• 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
Zyphlin said:
I know you brought it up as a legal construct.

It was just erroneous and wrong as one. Its NOT relevant.

I've never denied that religion is a federally protected class. Polygamists have the right to be married, and marry the person they choose. However, they can't enter into a POLYGAMIST marriage under the law. This is not a bias against a religion, as marriage under the law has nothing to do with religion. This has to do with the structure of the law and the state interest, which there isn't for polygamist marriages.

If one is part of a religion that believes its justified to kill a woman if she is raped they can not go forth and kill a woman and then get away with it because its allowed in their religion...because its not allowed by the LAW. They are not being discriminated against because of their religion, because the law is secular.

Polygamists aren't discriminated against because of their religion, because the law has nothing to do with religion. This is not an analogy to homosexuals, because the law specifically DOES have something to do with the sex of the individual.

The only way religion, and thus religious expression, could be violated is if the religion...which is a private institution...is infringed upon in some form.

Sorry Jerry, you're just showing your ignorance of this subject here.
Click to expand...

So you're ok with discriminating against federally protected classes you don't agree with.

..and yes gay 'marriage and polygamy are related per the 14th amendment and every single 'equal rights' argument pro-gm has ever made.

You might want to set aside your arrogance and learn a thing or two before accusing me of being ignorant :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
No it is not. If this were the case civil unions with all the benefits of marraige would be acceptable.

This is about legitimizing the gay lifestyle, period.

In CA for example. Gay couples get all the benefits of married couples. Yet that was not good enough. Now we have the whole prop 8 fight etc.

So I don't see this as being about benefits or equal treatment under the law.

I don't care if it gets legalized or not to be honest. It will not affect me one way or the other, but let's be honest about the reasons behind the push.
Click to expand...
As I understand it--and don't forget that this debate goes way beyond the borders of the United States--civil unions do not offer anything like the same benefits as marriage in the US states where they are even available.

As for it being about "legitimizing the gay lifestyle:" well I think there is unquestionably an element of wanting gay relationships to be more acceptable in society--and to that end I can understand their reluctance to have their unions labelled differently to everyone else's--but that is nothing to do with their "lifestyles," rather it is about being granted equality. I mean what is a "gay lifestyle" anyway? There are certainly some gay folks who want to live the hedonistic lifestyles often portrayed in the media and used by religious fundamentalists as indicative of how all gays want to live and behave, but there are also many gay people who don't want lifestyles that much different to straight peoples'--hence the desire to be allowed to marry and adopt children etc.
 
Antagony said:
As I understand it--and don't forget that this debate goes way beyond the borders of the United States--civil unions do not offer anything like the same benefits as marriage in the US states where they are even available.

As for it being about "legitimizing the gay lifestyle:" well I think there is unquestionably an element of wanting gay relationships to be more acceptable in society--and to that end I can understand their reluctance to have their unions labelled differently to everyone else's--but that is nothing to do with their "lifestyles," rather it is about being granted equality. I mean what is a "gay lifestyle" anyway? There are certainly some gay folks who want to live the hedonistic lifestyles often portrayed in the media and used by religious fundamentalists as indicative of how all gays want to live and behave, but there are also many gay people who don't want lifestyles that much different to straight peoples'--hence the desire to be allowed to marry and adopt children etc.
Click to expand...
Once again the topic is not restricted to gays only.But rather anyone of the same sex, having the right to the benefits of marriage. I feel their sexual preference should have no bearing on the matter.
 
Antagony said:
As I understand it--and don't forget that this debate goes way beyond the borders of the United States--civil unions do not offer anything like the same benefits as marriage in the US states where they are even available.
Click to expand...

This I understand and would like to see it changed. Gay couples should have all the rights under the law heterosexuals do.

I just don't see it as a marriage.

Antagony said:
As for it being about "legitimizing the gay lifestyle:" well I think there is unquestionably an element of wanting gay relationships to be more acceptable in society--and to that end I can understand their reluctance to have their unions labelled differently to everyone else's--but that is nothing to do with their "lifestyles," rather it is about being granted equality. I mean what is a "gay lifestyle" anyway? There are certainly some gay folks who want to live the hedonistic lifestyles often portrayed in the media and used by religious fundamentalists as indicative of how all gays want to live and behave, but there are also many gay people who don't want lifestyles that much different to straight peoples'--hence the desire to be allowed to marry and adopt children etc.
Click to expand...

I think I mentioned before I have lived near or in a major gay areas in Chicago and San Francisco.

I know I am generalizing, but I have seen it and lived with it. They do see it as legitimate, which it is, but I will not support it in any way. They can form legitimate family units as well, but it is not a marraige. That takes a man and woman.
 
Antagony said:
As for it being about "legitimizing the gay lifestyle:" well I think there is unquestionably an element of wanting gay relationships to be more acceptable in society--and to that end I can understand their reluctance to have their unions labelled differently to everyone else's--but that is nothing to do with their "lifestyles," rather it is about being granted equality. I mean what is a "gay lifestyle" anyway? There are certainly some gay folks who want to live the hedonistic lifestyles often portrayed in the media and used by religious fundamentalists as indicative of how all gays want to live and behave, but there are also many gay people who don't want lifestyles that much different to straight peoples'--hence the desire to be allowed to marry and adopt children etc.
Click to expand...
And if someone is interested in curbing hedonistic lifestyles, granting marriage rights to same-sex couples is the way to it. Those people in the gay community who resist SSM are the ones who don't want gays to adopt the "heterosexual paradigm" of pairing up for life. They see the rush to marriage as a threat to their lifestyle.
 
Skateguy said:
Once again the topic is not restricted to gays only.But rather anyone of the same sex, having the right to the benefits of marriage. I feel their sexual preference should have no bearing on the matter.
Click to expand...
Are there many straight same-sex people who have asked for this? I don't mind my close male friends crashing at my place for short spells but I think I'd end up killing them if they stuck around too long. ;)
 
Blackdog said:
This I understand and would like to see it changed. Gay couples should have all the rights under the law heterosexuals do.

I just don't see it as a marriage.



I think I mentioned before I have lived near or in a major gay areas in Chicago and San Francisco.

I know I am generalizing, but I have seen it and lived with it. They do see it as legitimate, which it is, but I will not support it in any way. They can form legitimate family units as well, but it is not a marraige. That takes a man and woman.
Click to expand...
You know, stereotypes are nearly always defined by the loudest and most visible elements of any group. If I were to base my opinion of Americans on the majority of those I've met, I would consider you all to be brash overbearing windbags. But I've never been to the States so I've only ever met travelling Americans and mostly only those who make their presence felt. I'm sure there have been quiet thoughtful Americans in and amongst the travellers, but I haven't met many of them. My point, of course, is that it's easy to make misplaced or false assumptions about the majority of a group, if you base it on direct experience.
 
Antagony said:
Are there many straight same-sex people who have asked for this? I don't mind my close male friends crashing at my place for short spells but I think I'd end up killing them if they stuck around too long. ;)
Click to expand...
there may be none at all. I don't know any.--My point is, if Laws are put into place to show preferential treatment for Gay Men, over Straight Men, it would be discriminatory. Men are Men, and their choice of how they have sex, should not enter into it. I just want to keep things fair and square here, with equality across the board. Not to start a pattern of gay people having superior rights to the Majority of the rest of us Straight Folks. .
 
Antagony said:
You know, stereotypes are nearly always defined by the loudest and most visible elements of any group.
Click to expand...

I am not talking about stereo types. I am talking about friends and room mates etc. whom I lived with and around.

Antagony said:
If I were to base my opinion of Americans on the majority of those I've met, I would consider you all to be brash overbearing windbags. But I've never been to the States so I've only ever met travelling Americans and mostly only those who make their presence felt. I'm sure there have been quiet thoughtful Americans in and amongst the travellers, but I haven't met many of them. My point, of course, is that it's easy to make misplaced or false assumptions about the majority of a group, if you base it on direct experience.
Click to expand...

It is not misplaced in this case.
 
Rassales said:
And if someone is interested in curbing hedonistic lifestyles, granting marriage rights to same-sex couples is the way to it. Those people in the gay community who resist SSM are the ones who don't want gays to adopt the "heterosexual paradigm" of pairing up for life. They see the rush to marriage as a threat to their lifestyle.
Click to expand...
True. And it shouldn't be forgotten that a considerable number of straight people also live very hedonistic lifestyles in their youth. Most of them settle down in due course after seeing their peers do so. I think the acceptance of gay marriage could very well lead to a snowball effect which would see greater numbers of them eventually settling down.
 
wat113.jpg
 
Gay people are allowed to marry in all 50 states. They just aren't allowed to apply for legal benefits related to taxes, visitation rights, and property rights. So this is a flawed poll.

i_now_pronounce_you_chuck_and_larry.jpg
 
Toothpicvic said:
Gay people are allowed to marry in all 50 states. They just aren't allowed to apply for legal benefits related to taxes, visitation rights, and property rights. So this is a flawed poll.
Click to expand...

Until they are granted the ability to engage fully in their right to contract and obtain a marriage license, they are not allowed to marry in all 50 states.
 
Ikari said:
Until they are granted the ability to engage fully in their right to contract and obtain a marriage license, they are not allowed to marry in all 50 states.
Click to expand...

marriage - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Note that it is not exclusively defined as a..."right to contract and obtain a marriage license"

Allowed to enter into the legal contact effecting taxes and various things which is called marriage, no.

Allowed to live together, go to a church which allows it, get married, call themselves married, yes.

It is the legal aspect which I thought was the issue in most cases.
 
Last edited:
If you're going to make a yes or no poll, you probably shouldn't add editorial comments to the choices making it obvious which way you want people to answer.
 
Harshaw said:
If you're going to make a yes or no poll, you probably shouldn't add editorial comments to the choices making it obvious which way you want people to answer.
Click to expand...
that is called stacking the deck. --It helps my side. See how I did that?
 
Harshaw said:
If you're going to make a yes or no poll, you probably shouldn't add editorial comments to the choices making it obvious which way you want people to answer.
Click to expand...
that is called stacking the deck. --It helps my side. See how I did that?
 
Tsunami said:
I don't see why the government sponsors marriage anyways.
Click to expand...

Because marriage is a legal bond.

If it is indeed a religious institution
Click to expand...

It's not a religious institution. Non-religious people get married all the time.
 
Dav said:
Because marriage is a legal bond.

It's not a religious institution. Non-religious people get married all the time.
Click to expand...

Actually it is both.

It may or may not have been either a solely religious or solely secular institution originally.

At the current time, it is both, at least here in the USA.

Edit: Which is not to say that it is not in some cases only one, or perhaps neither.
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
x2 ................
Click to expand...

Methinks he ascribes to the belief that "a picture is worth a thousand words", or some such.

Or he is unable to type at this time, for some reason.

Or something else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom