• 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
Lopettaa said:
So you are say that not give same sex marriages is injustice?
Click to expand...

Yes, they are being treated differently by our government arbitrarily.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Do you not feel that by denying same sex marriages, we are treating homosexuals as second class citizens?
Click to expand...

No, I do not feel like second class citizens.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Yes, they are being treated differently by our government arbitrarily.
Click to expand...

I do not agree with this. They be treaded like homosexuals.


tlmorg02 said:
So you are homosexual, and do not think homosexuals should be allowed to get married?
Click to expand...

I do not know about to be homosexual, I am still thinking about this. No, homosexuals should not be allowed to get married. It did not change anything in Finnland or Canada when this happen. It only give some political support during election.
 
Lopettaa said:
I do not agree with this. They be treaded like homosexuals.
Click to expand...

The thing homosexuals are more than anything else is people. We should treat them as just people, not as some separate class with separate rules.
 
Lopettaa said:
I do not agree with this. They be treaded like homosexuals.




I do not know about to be homosexual, I am still thinking about this. No, homosexuals should not be allowed to get married. It did not change anything in Finnland or Canada when this happen. It only give some political support during election.
Click to expand...

So are you against gay marriage, or gay marriage being used as a political tool?
 
Jerry said:
Yeah, I think gay-marriage should be created through legislation.

Got a problem with that?
Click to expand...

So then, you have a problem with how anti-miscegenation laws were struck down against popular opinion?

Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...

One would assume that assets would be distributed on an equal-per-person basis, except in cases of special pre-nuptial agreements that were notorized and presented at the time of adding a partner.

As for children, one would simply need a hierarchy of criteria. Given the premium put on college for having a good future, human capital would have to be the first criteria. Though we would want to consider the preference of the child, depending upon maturity, and biological ties.

I also don't really think the courts would be clogged because few people would choose to be polygamous. Our culture enshrines the "two become one" sort of idea. Good luck finding a lot of women interested in multiple-person marriages. I have known a person in exactly one successful 3-person relationship, so it can be done.

Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

Prove that marriage is only about raising children.

Jerry said:
A citizen and voter with the civil duty to stand up and demand that due process be respected.

Fine, great, no problem, let's do it, but it happens through due process or it doesn't happen at all.
Click to expand...

Very few civil rights advances happened through democratic (or even legislative) processes. They were mostly executive or judicial decisions based upon things like the equal protection clause.

joko104 said:
Do you say that most of those who oppose legalizing polygamy are also ignorant bigots and none of htem understand the basics of morality or logic?
Click to expand...

Ignorance on some level, usually. I wouldn't use words quite that strong for that issue. As others have said, it's not quite as simple as the gay marriage issue. But just look at the Mormons early in the days of their religion. We oppressed them for no good reason, largely due to their polygamous ways.

Baralis said:
I am all for gay marriages. But I admit the one aspect that I do not like is adoption. But that is an argument for another day.
Click to expand...

Legalizing gay marriage wouldn't necessarily mean they could adopt. I wouldn't mind if they adopt, but bear in mind that sex offenders can get married, but they certainly can't adopt.

Lopettaa said:
Call it exclusivity, tradition or what ever so why change it?
Click to expand...

To treat people equally under the law. Appeal to tradition is fallacy. Exclusivity is not critical for all marriages, it's just what most spouses demand of each other. There are open marriages and swingers out there.
 
Last edited:
tlmorg02 said:
So are you against gay marriage, or gay marriage being used as a political tool?
Click to expand...

I do not see the difference. The radical group use this as political tool to get same sex marriage in Canada as they try in California. When this success in Canada then they think of something else.

Redress said:
The thing homosexuals are more than anything else is people. We should treat them as just people, not as some separate class with separate rules.
Click to expand...

This is the life they choose. If I choose this life then I will have this separate rules. Homosexual and Hetrosexual are different. Yes we are all people but we have different religion, different education, different sex, different choose of life. Then we have different rules for this.
 
Lopettaa said:
This is the life they choose. If I choose this life then I will have this separate rules. Homosexual and Hetrosexual are different. Yes we are all people but we have different religion, different education, different sex, different choose of life. Then we have different rules for this.
Click to expand...

All indications are that being a homosexual is not something one chooses, but something one is.
 
Lopettaa said:
I do not see the difference. The radical group use this as political tool to get same sex marriage in Canada as they try in California. When this success in Canada then they think of something else.



This is the life they choose. If I choose this life then I will have this separate rules. Homosexual and Hetrosexual are different. Yes we are all people but we have different religion, different education, different sex, different choose of life. Then we have different rules for this.
Click to expand...

My point is that without the capability to get married, homosexuals are prevented from enjoying the benefits of marriage in this country.
 
Lopettaa said:
I do not see the difference. The radical group use this as political tool to get same sex marriage in Canada as they try in California. When this success in Canada then they think of something else.
Click to expand...

What social problems has gay marriage caused in Canada?


This is the life they choose. If I choose this life then I will have this separate rules. Homosexual and Hetrosexual are different. Yes we are all people but we have different religion, different education, different sex, different choose of life. Then we have different rules for this.
Click to expand...

You haven't proven it's a choice. But if we suppose it is, then I suppose one could say the same thing about somebody becoming a Christian. Now, if they lived in some Muslim countries, they would be punished for this. But I guess they made the wrong choice huh? I guess laws that treat Christians differently because they chose the wrong religion are totally just, by your logic?
 
LiveUninhibited said:
What social problems has gay marriage caused in Canada?




You haven't proven it's a choice. But if we suppose it is, then I suppose one could say the same thing about somebody becoming a Christian. Now, if they lived in some Muslim countries, they would be punished for this. But I guess they made the wrong choice huh? I guess laws that treat Christians differently because they chose the wrong religion are totally just, by your logic?
Click to expand...

There is a biological, physiological factor to homosexuality, no one can say it is a choice and prove it.
 
...........
 
Last edited:
Lopettaa said:
In question of marriages, my debate is homosexuals don't have there own children to make a family.
Click to expand...

This is false. Any number of gay people do in fact have children.
 
............
 
Last edited:
LiveUninhibited said:
So then, you have a problem with how anti-miscegenation laws were struck down against popular opinion?
Click to expand...

Hold on, have to Google "anti-miscegenation" to find out wtf you're talking about.....oh, you're talking about interracial marriage. It simply doesn't apply because interracial marriage shares nothing in common with gay-marriage.

LiveUninhibited said:
Prove that marriage is only about raising children.
Click to expand...

Why? That's not something I believe. Besides, you would first need to prove that there is a heterosexual-purity equivalent to the racial purity stance supporting anti-interracial marriage first.

LiveUninhibited said:
Very few civil rights advances happened through democratic (or even legislative) processes. They were mostly executive or judicial decisions based upon things like the equal protection clause.
Click to expand...

She asked, I answered, so you have no point.
 
Jerry said:
Hold on, have to Google "anti-miscegenation" to find out wtf you're talking about.....oh, you're talking about interracial marriage. It simply doesn't apply because interracial marriage shares nothing in common with gay-marriage.
Click to expand...

Sure they share something in common. In both cases, marriage was denied some one due to characteristics beyond their control. An interracial marriage ban and gay marriage ban are both discriminatory, and both are foolish.

See, lots in common.
 
Redress said:
Sure they share something in common. In both cases, marriage was denied some one due to characteristics beyond their control. An interracial marriage ban and gay marriage ban are both discriminatory, and both are foolish.

See, lots in common.
Click to expand...

Gays can marry gays, though....I mean, yeah sure the other gay has to be of the opposit sex, but they also have to be of age and unrelated...etc..so, so what?

They have nothing in common. Create gay-marriage if you wish, but it's not a civil rights issue.
 
Jerry said:
Gays can marry gays, though....I mean, yeah sure the other gay has to be of the opposit sex, but they also have to be of age and unrelated...etc..so, so what?

They have nothing in common. Create gay-marriage if you wish, but it's not a civil rights issue.
Click to expand...

When you have to twist meaning like that, it pretty much always means you are wrong, as you are in this case.
 
Redress said:
When you have to twist meaning like that, it pretty much always means you are wrong, as you are in this case.
Click to expand...

Jerry's right and he's not twisting meaning. This is why it is NOT a civil rights issue, but a family and personal well being issue.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Jerry's right and he's not twisting meaning. This is why it is NOT a civil rights issue, but a family and personal well being issue.
Click to expand...

I think he is actually. How about I rephrase abit to make it more clear and more accurate. Both interracial marriage bans and gay marriage bans deny people the ability to marry who they choose for no reason beyond societal discrimination.
 
Redress said:
I think he is actually. How about I rephrase abit to make it more clear and more accurate. Both interracial marriage bans and gay marriage bans deny people the ability to marry who they choose for no reason beyond societal discrimination.
Click to expand...

Please show where and why the government would have a stake in allowing people to marry who they want...for the sole reason of marrying who they want, no other factors may be included. You are talking about legalities, not moralities. Morally, I agree with you, but without some legal backbone for your argument, morals don't mean much.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Please show where and why the government would have a stake in allowing people to marry who they want...for the sole reason of marrying who they want, no other factors may be included. You are talking about legalities, not moralities. Morally, I agree with you, but without some legal backbone for your argument, morals don't mean much.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing from a legal standpoint. My whole stance on gay marriage is we need to agree it needs to happen, and then do what needs to be done to make it legal. I am not a lawyer, so the legal stuff is not my department.

With that said, there are clear and distinct similarities between anti-miscegenation laws and gay marriage currently. To say they have no similarity is patently false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom