• 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
Blackdog said:
Incestuous sex is not covered under the right to privacy anymore than doing illegal drugs in private.
Click to expand...

I don't see how you can say this. What is the difference between a law against sodomy and a law against incest, as regards to the Lawrence vs. Texas ruling?
 
Tsunami said:
I don't see how you can say this. What is the difference between a law against sodomy and a law against incest, as regards to the Lawrence vs. Texas ruling?
Click to expand...

I can say this because it is true. Things done in private are no less illegal, period.

The law governing incest is because of the huge negative affects it has emotionally and in some cases physically if a child is involved from pregnancy. Sodomy in and of itself dose not have the same risks to mind and body. So the state no longer considers it a crime, and rightly so.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

Morals are subjective. Aren't you by saying gay marraige is OK trying to force your morals on me?

It works both ways.
 
Tucker Case said:
Saying it should be legal is not the moral equivalent of saying it is OK.

Just clarifying.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I had never considered that people can support the legalization of something that they consider immoral.
 
Blackdog said:
I can say this because it is true. Things done in private are no less illegal, period.

The law governing incest is because of the huge negative affects it has emotionally and in some cases physically if a child is involved from pregnancy. Sodomy in and of itself dose not have the same risks to mind and body. So the state no longer considers it a crime, and rightly so.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand. Sodomy done in private is not illegal, despite multiple states still considering it a crime. Drugs are illegal because of possession, which is a totally different issue related to interstate commerce.

Incest has no negative emotional effects, if done by consenting adults. The risk of birth defects is minor and not relevant if abortion is legal.
 
CriticalThought said:
Interesting. I had never considered that people can support the legalization of something that they consider immoral.
Click to expand...

I guess that is the difference between standing by your principals or just giving into what you see as wrong to be politically correct.
 
CriticalThought said:
Interesting. I had never considered that people can support the legalization of something that they consider immoral.
Click to expand...

While I've said that I do this myself all the time, I'd like to add that there are some things I find to be morally correct behaviors that I also feel should be illegal.

Vigilantism, for example. Or torturing terrorists.
 
Tsunami said:
Incest has no negative emotional effects, if done by consenting adults. The risk of birth defects is minor and not relevant if abortion is legal.
Click to expand...

if two consenting adults are incestous i'd say that there are already emotional issues, and that it would only exacerbate them.

and if you want a better argument than that, just look at the british royal family:mrgreen:
 
Tsunami said:
I don't think you understand. Sodomy done in private is not illegal, despite multiple states still considering it a crime. Drugs are illegal because of possession, which is a totally different issue related to interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand. I am just using it as an example. You cannot kill someone even with consent even if it is in private. It is still illegal.

Tsunami said:
Incest has no negative emotional effects, if done by consenting adults. The risk of birth defects is minor and not relevant if abortion is legal.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. The guilt associated would be enough. The long term effects of mother son etc relationships that are sexual are well documented.

Now you say the birth defects are not relevant because you can just kill the fetus?

I am done with you.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
Or the righties can vote many times. This is why you should NEVER listen to polls, NP. Both sides could mess with them.
Click to expand...

Well it sems the polls are much closer when the names are shown and there is usually a much bigger disparity from the left.....That was my only point........
 
Blackdog said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid the Law is blind when it comes to a persons Moral, or religious take on things. You rob a bank, you are chagred with bank robbery. they don't ask if you religion or moral ethics played a part in your decision to rob the bank. which is how it should be.
 
Skateguy said:
I'm afraid the Law is blind when it comes to a persons Moral, or religious take on things. You rob a bank, you are chagred with bank robbery. they don't ask if you religion or moral ethics played a part in your decision to rob the bank. which is how it should be.
Click to expand...

If this were the case gay marraige would be legal and hate laws would not exist.

How things should be and the reality are two different things.
 
Blackdog said:
So what? That is not relevant to me on this issue.
Click to expand...

But, it is relevant to the issue. Laws apply to everybody, not just you and your feelings, wishes and fears.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Then I can't possibly force my morals on to you.
Click to expand...

You most certainly can via the law. Your argument is flawed.

Harry Guerrilla said:
You don't have to be gay and married or believe it is right.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it is right, and I will not support it. If you have a problem with that, use the system we have in place to change it.
 
ADK_Forever said:
But, it is relevant to the issue. Laws apply to everybody, not just you and your feelings, wishes and fears.
Click to expand...

No it is not.

If I live within a society, I have every right to change it or support it how I see fit.
 
spud_meister said:
if two consenting adults are incestous i'd say that there are already emotional issues, and that it would only exacerbate them.

and if you want a better argument than that, just look at the british royal family:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I don't understand how you can think this way. There is nothing wrong with incest if the person doing it doesn't share your morals. Not sharing spud_meister's morals is not an emotional issue. If you want an example, there have been cases of a brother and sister becoming romantically involved without knowing they were related. There is no emotional issue there, nor is there any guilt involved, and no reason for them to be arrested. The same is true for people who have no moral problem with incestuous relationships. And they are far more common than you would like to think.

Blackdog said:
I don't think you understand. I am just using it as an example. You cannot kill someone even with consent even if it is in private. It is still illegal.
Click to expand...

Sex is different. The Lawrence vs. Texas ruling says sex is a privacy issue. That makes it protected under the 5th and 14th amendment.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
You most certainly can via the law. Your argument is flawed.
Click to expand...

If your not gay, it can't possibly affect you in any reasonable way.

Blackdog said:
I don't believe it is right, and I will not support it. If you have a problem with that, use the system we have in place to change it.
Click to expand...

Our government panders to populism, I probably won't bother.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If your not gay It can't possibly affect you in any reasonable way.
Click to expand...

If I hit a gay man whether it has to do with him being gay or not, what will I be charged with?

It may not effect me now, but it may well in the future.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Our government panders to populism, I probably won't bother.
Click to expand...

Apathy is the greatest threat to any cause you would support.
 
Law that affect thieves, affect us all, even if we are not thieves. It affects how thieves are treated, which affects us all.
 
Blackdog said:
If I hit a gay man whether it has to do with him being gay or not, what will I be charged with?

It may not effect me now, but it may well in the future.
Click to expand...

If your talking about hate crimes, that's another discussion.

Just talking about gay people getting married, it doesn't effect you at all.

Blackdog said:
Apathy is the greatest threat to any cause you would support.
Click to expand...

Meh, most of what I believe isn't supported by the majority people.
I'm used to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom