• 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
Yes, it does make your statement false. The history of marriage may be rooted in children, but it is clearly not used only to benefit children today, neither in law or practice. No state requires the intention of children, none bar infertile couples from marrying, and millions of people marry knowing they won't or can't have children. You are wrong both de jure and de facto.

This has nothing to do with my reply to you.

You said...

"You may stick to your ridiculous extremist position, but nobody else is going to go for it. Marriage isn't just for children for many thousands of people. Deal with it." - misterman

The part marked in red is as I said a fabrication, lie, not true.

I responded with this...

"Your rant makes it no less true that many of us do feel exactly that way.

So you can say "nobody else is going to go for it" and I can say it is a fabrication at best.
" - Blackdog

Now you can continue with your rant that has nothing to do with what I said in that statement. :2wave:
 
so Jerry, am i to take you're also against single parents?

That is nothing but a red herring. Has nothing to do with what he is saying about the family and marraige.
 
so Jerry, am i to take you're also against single parents?

Evidence shows that children do better in 2 parent homes then single parent homes. I believe mankind discovered this early on, which is why we created 'marriage' and gave special benefits to couples raising children.
 
That is nothing but a red herring. Has nothing to do with what he is saying about the family and marraige.

but it does, if two parents not having children is immoral or whatever his opinion of it is, then shouldn't the reverse be true, and that he should oppose children outside of wedlock?
 
but it does, if two parents not having children is immoral or whatever his opinion of it is, then shouldn't the reverse be true, and that he should oppose children outside of wedlock?

It's no secret that having children out of wedlock is taboo to social conservatives.
 
When it comes to two consenting adults and a union/contract, the state is not in the business of ‘allowing’ anything.
The state should not be our ruler, we rule our own lives.
 
This has nothing to do with my reply to you.

You said...

"You may stick to your ridiculous extremist position, but nobody else is going to go for it. Marriage isn't just for children for many thousands of people. Deal with it." - misterman

The part marked in red is as I said a fabrication, lie, not true.

I responded with this...

"Your rant makes it no less true that many of us do feel exactly that way.

So you can say "nobody else is going to go for it" and I can say it is a fabrication at best.
" - Blackdog

Now you can continue with your rant that has nothing to do with what I said in that statement. :2wave:

You can tell they're light-wights because they're not confronting my understanding of sociology with a superior understanding of the same science. They're grandstanding and asserting their own opinion as if opinion counters empirical fact.

Just let them rant, save your energy for when a heavy weight, educated opponent shows up.
 
It's no secret that having children out of wedlock is taboo to social conservatives.

Hey, Jerry, do you have parents or grandparents who are still alive? Do they know that if, God forbid, their spouse ever dies, you are adamantly opposed to letting them remarry, and you'd like to make it illegal, because they don't plan to have children or won't be able to?
 
but it does, if two parents not having children is immoral or whatever his opinion of it is, then shouldn't the reverse be true, and that he should oppose children outside of wedlock?

Again this has nothing to do with his position on family being validated. That is what this whole thing is about.

His argument against gay marraige has always been founded in it's not about the family. And for most gays it is not from what I have seen and read. It is about validating being gay in our society. It has very little to do with the family or the raising of children by the family.

The family unit is the corner stone of our civilization. It was not until the last 50 years or so the family unit has been attacked and brought to it's knees with the advent of quickie divorces and marriages etc. Marraige is or was hard work, it is not easy and was never meant to be. It used to be something not to be entered into lightly. Now people do it for fun and then divorce the next day. Brittany Spears anyone?
 
Last edited:
When it comes to two consenting adults and a union/contract, the state is not in the business of ‘allowing’ anything.
The state should not be our ruler, we rule our own lives.

Perhaps you're right, but in some cultures where marriage is structured differently, marriage still serves the same purpose there as it does here. Also, in cultures where there is no codified law to make contracts, marriage still serves the same function as it does in cultures with codified law.

Marriage as a technical contract is not an element of cultural universal.

I would also like to point out that the legal institution of marriage in the US is not a private contract; it is a municipal license issued by the state.
 
Last edited:
This has nothing to do with my reply to you.

Oops, sorry, wrong reply.

"You may stick to your ridiculous extremist position, but nobody else is going to go for it. Marriage isn't just for children for many thousands of people. Deal with it." - misterman

The part marked in red is as I said a fabrication, lie, not true.

Nope. Not a single state requires children for marriage, and thousands of people get married every year knowing they will not, or cannot, have children.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Now, lay off the "lie" word, it's over the top.
 
Oops, sorry, wrong reply.

Apology accepted.

Nope. Not a single state requires children for marriage, and thousands of people get married every year knowing they will not, or cannot, have children.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Now, lay off the "lie" word, it's over the top.

Irrelevant to my statement. People do go for it, I am one of them. That alone makes your statement not true.

Your spin on it makes no difference.
 
Oops, sorry, wrong reply.



Nope. Not a single state requires children for marriage, and thousands of people get married every year knowing they will not, or cannot, have children.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Now, lay off the "lie" word, it's over the top.

You keep citing people who have no business getting married as though their abuse of the system simultaneously justifies that same abuse.

According to you, if you can abuse it, it is therefore ok to abuse it. Do you apply this attitude to women also? If you can rape her it is therefore ok to rape her? Everyone else is raping her, so why not, right?
 
Last edited:
Irrelevant to my statement. People do go for it, I am one of them. That alone makes your statement not true.

Bad logic.

Plenty of people don't go for it, nor does any law anywhere in the U.S. That means your view is far from universal. You can say that marriage is only about children for some people, but you cannot say marriage is always about children. It clearly isn't for many couples, nor for any state law.
 
Again this has nothing to do with his position on family being validated. That is what this whole thing is about.

His argument against gay marraige has always been founded in it's not about the family. And for most gays it is not from what I have seen and read. It is about validating being gay in our society. It has very little to do with the family or the raising of children by the family.

The family unit is the corner stone of our civilization. It was not until the last 50 years or so the family unit has been attacked and brought to it's knees with the advent of quickie divorces and marriages etc. Marraige is or was hard work, it is not easy and was never meant to be.

most marriages are not about having a family, most people get married becasue they love each other, you ask newlyweds if they got married for the purpose of procreation, and i bet they'll say no, they got married because it is a state sanctioned acknowledgement of their love and willingness to live together, children are an optional extra.
 
You keep citing people who have no business getting married as though their abuse of the system simultaneously justifies that same abuse.

You are welcome to insist that marriage should only be about children.

You may not claim that this is a widely held view, or legally accepted, or a tradition. It clearly is none of those things.

The burden is on you to convince the many, many people who don't marry for children that they are abusing the right to marry, including possibly your own family members who might remarry after divorce or death of a spouse. Good luck with that.
 
Bad logic.

Plenty of people don't go for it, nor does any law anywhere in the U.S. That means your view is far from universal. You can say that marriage is only about children for some people, but you cannot say marriage is always about children. It clearly isn't for many couples, nor for any state law.

That is all well and good but it still have nothing at all to do with my comment about you making a false statement.
 
most marriages are not about having a family, most people get married becasue they love each other, you ask newlyweds if they got married for the purpose of procreation, and i bet they'll say no, they got married because it is a state sanctioned acknowledgement of their love and willingness to live together, children are an optional extra.

And this my friend is a huge part of the problem.

And they wonder why the divorce rate is at 50%.
 
Jerry said:
I would also like to point out that the legal institution of marriage in the US is not a private contract; it is a municipal license issued by the state.
The problem is that the state should not be in the business of granting us permission to enter into a union.
 
That is all well and good but it still have nothing at all to do with my comment about you making a false statement.

I did not make a false statement.

The law and the facts are both on my side.
 
You are welcome to insist that marriage should only be about children.

You may not claim that this is a widely held view, or legally accepted, or a tradition. It clearly is none of those things.

The burden is on you to convince the many, many people who don't marry for children that they are abusing the right to marry, including possibly your own family members who might remarry after divorce or death of a spouse. Good luck with that.

I don't need to convince anyone, globally they've been doing it since Man has had civilization.
 
The problem is that the state should not be in the business of granting us permission to enter into a union.

Yes, that's pretty clear from this thread. That's the best answer. Otherwise we submit to controlling loons who want to run our lives their particular way.
 
Back
Top Bottom