the license that matters.

The religions can just grow up and get over it. They do not "own" the word.

Arcana XV said:

Nice dodge. Who said the women in my story were not part of a couple?

Straight couples make the choice never to have children. Homosexual couples make the choice to have them.

Which one is more natural?

Given the enormous advances in reproductive medicine, the "unnatural" argument really doesn't hold any water anymore. People who really want children will have them and those who don't won't. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation anymore.

Click to expand...

Lots of straight couples have the choice made for them as well. My sister and her husband will never have children, she has been told by her doctor that if she ever became pregnant, she may end up paralyzed due to major back problems. Therefore they will *NEVER* have children. Should we forcibly remove their marriage license now?

Jerry said:

That's right, we can create gay-marriage just as we made a right for women to vote: through the legislative branch and the legislative exclusively.

The fact that gays are trying to force their religious beliefs onto the public through judicial fiat only demonstrates an extreme disrespect for the rule of law, favoring the bible over constitution.

Click to expand...

Jerry, you're full of it. There are all kinds of things that people have equality in today that are not guaranteed in the Constitution. The Constitution was never intended to be a static document. We can't say "only white men can drive a car because the Constitution never says we can't make that rule", that's idiotic.

Are you really telling us that's what you think? :roll:

Anybody willing to vote for for legal marriage for gay couples should also be willing to vote for legal polygamy marriages.

lincoln said:

Anybody willing to vote for for legal marriage for gay couples should also be willing to vote for legal polygamy marriages.

Click to expand...

And if they can figure out the legal problems with them, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, our entire legal system is based around a partnership that is disolved when one partner leaves. When you have multiple partners, deciding who gets what when someone leaves or someone joins, custody issues for multiple parents, etc. would be a legal nightmare. Come up with workable solutions and I'll be the first one to vote for legal polygamous marriages.

lincoln said:

Anybody willing to vote for for legal marriage for gay couples should also be willing to vote for legal polygamy marriages.

Click to expand...

I am.


As long as the parties involved in any marriage are human, of age, and capable- I don't give a damn who gets married. Why should I?

lincoln said:

Anybody willing to vote for for legal marriage for gay couples should also be willing to vote for legal polygamy marriages.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The laws don't need to be changed all that much, if at all, to include gay marriage, as the arrangement still involves just two people. When more than two people are involved, especially if there are inheritance and custody issues involved, it all becomes way, way more complicated.

Cephus said:

And if they can figure out the legal problems with them, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, our entire legal system is based around a partnership that is disolved when one partner leaves. When you have multiple partners, deciding who gets what when someone leaves or someone joins, custody issues for multiple parents, etc. would be a legal nightmare. Come up with workable solutions and I'll be the first one to vote for legal polygamous marriages.

Click to expand...

Well, there are business relationships that envolve more than two parties in legal contracts. A polygamous relationship could be approached in similar fashion.

Arcana XV said:

Not necessarily.

Click to expand...

But it would become more necessary to recognize polygamy legally if gay marriage is recognized legally.

Why approve of one minority group and not another?

joko104 said:

Would you vote to legalizing same gender marriages if the issue was on an election ballot and you could vote in the election?

Only two options are given as that is how an election would work.

Click to expand...

I do not believe in state-sanctioned marriages for anyone, so, no, I wouldn't vote to legalize another form of it lest I become a hypocrite.

Cephus said:

Jerry, you're full of it. There are all kinds of things that people have equality in today that are not guaranteed in the Constitution. The Constitution was never intended to be a static document. We can't say "only white men can drive a car because the Constitution never says we can't make that rule", that's idiotic.

Are you really telling us that's what you think? :roll:

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think gay-marriage should be created through legislation.

Got a problem with that?

lincoln said:

But it would become more necessary to recognize polygamy legally if gay marriage is recognized legally.

Why approve of one minority group and not another?

Click to expand...

As Cephus said, if the legal complications arising from more than two people entering a marriage contract are ironed out, I see no reason to not allow it.

joko104 said:

Would you vote to legalizing same gender marriages if the issue was on an election ballot and you could vote in the election?

Only two options are given as that is how an election would work.

Click to expand...

Same sex marriage is legal in Canada. If it were not and I could vote, I would vote against this. Same sex couples can get equal rights with civil unions. Why must they call it marriage?

lincoln said:

Well, there are business relationships that envolve more than two parties in legal contracts. A polygamous relationship could be approached in similar fashion.

Click to expand...

Which would be fine if when a partner left a business, they got to take a certain percentage of the business with them, but that's just not how it necessarily works. Like I said, there may be a solution to these questions, we just haven't had it worked out yet. My issue with it is not that I care if the polygamous get married, I just don't want to see the courts even more clogged with messy divorces for which we have no idea how to solve.

Jerry said:

Yeah, I think gay-marriage should be created through legislation.

Click to expand...

Not at all, so long as it is identical in every way to heterosexual marriage, including using the same terminology. Works for me.

Cephus said:

Not at all, so long as it is identical in every way to heterosexual marriage, including using the same terminology. Works for me.

Click to expand...

Right, so long as we understand each other.

Gays want to marry? Fine, great, pull up a chair; but gay-marriage will be what hetero-marriage is for, raising children, and NOT the expression of individual rights, AND gay marriage will be established through perfectly constitutional means, not the court system.