• 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
Interesting. Could you provide a list of things that two consenting adults cannot do with each other under the law?

Fight a duel.
Trade insider secrets on the stock exchange.
Gay marraige.
Plot murder or any other illegal activity. It's called "conspiracy."
Drag race, or any other racing on public streets.
Incest.

Need I go on? :roll:
 
You just made me grimace.
You're an asshole for thinking that you should be entitled to controlling other people. As long as you're happy, that's all that matters.

If you had asked me how I voted on that ballot you would have discovered that I declined to cast a vote on the issue either way. SD still passed a gay 'marriage ban, but they did it without my support.

Any issue before the public is the business of the public. If you don't like my opinion, don't ask for my vote/money.
 
Interesting. Could you provide a list of things that two consenting adults cannot do with each other under the law?

  • General Arson.
  • Burn their own tires on their own property, even if in a rural aria.
  • Cannibalism.
  • Create realistic depictions of pedophilia even if they do not involve children in any way.
  • Compromise the structural integrity of their home while living in it.
  • One consenting adult can not bury the other consenting adult on their own property if that property is not zoned as a grave yard.

Those are a few off the hip, I'm sure there are more examples.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Going to make this clear real quick. If you think this is a "bait" thread, report it. If you're not a moderator, that's the extent you can go. Simply because you "feel" it is a bait thread gives you no justification, nor allowance, to break the rules. Anyone found from this point forward purposefully attempting to bait or troll this thread to drive it off topic or cause others to break the rules will be dealt with, swiftly. If you have a problem with the thread, and the mod team appears to disagree, your options are to follow the rules or leave the thread.
 
I appreciate the thought in your post, but that doesn't mean it responded to the topic. I didn't call you a liar. Your response was interesting, but it didn't address the topic. You said you wouldn't mind gay couples attending the same kind of counseling as straight couples, but you still didn't say it would be okay for them to marry if they did.

I'm glad you think everyone should undergo counseling before getting married, but that doesn't address the question of equal protection unless you go that last step and say that if SS couples did jump through your hoops, you'd support marriage for them. Do you?

Yes, I did. I already said that.

If you're asking as a tangent, not as an attempt to change the subject: Marriage is about forming and maintaining the nuclear family, with the state's interest in marriage being the raising of children.

I see no reason why gays couldn't or shouldn't be accepted if the only thing different between their relationship and a hetero couple starting a family are the sexes involved.

Regardless of sex, couples who simply want to live together have no business getting married. We can thank childless hetero couples for enabling the modern gay 'marriage movement. Their selfishness is empowering hyper-individualism, which has proven to be a socially destructive force.
 
Fair enough, then. My apologies.

Incidentally, my own argument actually serves the pro-gm 'rights' argument.

In order to prove a right is being denied, gays have to show that they are the same as other classes who can marry, that the only attribute which is different in their relationships are the sexes involved, and that they are excluded for the sole reason of the sexes involved.

If that's the case, then I already support same-sex marriage.

Problems abound as each side drags in tertiary arguments and compound tangents, confusing the issue and complicating the matter far beyond what it needs to be.
 
Fight a duel.
Trade insider secrets on the stock exchange.
Gay marraige.
Plot murder or any other illegal activity. It's called "conspiracy."
Drag race, or any other racing on public streets.
Incest.

Need I go on? :roll:

Actually, that is perfect.

Now explain what justification there is for gay marriage being treated the same as incest, drag racing, conspiracy, and insider trading.
 
Actually, that is perfect.
Now explain what justification there is for gay marriage being treated the same as incest, drag racing, conspiracy, and insider trading.

I'm pretty sure he is wrong about incest. Incestuous marriage is illegal in most states, but the act of incest should be covered by the Lawrence vs. Texas ruling that overturned sodomy laws.
 
Do you imagine there will be tests to determine whether a same-sex couple is genuinely gay before they'll be allowed to marry? Only I don't recall seeing that proposed anywhere by anyone. And I still seriously doubt that there will be many--if any--straight men who will want to marry a friend. Some women may be more disposed to it I suppose, but I think most men would hardly even dare to broach the idea... even in jest.
Excellent question, and one I have often asked myself.---Are Gay people required to offer any proof they are in fact Gay??Not sure exactly what that would entail, but it could make for an interesting situation for sure. ---I don't know if Straight same couples would get married either. I just think in all fairness the option should remain open to them, just to keep everything on the up and up. --I don't like discrimination, no matter where it raises it's ugly head. Straight and Gay, Equally protected under the Law.
 
I'm pretty sure he is wrong about incest. Incestuous marriage is illegal in most states, but the act of incest should be covered by the Lawrence vs. Texas ruling that overturned sodomy laws.

You can marry your first cousin in several states.
 
Excellent question, and one I have often asked myself.---Are Gay people required to offer any proof they are in fact Gay??Not sure exactly what that would entail, but it could make for an interesting situation for sure. ---I don't know if Straight same couples would get married either. I just think in all fairness the option should remain open to them, just to keep everything on the up and up. --I don't like discrimination, no matter where it raises it's ugly head. Straight and Gay, Equally protected under the Law.

I don't know of any country that has same sex marriage that requires that same sex couples prove they are gay. It's perfectly possible in any of those countries for two straight people of the same sex to get married. They simply elect not to do so. It seems kind of like a non issue to me. Nobody is arguing about whether or not it should be allowed for two straight people of the same sex to be married because it is very unlikely to happen even when it is.

This seems to be nothing more than your attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill. Can you present evidence of a significant demand among heterosexuals to marry someone of the same sex?
 
For the record, there is nothing inherently wrong with marrying your cousin.
The chance of birth defects aren't that much higher from the norm.

Largely it's people thinking it's gross.
there is however that old saying--"If She ain't good enough for Her own family, she ain't good enough for mine"
 
Actually, that is perfect.

Now explain what justification there is for gay marriage being treated the same as incest, drag racing, conspiracy, and insider trading.

Since this has nothing to do with my post or my point, I will leave it as the fallacy it is. :2wave:

The fact that you would even ask such a stupid question after it has been explained over and over is just silly.
 
I'm pretty sure he is wrong about incest. Incestuous marriage is illegal in most states, but the act of incest should be covered by the Lawrence vs. Texas ruling that overturned sodomy laws.

A brother, sister, father and mother cannot marry and even consensual sex in those cases (sodomy aside) is still illegal.
 
I don't know of any country that has same sex marriage that requires that same sex couples prove they are gay. It's perfectly possible in any of those countries for two straight people of the same sex to get married. They simply elect not to do so. It seems kind of like a non issue to me. Nobody is arguing about whether or not it should be allowed for two straight people of the same sex to be married because it is very unlikely to happen even when it is.

This seems to be nothing more than your attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill. Can you present evidence of a significant demand among heterosexuals to marry someone of the same sex?
I can understand your skepticism. But sense it takes so much work and time to amend a Law, once enacted, I just think it is prudent to look down the road a bit. Twenty years ago the Idea of same sex marriage would have been laughable. So making laws that give the same equal option to Same sex partners, would just be the smart thing to do.-- I have seen no argument that would indicate that gay men should have Superior rights to Straight Men, simply because of their choice in sexual activities. Equal means equal, does it not?
 
A brother, sister, father and mother cannot marry and even consensual sex in those cases (sodomy aside) is still illegal.

The laws might be still on the books, but if gay sex is covered by the right to privacy then so is incestuous sex. Right?
 
Pretty much, most arguments rely on individual morality.

But your morality does not count if it is derived from religion. Or this is what CriticalThought, would imply.
 
The laws might be still on the books, but if gay sex is covered by the right to privacy then so is incestuous sex. Right?

Incestuous sex is not covered under the right to privacy anymore than doing illegal drugs in private.
 
But your morality does not count if it is derived from religion. Or this is what CriticalThought, would imply.
When it comes to the Law--there is no place for a persons Religious views. One Law covers everyone.
 
When it comes to the Law--there is no place for a persons Religious views. One Law covers everyone.

So if your morals come from other than religious views it is acceptable?

Rather hypocritical, wouldn't you say?

A person can and will follow his own moral compass no matter where it comes from.
 
Last edited:
But your morality does not count if it is derived from religion. Or this is what CriticalThought, would imply.

I think it's fine to derive your morality from religion.

Generally, they teach lots of good things for one to practice in their life.
My problem comes in when someone tries to apply their personal moral beliefs over others who do not hold the same to be true.

Good morals- don't kill, don't steal because it hurts someone else physically.

Bad morals- anti sodomy laws, anti gm laws, because it doesn't do anything to you but maybe offend your religious beliefs.
 
Back
Top Bottom