• 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

Skateguy

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
2,559
Reaction score
378
Location
Houston/Heights
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I brought this up on another thread the other night. It just kind of rolled out in response to a "Gays getting married" thread.--but the more I think about,the more it seems like a legitimate question. I ask why would two people of the same sex, have to be homosexual to get married? --Because once married, they would then be able enjoy the benefits that go along with being married. Such as tax Breaks, special insurance rates, and so on. If Two Homo Men can get Married legally, then why couldn't two straight Men get married also? (Not that I would want to, but just sayin) Just seems to be more discrimination against Straight Guys to me. Male is Male, and Female is Female, regardless of sexual orientation.-So my question is, if made legal, should two people of the same sex be allowed to marry, whether they are Homosexuals or not? ---this could be interesting
 
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.
 
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, whether gay or not, is discriminatory to single people.
Sorry, still trying to figure out how to make this into a poll--I think I screwed up
 
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.
That's true, just like progressive tax rates are discriminatory against rich people. Marriage gets those benefits because it's a good thing for people to be paired up. It lowers poverty levels, for one thing.
 
So maybe we should all just team up, and marry a good Friend, and get the benefits of being Married. wonder how much that would save a year??
 
That's true, just like progressive tax rates are discriminatory against rich people. Marriage gets those benefits because it's a good thing for people to be paired up. It lowers poverty levels, for one thing.

I am all for a non-discriminatory flat tax.

Marriage is meaningless, it is a technicality. Two people who are in a committed relationship and who choose to pool their money don't need to be legally married to raise good children or stay above the poverty level.
 
I am all for a non-discriminatory flat tax.

Marriage is meaningless, it is a technicality. Two people who are in a committed relationship and who choose to pool their money don't need to be legally married to raise good children or stay above the poverty level.
But I do believe married people get a lot more financial breaks than single people. I'm not sure about it, as I worked for myself all the years I was married, so was always broke. hahah
 
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.
 
Last edited:
I don't think government should be regulating marriage per se, but it is a complicated issue.

I'm of the opinion that getting married is a legal issue. You have to have a marriage dissolved in the courts - you should have to have your marriage confirmed by the courts as well. There are factors such as child support, debt that the couple has together, real estate, liquid assets, retirement, savings, etc., etc., etc.....

What is a marriage other than a contract between two people? Contracts are legal documents and should be treated as such.

If a couple want to have their marriage confirmed by a church of their choice, then that decision would be left up to each individual church/religion.

If we made getting married as difficult as getting divorced, I think there'd be a ton of people who might think of marriage in a different light.
 
I've been married twice to women I didn't know all that well. but things happen. --Between the two of them, took me for everything I had, plus.---I would trust any number of my Male friends of more than 50 years with my life, and have. They have never let me down. I would trust them more than some woman I barely know, with regards to my well being. ---seems like a legitimate idea. Not for me, cause I got my thing going on just fine. But I can see single straight guys with no family, getting married, for the benefits that go along with it. Somebody to be on your side legally should you need them. Or if you end up in the hospital or what ever. They will only allow in family Members. Someone to legally represent your interests. Almost like an adopted Family member. --so what is the down side?? there always is one.---As far as Straight guys being trustworthy, I say hell ya. Because there is none of that romantic love to mess things up, as it ends up doing in most relationships. . Just the love of the brotherhood of Men. No warm showers, or matching bath robes. Just guys teaming up to take on the world with a team mate, not a lover. Like tennis Doubles kinda.
 
Last edited:
I've been married twice to women I didn't know all that well. but things happen. --Between the two of them, took me for everything I had, plus.---I would trust any number of my Male friends of more than 50 years with my life, and have. They have never let me down. I would trust them more than some woman I barely know, with regards to my well being. ---seems like a legitimate idea. Not for me, cause I got my thing going on just fine. But I can see single straight guys with no family, getting married, for the benefits that go along with it. Somebody to be on your side legally should you need them. Or if you end up in the hospital or what ever. They will only allow in family Members. Someone to legally represent your interests. Almost like an adopted Family member. --so what is the down side?? there always is one.

Well I could argue that marriage is about relationship stability and providing homes to raise children, and that the evidence supports that for gay parents, but there is no compelling evidence for that with two straight parents, but I know that you don't really believe in scientific literature over your own personal experience, so what would be the point?
 
Well I could argue that marriage is about relationship stability and providing homes to raise children, and that the evidence supports that for gay parents, but there is no compelling evidence for that with two straight parents, but I know that you don't really believe in scientific literature over your own personal experience, so what would be the point?
I respect you opinion, but those should not be requirement for same sex couple to get married, any more than they are for Hetero couples to get married. Anna Nicole had a deal going on. It was legal. I some how get the feeling, and correct me if I'm wrong here, that you feel gay Men are some how better than Straight Men, and should have preferential treatment. I say were all just Men, with different needs. Not one more valid than the other, but Equal. ---Seems that has been the argument from the gay community all these years. that we are all equal. --well it works both ways.
 
Anyone a religion chooses to recognize should be allowed to marry. Government, however, should recognize no marriage. It should only recognize a unionized legal contracts between two individuals.
 
I've been married twice to women I didn't know all that well. but things happen. --Between the two of them, took me for everything I had, plus.---I would trust any number of my Male friends of more than 50 years with my life, and have. They have never let me down. I would trust them more than some woman I barely know, with regards to my well being. ---seems like a legitimate idea. Not for me, cause I got my thing going on just fine. But I can see single straight guys with no family, getting married, for the benefits that go along with it. Somebody to be on your side legally should you need them. Or if you end up in the hospital or what ever. They will only allow in family Members. Someone to legally represent your interests. Almost like an adopted Family member. --so what is the down side?? there always is one.---As far as Straight guys being trustworthy, I say hell ya. Because there is none of that romantic love to mess things up, as it ends up doing in most relationships. . Just the love of the brotherhood of Men. No warm showers, or matching bath robes. Just guys teaming up to take on the world with a team mate, not a lover. Like tennis Doubles kinda.

The legal trappings surrounding marriage are extensive. Many of them intitutionalize a deep trust that two people should have for one another before agreeing to a marriage. If two straight men are willing to enter such an agreement with one another, there is nothing that should be done to prevent them from doing so. That said, I believe it would be an exceedingly rare occurrence.

A straight woman and a straight male / straight male and straight woman have long been able to enter into a legal marriage where they may simply be 'buddies' and not lovers. You don't see it happen that often, but it does. Who cares? No one.
 
Anyone a religion chooses to recognize should be allowed to marry. Government, however, should recognize no marriage. It should only recognize a unionized legal contracts between two individuals.
that sounds fine, until as I found out, we receive the papers from the court. So as long as Marriage is a legal and binding contract, some form of gubment will be involved.---I would rather it not be that way. ---When it is over, it is over, and both parties shake hands, and go on their way. But that is often not the case.
 
that sounds fine, until as I found out, we receive the papers from the court. So as long as Marriage is a legal and binding contract, some form of gubment will be involved.---I would rather it not be that way. ---When it is over, it is over, and both parties shake hands, and go on their way. But that is often not the case.

The term "Marriage" should be removed from the contract and replaced with something not tied to a specific religious definition. A term able to be tied to a legal definition only should be used.
 
The legal trappings surrounding marriage are extensive. Many of them intitutionalize a deep trust that two people should have for one another before agreeing to a marriage. If two straight men are willing to enter such an agreement with one another, there is nothing that should be done to prevent them from doing so. That said, I believe it would be an exceedingly rare occurrence.

A straight woman and a straight male / straight male and straight woman have long been able to enter into a legal marriage where they may simply be 'buddies' and not lovers. You don't see it happen that often, but it does. Who cares? No one.
I agree it may be rare, but it should be just as legal an option as any other. I'm personally done with all marriage, my pleasant personality is not cut out for it. :). But I agree that all genders should be covered equally under the Law, not just a particular segment.
 
The term "Marriage" should be removed from the contract and replaced with something not tied to a specific religious definition. A term able to be tied to a legal definition only should be used.
I am a big proponent of the "Pre nup" just to spell things out in black and white, before the evil demons of rage raise their ugly heads. We seldom divorce the same person we married. A marriage license is just a piece of paper. The half inch thick "contract" comes later, in the form of Divorce papers. Many a Man has been left in total ruin, do to the "Love of his Life" fallin for the cabana Boy.
 
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.

The church didn't even get into marriages until 1563 when the council of Trent decreed that marriages should be performed in front of a priest and have at least 2 witnesses. Before then it was a state run thing where possible. Where it wasn't then it was perfectly acceptable for two people to just state that they were married (even if no one was around) in order to be married.

So the only reason that marriage is considered to be a part of religion is because the church pretty much literally forced themselves into it. And timewise speaking relatively recently.
 
Yeah sure, why not. If two straight men or women want to get married just for the tax benefits they should be allowed. A man and a woman can already do this and I don't think it happens too much, so I don't really see it being used much to be honest.
 
The church didn't even get into marriages until 1563 when the council of Trent decreed that marriages should be performed in front of a priest and have at least 2 witnesses. Before then it was a state run thing where possible. Where it wasn't then it was perfectly acceptable for two people to just state that they were married (even if no one was around) in order to be married.

So the only reason that marriage is considered to be a part of religion is because the church pretty much literally forced themselves into it. And timewise speaking relatively recently.

Stop bringing history into this.
 
If they change marriage, then anything is possible. People will able to marry animals and inanimate objects.
 
So maybe we should all just team up, and marry a good Friend, and get the benefits of being Married. wonder how much that would save a year??

Frankly I think "marriage" as a term should be stripped from government. That said, if gay marriage or civil unions or allowed then yes...it should simply be marriage being possible by any two individuals regardless of sex or race. That said, as previously posted by another individual, I don't think its extremely likely that its going to happen. You'd still need to get a divorce if you found a woman you wanted ot marry which costly on its own opens you up for your "friend" to decide to get one over on you and want more of your stuff in the proceedings. While you get benefits for being married, some of them you may not want your friend having the benefit of. So I imagine it'd be relatively little used outside of actual committed couples.

If they change marriage, then anything is possible. People will able to marry animals and inanimate objects.

Thank you for your stirringly unfounded, completely hysterical action. I bet you would've really hated those damn negros getting married too? Unpure savages! Because what's next...we change marriage and people would be marrying their tractor! GRRR
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom