Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

Many things used to be wrong that are accepted now. That doesn't mean there is a parallel between the two. Judging by the lack of rebuttal, Im going to go ahead and call this thread closed.

G.I. Joe said:

Many things used to be wrong that are accepted now. That doesn't mean there is a parallel between the two. Judging by the lack of rebuttal, Im going to go ahead and call this thread closed.

Click to expand...

"Lack of rebuttal"? Lack of rebuttal of what?

CaptainCourtesy said:

"Lack of rebuttal"? Lack of rebuttal of what?

Click to expand...

to my previous post. the only rebuttal ive gotten was someone saying "the civil rights movement is the same cos they were looking for something they didn't have, which makes them the same same as the sodomites"(paraphrasing of course). i don't consider that a valid counterpoint.

G.I. Joe said:

to my previous post. the only rebuttal ive gotten was someone saying "the civil rights movement is the same cos they were looking for something they didn't have, which makes them the same same as the sodomites"(paraphrasing of course). i don't consider that a valid counterpoint.

Click to expand...

I would agree that the civil rights argument is a poor argument. If you want to debate why same-sex marriage should be legalized, I would not go the civil rights/discrimination route; it's a loser. There is a far better argument's that win that debate each time.

CaptainCourtesy said:

I would agree that the civil rights argument is a poor argument. If you want to debate why same-sex marriage should be legalized, I would not go the civil rights/discrimination route; it's a loser. There is a far better argument's that win that debate each time.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. So, tell me then, why should gay marriage be legalized, despite the fact that the majority of Americans have spoken against it repeatedly?

G.I. Joe said:

Fair enough. So, tell me then, why should gay marriage be legalized, despite the fact that the majority of Americans have spoken against it repeatedly?

Click to expand...

Well first we must start with the reason the the government has a vested interest in legalizing marriage at all. There are several reasons for this:

1) Marriage promotes the positive rearing of children.
2) Marriage promotes a stable economic situation.
3) Marriage promotes a more stable social situation.
4) Marriage promotes increased physical/mental health.

There is plenty of research that shows that married couples produce healthier children, better economic and social situations, and improved mental and physical health.

So, now we know why government supports marriage, and we know that marriage improves the health and welfare both of the participants and their offspring, the support for gay marriage comes from the fact that it meets all of the above criteria. We also know from research that gay couples rear children as healthy as those reared from straight couples, and gay couples are proportionally as well off economically, stable socially, and both physically and mentally as healthy as their straight counterparts are vs. singles from each orientation.

With the congruence of these issues, and the demonstration that there is no difference between the benefits of straight and gay marriages, there is no legitimate argument to NOT legalize gay marriage...as long as one goes the route of THIS course of debate. This is the "Family" debate.

The only legitimate rebuttal to this is for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether...which in a sense, is a different debate altogether.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Well first we must start with the reason the the government has a vested interest in legalizing marriage at all. There are several reasons for this:

1) Marriage promotes the positive rearing of children.
2) Marriage promotes a stable economic situation.
3) Marriage promotes a more stable social situation.
4) Marriage promotes increased physical/mental health.

There is plenty of research that shows that married couples produce healthier children, better economic and social situations, and improved mental and physical health.

So, now we know why government supports marriage, and we know that marriage improves the health and welfare both of the participants and their offspring, the support for gay marriage comes from the fact that it meets all of the above criteria. We also know from research that gay couples rear children as healthy as those reared from straight couples, and gay couples are proportionally as well off economically, stable socially, and both physically and mentally as healthy as their straight counterparts are vs. singles from each orientation.

With the congruence of these issues, and the demonstration that there is no difference between the benefits of straight and gay marriages, there is no legitimate argument to NOT legalize gay marriage...as long as one goes the route of THIS course of debate. This is the "Family" debate.

The only legitimate rebuttal to this is for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether...which in a sense, is a different debate altogether.

Click to expand...

Ok, good post. Completely off base, but good.

Your argument is based on flawed logic. You say that because gay couples have been shown to be capable of offering stability to children means that their marriage is as legitimate as any other. And since you have come to this conclusion(a link to scientific data would be beneficial to your argument), then the government has no choice but to bestow the same rights to gay couples as straight couples, correct?

False.

Whether or not studies have shown that gay couples are capable of raising well-adjusted children(although many studies, plus common sense, show that kids need a mother AND father), is incidental. If the government is a representation of the will of the people, then gay marriage should not be legal. As I stated earlier, Prop 8 passed in the most liberal state in the union. The legalization of gay marriage would necessitate fascism. We don't want that, do we?

G.I. Joe said:

Why did you change the word "welp" to "help" in my post? That's weird........

Click to expand...

Oh haha sorry :mrgreen: I have Mozilla Firefox and it underlines all the misspelled words, I guess I changed it without realizing it was your quote. I apologize.

Anyway, are you going to respond to my post?

G.I. Joe said:

Ok, good post. Completely off base, but good.

Your argument is based on flawed logic. You say that because gay couples have been shown to be capable of offering stability to children means that their marriage is as legitimate as any other. And since you have come to this conclusion(a link to scientific data would be beneficial to your argument), then the government has no choice but to bestow the same rights to gay couples as straight couples, correct?

False.

Whether or not studies have shown that gay couples are capable of raising well-adjusted children(although many studies, plus common sense, show that kids need a mother AND father), is incidental. If the government is a representation of the will of the people, then gay marriage should not be legal. As I stated earlier, Prop 8 passed in the most liberal state in the union. The legalization of gay marriage would necessitate fascism. We don't want that, do we?

Click to expand...

My logic is solid and bulletproof. Your position is that if the people don't want to legalize marriage, then marriage should not be legalized. I'm not disagreeing with that. We live in a democratic society, where majority rules, regardless. But that is not the point of my position. Tell me, based on what I posted, WHY gay marriage should not be legalized, what, based on the information from my post, would be the rationale that "the people" might use. The "will of the people" is not a rationale.

Cilogy said:

Oh haha sorry :mrgreen: I have Mozilla Firefox and it underlines all the misspelled words, I guess I changed it without realizing it was your quote. I apologize.

Anyway, are you going to respond to my post?

Click to expand...

I've responded to you six ways to Sunday. The backbone of your argument is that a right is being withheld, and that since rights were withheld from people in the past and later overturned, that the same should happen with this issue. This is not sound logic. The mere fact that rights were given to people who were oppressed in the past does not mean that gays are owed any particular priveledge. By this logic, a number of different groups should be given the rights they feel they deserve. A good example would be the Nudist Group of America, who feel they should be granted the right to be nude in public at any time.

G.I. Joe said:

I've responded to you six ways to Sunday. The backbone of your argument is that a right is being withheld, and that since rights were withheld from people in the past and later overturned, that the same should happen with this issue. This is not sound logic. The mere fact that rights were given to people who were oppressed in the past does not mean that gays are owed any particular priveledge. By this logic, a number of different groups should be given the rights they feel they deserve. A good example would be the Nudist Group of America, who feel they should be granted the right to be nude in public at any time.

Click to expand...

Well ... that's not exactly what I am saying, but close. My point was that the two movements are similar, so given time, the movement will succeed.

Also, something I failed to mention last time was the fact that there are some rights that are given to some but not all based on a condition that cannot be regulated or restricted. (I'm sorry I keep bringing the Civil Rights Mvt. up again, I know that bothers you, but its the closest example for this post). The right to marry a person of a different race was not legal as a certain point, neither were many rights based on race. Its like saying you can't love this person and marry them because of how the person looks. In the case of anti- gay marriage, its like saying you can't love this person and marry them because of who the person loves. That's ridiculous to make that illegal.

Another very important thing I didn't bring up was that providing those rights to only certain people is hypocritical. If non-whites were not allowed to marry whites or vote or stand in this spot or what have you, then those strict rules should have been applied to everyone, no matter their race. In that same vein (I love that phrase) if only certain couples are not allowed to marry, then it should be disallowed for everyone, otherwise the essence of "American opportunity and freedom" is jeopardized. Its jeopardized every day when two people can't get married because of the nature of the marriage.

Why must those against gay marriage be allowed to enjoy a right while other Americans are not? The only relatively sound argument against this question is "its not American tradition," and even that argument is very weak. Because (again) interracial marriages were not "part of tradition," but magically! :shock: interracial marriages are legal now!

So this is the backbone of my post here: If we really want to fair and uphold "American freedom and fairness," then rights must always be based on an "everything or nothing" ideology. With regards to your argument about nudists, the U.S. does not give anyone the right be nude in public (I think, am I right?), therefore we should never give that right to any specific group. If some people were allowed to be nude in public based on their nature, then we should be allowing it for everyone. My point is that we somehow grant marriage to select couples but restrict to others, what the hell is that?

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...

What I think you meant to ask was: Would you vote to legalize same sex marriages.


Human beings have a sex not a gender.

Absolutely. People should be able to marry whomever they love, why not?

pro-bipartisan said:

Absolutely. People should be able to marry whomever they love, why not?

Click to expand...

Then you would be OK with three gay men being legally married?

What if to biological brothers wished to get married....is that OK with you?

What about a daughter marrying both her mom and dad?

Please tell me your definition of the word and state of marriage.

a777pilot said:

What I think you meant to ask was: Would you vote to legalize same sex marriages.


Human beings have a sex not a gender.

Click to expand...

Yet your profile on the left side of your posts says you gender is male. But according to you you have no gender.

Cilogy said:

Yet your profile on the left side of your posts says you gender is male. But according to you you have no gender.

Click to expand...

That is true. I am not responsible for the design of this site using the wrong word. I acquiesce to inaccuracies when no correct options are proffered.

a777pilot said:

That is true. I am not responsible for the design of this site using the wrong word. I acquiesce to inaccuracies when no correct options are proffered.

Click to expand...

Okay, so if that's true, then it's essentially what everyone else is doing when they refer to same gender marriages. I guess the rest of the world has yet to rise to your level of intellect.

But anyway what is the reason for why humans have no gender?

pro-bipartisan said:

Absolutely. People should be able to marry whomever they love, why not?

Click to expand...

rof Because people should not be allowed to marry just whomever they love.

Meh, another thread full of gay-marriage arguments and still nothing but talk about "rights" :roll:

Gay-marriage hasn't yet become about the family, so I'm not supporting it.

Cilogy said:

Okay, so if that's true, then it's essentially what everyone else is doing when they refer to same gender marriages. I guess the rest of the world has yet to rise to your level of intellect.

But anyway what is the reason for why humans have no gender?

Click to expand...

The reason humans, and animals for that matter, do not have a gender, is because the proper and traditional use of that word, "gender" was in the field of grammar. Due to the advent of PC reporting the word "gender" was purloined from the field of grammar to be substituted for the word "sex". It gave writing a softer touch. More PC, if you will.

Jerry said:

Meh, another thread full of gay-marriage arguments and still nothing but talk about "rights" :roll:

Gay-marriage hasn't yet become about the family, so I'm not supporting it.

Click to expand...

That is because we are talking about 'legalizing' same-sex marriages, with the optimal word being 'legalizing'. Marriage, from a legal standpoint, is simply a specialized contract allowing individuals to share their property in addition to committing themselves to each other. If two individuals wish to enter into a contract that does not violate the legal rights of any individuals outside of the contract, no third party has any business preventing them from doing so.

Now, from a cultural or religious standpoint, I don't particularly care what each individual person or Church chooses to call a same-sex marriage, but again, we're talking about a legal issue.

-NC

NortheastCynic said:

That is because we are talking about 'legalizing' same-sex marriages, with the optimal word being 'legalizing'. Marriage, from a legal standpoint, is simply a specialized contract allowing individuals to share their property in addition to committing themselves to each other. If two individuals wish to enter into a contract that does not violate the legal rights of any individuals outside of the contract, no third party has any business preventing them from doing so.

Now, from a cultural or religious standpoint, I don't particularly care what each individual person or Church chooses to call a same-sex marriage, but again, we're talking about a legal issue.

-NC

Click to expand...

"If two individuals wish to enter into a contract that does not violate the legal rights of any individuals outside of the contract, no third party has any business preventing them from doing so."

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.

NortheastCynic said:

That is because we are talking about 'legalizing' same-sex marriages, with the optimal word being 'legalizing'. Marriage, from a legal standpoint, is simply a specialized contract allowing individuals to share their property in addition to committing themselves to each other. If two individuals wish to enter into a contract that does not violate the legal rights of any individuals outside of the contract, no third party has any business preventing them from doing so.

Now, from a cultural or religious standpoint, I don't particularly care what each individual person or Church chooses to call a same-sex marriage, but again, we're talking about a legal issue.

-NC

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

In CA gays even have Domestic Partnership, where they can have all the same civil rights with their same-sex partner that opposite-sex partners have in marriage.

But that's still not good enough.

The situation in CA is conclusive proof that this is not about legal rights, but social legitimization, and the courts can't award that.

Jerry said:

In CA gays even have Domestic Partnership, where they can have all the same civil rights with their same-sex partner that opposite-sex partners have in marriage.

But that's still not good enough.

The situation in CA is conclusive proof that this is not about legal rights, but social legitimization, and the courts can't award that.

Click to expand...

[ame=http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155043]Butt Buddies - Clips - South Park Studios[/ame]