• 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!

Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

  • yes,-- everybody should be treated equal

    Votes: 69 74.2%

  • No--some people should recieve preferential treatment

    Votes: 24 25.8%
  • Total voters
    93
Seems to me over the last few decades, every time a special interest group gets any type of preferential treatment, then somebody else has to give something up. --I say make Laws across the board affect all citizens equally. With no discrimination for anything, be it Race, color, sex ,(or lack of) National origin, Heights, weight eye color or the length of ones Johnson. Treat all people equally under the law, and there will be no futher need for any special interest groups. --then we can use our limited resources to tackle serious problems, that require us to act together as a "United" people, not one made up of many competing sub-groups.
 
They should be allowed to marry single, willing people of marrigale age and of the opposiote sex, just like everyone else. The argument that they have reduced rights is, of course, absurd.
 
Last edited:
Oftencold said:
They should be allowed to marry single, willing people of marrigale age and of the opposiote sex, just like everyone else. The argument that they have reduced rights is, of course, absurd.
Click to expand...

So you agree with gender discrimination.....
 
Tsunami said:
I don't see why the government sponsors marriage anyways. If it is indeed a religious institution then the government should have no part in it. If it isn't a religious institution then anyone who wants the legal benefits of marriage should be able to do it without discrimination. Marriage benefits, whether gay or not, are discriminatory to single people.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree, but what is wrong with a legally recognized union that comes with financial arrangements like default inheritance? (I'm not talking about things like special tax breaks, only special rights afforded the partners when it comes to decisions regarding and benefits from each other.)
 
What discrimination? Both genders are allowed to marry their opposites, thus no discrimination exists in this case.

For the record though, I accept a few legal distinctions, which in general reflect nature, such as men in combat, and women being barred from jobs that incur a large increase in the likelihood of birth defects. (The same for men, if they are more susceptible to similar effect from workplace hazards.)
 
Oftencold said:
What discrimination? Both genders are allowed to marry their opposites, thus no discrimination exists in this case.
Click to expand...

Try replacing a few words and see how it flows:

"What discrimination? All races are allowed to marry their own kind, thus no discrimination exists in this case."
 
epieikeia said:
Try replacing a few words and see how it flows:

"What discrimination? All races are allowed to marry their own kind, thus no discrimination exists in this case."
Click to expand...
Why would I choose to replace my words with something so completely unrelated?

The physical differences between races are historically and biologically transient, and superficial. The physical differences between the genders are profound and persistent.

Further, while the racial differences are a continuum, the gender differences represent a polarity. This means that in many ways, they are incomparable.
 
CriticalThought said:
Are you really thinking this through?

Let's consider the kind of choices that married people can make for one another. If you are in the hospital your partner usually gets to decide who does and does not get to see you. If one partner is in the hospital on life support then the other partner can decide to pull the plug. Once you are dead, then your partner has first say in where they bury you. If one partner trashes their credit, then both partner's suffer. If one partner falls in love with someone, then there are the costs of divorce. If one partner dies, then the other partner is usually first in line to inherit their estate. If there are kids in the picture from previous relationships/marriage, then even if the other partner is not biologically related to them, he/she can challenge for visitation/custody.

You really think a lot of straight guys are going to trust other straight guys with those kind of decisions?

There is a reason that countries that have legalized same sex marriage have not had straight guys lining up around the street to marry each other. It's not like the countries can effectively regulate it, but they don't really have to because despite the tax benefits, there are not many straight guys who would trust other straight guys with decisions that could profoundly affect their lives.
Click to expand...
the voice of reason.
 
CriticalThought said:
Are you really thinking this through?

Let's consider the kind of choices that married people can make for one another. If you are in the hospital your partner usually gets to decide who does and does not get to see you. If one partner is in the hospital on life support then the other partner can decide to pull the plug. Once you are dead, then your partner has first say in where they bury you. If one partner trashes their credit, then both partner's suffer. If one partner falls in love with someone, then there are the costs of divorce. If one partner dies, then the other partner is usually first in line to inherit their estate. If there are kids in the picture from previous relationships/marriage, then even if the other partner is not biologically related to them, he/she can challenge for visitation/custody.

You really think a lot of straight guys are going to trust other straight guys with those kind of decisions?

There is a reason that countries that have legalized same sex marriage have not had straight guys lining up around the street to marry each other. It's not like the countries can effectively regulate it, but they don't really have to because despite the tax benefits, there are not many straight guys who would trust other straight guys with decisions that could profoundly affect their lives.
Click to expand...
Just for the record, you are making profoundly stereotypical statements about heterosexual men.
 
Oftencold said:
Why would I choose to replace my words with something so completely unrelated?

The physical differences between races are historically and biologically transient, and superficial. The physical differences between the genders are profound and persistent.

Further, while the racial differences are a continuum, the gender differences represent a polarity. This means that in many ways, they are incomparable.
Click to expand...

I was only comparing the claims of absence of discrimination. If you now want to explain why discrimination between genders is more justifiable than among races, that's another argument.
 
There's no reason why same sex couples can't get married. Marriage is a government contract which comes with benefits and abilities not easily obtained via other contract, including end of life decisions, hospital visitation, etc. Same sex couples should be allowed to marry. The problem is that this is a terrific talking point for the parties; so they'll both do their best to not widely pass same sex marriage in order to keep it on the list of things to bitch about.
 
I had to vote no because marraige is between a woman and a man - but I agree gay couples should have all the rights and priveledges of a heterosexual couple, just not as a "marraige". A civil union, or whatever else you want to call it is fine - but it's not a "marraige".
 
Ikari said:
including end of life decisions,
Click to expand...

Will
Power of attorney



hospital visitation, etc
Click to expand...

Power of attorney


[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_attorney]Power of attorney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Types of powers of attorney

A power of attorney may be special or limited to one specified act or type of act, or it may be general, and whatever it defines as its scope is what a court will enforce as being its scope. (It may also be limited as to time.) Under the common law, a power of attorney becomes ineffective if its grantor dies or becomes "incapacitated," meaning unable to grant such a power, because of physical injury or mental illness, for example, unless the grantor (or principal) specifies that the power of attorney will continue to be effective even if the grantor becomes incapacitated (but any such power ends when the grantor dies). This type of power of attorney is called a durable power of attorney.

In some jurisdictions, a durable power of attorney can also be a "Health Care Power of Attorney", an advance directive which empowers the attorney-in-fact (proxy) to make health-care decisions for the grantor, up to and including terminating care and "pulling the plug" on machines keeping a critically and terminally ill patient alive. Health care decisions include the power to consent, refuse consent or withdraw consent to any type of medical care, treatment, service or procedure.[2] A living will is a written statement of a person's health care and medical wishes but does not appoint another person to make health care decisions. [3] New York State has enacted a Health Care Proxy law that requires a separate document be prepared appointing one as your health care agent.

People with mental illness may prepare Psychiatric Advance Directives (PADs in some U.S. states) or Ulysses contracts as they are called in Canada. Ulysses contracts are powers of attorney that enable a patient to dictate preferences for care before becoming incapacitated by recurring mental illness. Although they are not used very often, there is speculation in some of the academic literature as to whether or not these advance directives are empowering for people with mental illness (Journal of Ethics in Mental Health 2006-1).

In some U.S. states and other jurisdictions it is possible to grant a springing power of attorney; i.e., a power that only takes effect after the incapacity of the grantor or some other definite future act or circumstance. After such incapacitation the power is identical to a durable power, but cannot be invoked before the incapacity. This may be used to allow a spouse or family member to manage the grantor's affairs in case illness or injury makes the grantor unable to act, without the power of an attorney-in-fact before the incapacity occurs. If a springing power is used, care should be given to specify exactly how and when the power springs into effect. As the result of privacy legislation in the U.S., medical doctors will often not reveal information relating to capacity of the principal unless the power of attorney specifically authorizes them to do so.

Determining whether or not the principal is "disabled" enough for the power of attorney to "spring" into action is a formal process. Springing powers of attorney are not automatic, and institutions may refuse to work with the attorney-in-fact. Disputes are then resolved in court, which is of course a costly, and usually unwanted, procedure.

Unless the power of attorney has been made irrevocable (by its own terms or by some legal principle), the grantor may revoke the power of attorney by telling the attorney-in-fact it is revoked; however, if the principal does not inform third parties and it is reasonable for the third parties to rely upon the power of attorney being in force, the principal may still be bound by the acts of the agent, though the agent may also be liable for such unauthorized acts.

Many standardized forms are available for various kinds of powers of attorney, and many organizations provide them for their clients, customers, patients, employees, or members. In some states statutory power of attorney forms are available. Some individuals have used powers of attorney to unscrupulously waste or steal the assets of vulnerable individuals such as the elderly (see elder abuse).

Robert's Rules of Order notes that proxy voting involves granting a power of attorney. The term "proxy" refers to both the power of attorney itself and the person to whom it is granted.[4]
[edit] Power of attorney in finance

In financial situations wherein a principal requests a securities broker to perform extensive investment functions on the principal's behalf, independent of the principal's advice, power of attorney must be formally granted to the broker to trade in the principal's account. This rule also applies to principals who instruct their brokers to perform certain specific trades and principals who trust their brokers to perform certain trades in the principal's best interest.
 
Let me get this in, before I loose cable again.---I think Marriage should be between Males and females. --but if it is going to me Legal for Same Sex couples to marry,then it should not be a requirement they they should be required to be gay to do so. That is sexual discrimination. . And that would be nobodies business. Hetero couples are not required to discuss their Sex acts, or lack there of, to be married. So neither should same sex couples. If two people of the same sex want to get married, their "sex acts', should not be an issue for discussion.
 
The moment people share vows to be married to each other, they are married. The government doesn't make them married, they make themselves married.

Who cares what it's called. I'm fluggarded to my wife. Some people would say we are married, but I feel it is best described as the sacred vows of fluggarding.
 
Tucker Case said:
The moment people share vows to be married to each other, they are married. The government doesn't make them married, they make themselves married.

Who cares what it's called. I'm fluggarded to my wife. Some people would say we are married, but I feel it is best described as the sacred vows of fluggarding.
Click to expand...

I care what it's called.
 
Tucker Case said:
So are you saying that you'd pass laws to prevent gay people from saying they are married? OR against me and my wife saying we are fluggarded?
Click to expand...
the married part is not the problem. It is when you decide later to separate, that the Law gets involved. That is when one needs to have all their dots, dotted, and Ts crossed. I recommend a "Pre-Nup" for any one getting into a long term relationship, just for mutual protection. Gender makes no difference to me. It's a legal matter.
 
Tucker Case said:
So are you saying that you'd pass laws to prevent gay people from saying they are married? OR against me and my wife saying we are fluggarded?
Click to expand...
And are you saying a Same sex Couple, must have a Gay sexual relation ship, to get married?? why would that be a requirement. what if two guys just want the protections and benefits other married people have, with out a sex act even entering into it.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Will
Power of attorney

Power of attorney
Click to expand...

Or the marriage contract. It's a government issued contract. You can't discriminate on the basis of sexual preference. Power of attorney can be done by other people as well, there's nothing that says that has to be your spouse. In fact, many people have power of attorney invested in other people. There's nothing wrong with allowing them to marry, it's a contract that comes with certain perks and abilities not easily obtained through separate contract.
 
Tucker Case said:
So are you saying that you'd pass laws to prevent gay people from saying they are married? OR against me and my wife saying we are fluggarded?
Click to expand...

Yes on the prior, no on the latter. What you call you and your wife's relationship is not the governments issue. What the government recognizes and defines as "marriage" certainly is. If gay couples want to call their ceremony a "marriage", yes I would pass a law against that.

If they want to call it anything else, I would not have a problem with it.

Bear in mind, that a "civil union" for a gay couple would have all the rights and privileges of a "marriage" of a straight couple, just not use the word "marriage".
 
That's pretty dumb. Why is it terrible for same sex couples to be married? What possible basis do you have to want to make a law against their usage of a word if you're willing to functionally grant them the exercise of their right to contract?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom