• 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!

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

  • No

    Votes: 99 79.2%

  • Yes, explain

    Votes: 26 20.8%
  • Total voters
    125
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jerry said:
"Cultural Universal". Everywhere on Earth, in any place, at any point in time, marriage is about the raising and socializing of children. Modern gay marriage is not, thus it is counter-culture.

There's no reason to care about your relationship if you aren't raising children whether you're gay or straight, living together or not. Go live with whomever you want. Have your life and I hope you live a good one. The legal buffs are for couples raising children, because raising children is the State's interest in promoting a relationship. Marriage is not for heteros looking for a tax brake, it's not for gays looking for social validation of their identity.

Gays don't make their movement about children. They make it about rights, etc, so there is no reason to care about gay marriage.
Click to expand...

I agree YOU shouldnt care about it so that exactly why YOU shouldnt stop it. Pick one? you said you shouldnt care but "sure"you should stop it, which is it

also its "common" for marriage to ba about kids but not a rule since gay marriage happened in rome. Its a nice try and spin but not a logical reason to stop it.
 
Blackdog said:
Thats your point of view, and it has nothing to do with separate or equal for me.

As I said it is purely a semantic and religious argument for me. Nothing at all to do with equal anything except under the law. As long as they get equal treatment under the law, I don't care what they call it as long as it is not marriage.
Click to expand...

why does the name matter to you?
 
Good talks everyone thanks still lookin for a good answer but fun and interesting none the less :)
 
The reality is that nobody cares about gay marriage as much as social conservatives do. They don't have to accept it. They could be indifferent to it and live their own lives. But they have to take a stand against it because they fear homosexuality becoming part of the norm. Social conservative know the whole definition of marriage argument is an appeal to tradition fallacy but it allows them to embrace their prejudice without openly expressing it.

And yes, they are prejudiced. They have no interest in objectively considering the issue. Their arguments are entirely based upon disgust they feel towards homosexuality. As such, there is no true rational behind their arguments. They grew up to believe that homosexuality was a disgusting, sinful thing and so their minds have been closed and it is pointless to try to change that fact or expect them to be reasonable or discuss it in a reasonable manner.
 
CriticalThought said:
The reality is that nobody cares about gay marriage as much as social conservatives do. They don't have to accept it. They could be indifferent to it and live their own lives. But they have to take a stand against it because they fear homosexuality becoming part of the norm. Social conservative know the whole definition of marriage argument is an appeal to tradition fallacy but it allows them to embrace their prejudice without openly expressing it.

And yes, they are prejudiced. They have no interest in objectively considering the issue. Their arguments are entirely based upon disgust they feel towards homosexuality. As such, there is no true rational behind their arguments. They grew up to believe that homosexuality was a disgusting, sinful thing and so their minds have been closed and it is pointless to try to change that fact or expect them to be reasonable or discuss it in a reasonable manner.
Click to expand...

If this is a requirment for one to call themself a Conservative,.. I guess I'll have to call myself something else. Because this doesn't even come close to describing my attitude towards homosexuality or gay 'marriage.'
 
Chuz Life said:
If this is a requirment for one to call themself a Conservative,.. I guess I'll have to call myself something else. Because this doesn't even come close to describing my attitude towards homosexuality or gay 'marriage.'
Click to expand...

So feel us in please, do you think its right to stop it?
 
Chuz Life said:
If this is a requirment for one to call themself a Conservative,.. I guess I'll have to call myself something else. Because this doesn't even come close to describing my attitude towards homosexuality or gay 'marriage.'
Click to expand...

I said "Social conservative" not conservative. Conservative is one of the broadest terms in the English dictionary. There are even gay conservatives who favor same sex marriage. The term, "social conservative" means something quite different than conservative.

Now if you are a social conservative, then please inform me how I am wrong.
 
Chuz Life said:
Your question is too vague.

Do I think it's right for 'who' to stop it?

And by what do you mean 'stop it'?
Click to expand...


You or anyone, and stop it as in vote no against it or stop it in general if you had the power too?

Basically do you think its your or anybody's elses right to tell two consenting adults who or who they cant marry?
 
CriticalThought said:
I said "Social conservative" not conservative. Conservative is one of the broadest terms in the English dictionary. There are even gay conservatives who favor same sex marriage. The term, "social conservative" means something quite different than conservative.

Now if you are a social conservative, then please inform me how I am wrong.
Click to expand...

I can't inform you as to how you are wrong except about myself.

And I do in fact call myself 'socially conservative.'

If your really interested in my personal views,.. here some reading for you.

OK people, here's the deal with gay marriage

http://dyn.politico.com/members/for...id=15&threadid=1822805&start=91&CurrentPage=4
 
Last edited:
Centrist77 said:
You or anyone, and stop it as in vote no against it or stop it in general if you had the power too?

Basically do you think its your or anybody's elses right to tell two consenting adults who or who they cant marry?
Click to expand...

Of course I (and everyone else) has the right to vote their conscience. And there's no requirment (obviously) that voters be either informed or enightend.

As for the right tell others who they can or can't 'marry?'

Sure.

But that doesn't mean they will (or have to) listen.
 
Chuz Life said:
I can't inform you as to how you are wrong except about myself.

And I do in fact call myself 'socially conservative.'

If your really interested in my personal views,.. here some reading for you.

OK people, here's the deal with gay marriage
Click to expand...

Your argument is an appeal to the majority fallacy? Most people in society don't agree with gay marriage so there should be no gay marriage? You do realize that 40 years ago, most people didn't agree with interracial marriage? Just because a majority of people don't agree with something doesn't make it wrong.

I wonder if you will still hold that reasoning when a majority of society believes that gay marriage is fine.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Your argument is an appeal to majority fallacy? Most people in society don't agree with gay marriage so there should be no gay marriage? You do realize that 40 years ago, most people didn't agree with interracial marriage? Just because a majority of people don't agree with something doesn't make it wrong.

I wonder if you will still hold that reasoning when a majority of society believes that gay marriage is fine.
Click to expand...

Please feel free to cite the argument that I posted where I am appealing to popularity.
 
The government can call same sex unions "marriage" all it want's. Sorry but you will have to just grin and bear it.
 
Chuz Life said:
Please feel free to cite the argument that I posted where I am appealing to popularity.
Click to expand...

You posted an entire thread. I'm assuming your argument was based on the OPs argument. Or did you have some specific post in the thread that you wanted me to see?
 
CriticalThought said:
You posted an entire thread. I'm assuming your argument was based on the OPs argument. Or did you have some specific post in the thread that you wanted me to see?
Click to expand...

My first post was #102

And I added it to the link I posted earlier.

Chuz Life: Jan. 1, 2009 - 1:43 AM EST
First things first,... so far as I know, scientists have not yet proven nor disproven that homosexuality is genetic. I emphasize yet because I personally believe it (sexuality) is genetic. So, for me personally to hold someone's sexuality against them would be (to me) the same thing as holding a person's condition with downs syndrome or a cleft pallette or red hair against them.

I didn't chose my sexuality, and I doubt most gay people chose theirs.

You may find it odd,.. many even refuse to believe me when I say this; but, morality does not enter into my political calculations where homosexuality and my stance on gay marriage is concerned (nor any of my other political views for that matter)... And it's specifically because I believe a gay persons sexuality is just as genetically pre-disposed as is my own (heterosexuality.)

Ok. So with that in mind... if you can keep that in mind,... here is my stance on "Gay marriage."

The preamble to our (United States) Constitution charges our government with the responsibility of "providing the common defense and promoting the general welfare."

True?

Please note the word "general" as it is used in the preamble... and ask yourself this question; "how can the government be charged with "promoting the general welfare" and not have the right (derrived from the consent of the people) to make determinations as to what is fitting for the government to encourage or sanction and what not to?"

I believe that while science has yet to find the genetic "switch" that makes one genetically straight, gay or bisexual,... science has determined it to be the biological "norm"- that human beings are generally "heterosexual." Science has shown that "homosexuality" (in mammals) is the "exception which prove the rule." Meaning, the very fact that homosexuals are rare in number to the population as a whole... serves further to "prove" the point that "humans (mammals) are generally heterosexual."

(Heterosexuality being necessary for the survival of our species. (pro-creation, et al))

Beyond all that (above),... it is also my opinion that it is the "family unit" which serves as the most basic building blocks which construct and fortify our communities, societies and our nations.

Are you with me so far?

Now you may suggest, and I will agree that there are MANY variations to define what is meant by the term "family unit." And I won't argue that point; as that is clearly the case.

But, remember... our government is charged only with promoting "the general welfare" of this nation and not the welfare of all individually.

The "general" population being "heterosexual."

(do you see where this is going yet?)

AND (and this AND is very important)

The "one man-one woman" relationship being the most basic, most SUSTAINABLE relationship (where survival of the species and our societies are concerned)...

How can anyone NOT conclude that the government HAS, not only the authority but also the DUTY to establish and sanction the form of marriage that BEST meets the "general welfare" needs of our nation; even to the point of INDIFFERENCE towards all the other forms of human "relationships?"

Since when is being treated with "indifference" tantamount to being unjustly discriminated against?

I believe our government, as it is charged with by our preamble... has not only the right (with just consent of we the people) to decide which (if any) definition of marriage best conforms with the charge of "promoting the general welfare" and to "promote" it; even to the exclusion of all others... but that our government also has the responsibility to do so.

Anyway, that is my position on "gay marriage" and my best attempt to support it. I've never seen anyone else state the same so I'm very much interested in both of your (Chet and Adamness) comments.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You believe in promoting general welfare? Okay.

There are 8 to 10 million children of gay parents and same sex couples and the latest 25 years of research indicates that gay couples can raise children just as well as different sex couples. Furthermore there are tens of thousands of children in the foster care system who will never be adopted by a different sex couple and who would do better being raised by a married same sex couple than they would being raised by the state or by an individual parent. Two parent homes whether different sex or opposite sex, are the best at raising children, and the state has an interest in promoting them for the purpose of raising children. Even institutions like the American Pediatric Association have conclusively found that those children would benefit from same sex marriage.

So if you believe in general welfare, then I would assume you believe in the welfare of all those children, and thus you would choose to support same sex marriage.

Now this is where your true colors are going to shine through. You say one thing about homosexuality and marriage, but when challenged with the facts, we are going to see the real side of you.
 
CriticalThought said:
You believe in promoting general welfare? Okay.

There are 8 to 10 million children of gay parents and same sex couples and the latest 25 years of research indicates that gay couples can raise children just as well as different sex couples. Furthermore there are tens of thousands of children in the foster care system who will never be adopted by a different sex couple and who would do better being raised by a married same sex couple than they would being raised by the state or by an individual parent. Two parent homes whether different sex or opposite sex, are the best at raising children, and the state has an interest in promoting them for the purpose of raising children. Even institutions like the American Pediatric Association have conclusively found that those children would benefit from same sex marriage.

So if you believe in general welfare, then I would assume you believe in the welfare of all those children, and thus you would choose to support same sex marriage.

Now this is where your true colors are going to shine through. You say one thing about homosexuality and marriage, but when challenged with the facts, we are going to see the real side of you.
Click to expand...

Give me some time and I will find the quotes where I have already dealt with these ideas.

I'm already on record on these things.
 
Chuz Life said:
Give me some time and I will find the quotes where I have already dealt with these ideas.

I'm already on record on these things.
Click to expand...

Okay you do that. And while you are at it, here is the evidence I use to support my arguments.

Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents: Resources for Professionals and Parents-Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents: Resources for Professionals and Parents

http://www.teach.virginia.edu/files..._children_of_lesbian_and_gay_parents_cdps.pdf

The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children -- Pawelski et al. 118 (1): 349 -- Pediatrics

I look forward to seeing yours...assuming you ever come back to this thread again.
 
 
Centrist77 said:
nothing more than opinion and opinion you have 100% right too believe in but not one you should force on others
Click to expand...

I most certainly do have a right, that is what being part of our society is all about. I want the laws etc to develop around what I morally and logically want. I don't care what you want, even if I do care about what you have to say and your input. After all is said and done we vote or go to court etc based on our own morality.

That is how this country and our society works, period.

Centrist77 said:
why did you focus one "dudes" what about women they are in this equation too, just a question
Click to expand...

That is silly. It was just an example. I clearly stated my position in my original post you responded to...

Blackdog said:
They can have civil unions or get the government out of the marriage business altogether.

Two men or women do not make a marriage. They should however have all the rights and privileges of a married couple no matter what it is called.

My reasons for being against gay marriage is purely religious and semantics.

It is not open for debate. It will immediately turn this thread into a religious bashing session. Not interested in that.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
My first post was #102

And I added it to the link I posted earlier.
Click to expand...

I thanked you for your post 102, here, because I appreciate your well thought out position, though I ultimately disagree with it.

I actually agree with your determination as to the significance of the Preamble. The Preamble explains the proper role of government. Where I would diverge from what you've stated is that the amendments (bill of rights and others) qualify and clarify that role. I think you would ultimately agree with me, thus far. You would probably even agree that the 14th limits what can be done to "Promote the general welfare". But, for those of us who subscribe to a developmentalist approach to interpretation, the 14th also bears upon the limits of what you may exclude gay people from.

But, even within the context of what you alone are asserting, I don't believe that you can show that gay marriage harms the general welfare, which is what you'd have to do. And since gay marriage is legal in some states, it will increasingly be difficult for you to assert this, since we are seeing no ill effects from gay marriage upon the general welfare.

Again, thank you for your thoughtful post.
 
Chuz Life said:
:rofl You really don't need the added flaming at the end of your post,.. do you?
Click to expand...

I've dealt with enough social conservatives on this forum to know how you guys operate. You make what you feel is a strong case, and when someone comes by with an evidence based positoin that suggests otherwise, you either deteriorate into the ol' "the Bible says its wrong" argument or you disappear entirely. But I gave you the last line so you could make a red herring out of it and change the topic. I'm just that nice of a guy.
 
CriticalThought said:
I've dealt with enough social conservatives on this forum to know how you guys operate. You make what you feel is a strong case, and when someone comes by with an evidence based positoin that suggests otherwise, you either deteriorate into the ol' "the Bible says its wrong" argument or you disappear entirely. But I gave you the last line so you could make a red herring out of it and change the topic. I'm just that nice of a guy.
Click to expand...

Whatever,...

Here's what I have;

Certainly, homosexuality, incest and polygamy existed in the time of our nations founding.... but our founders were not compelled to address the issue specifically. They chose to charge the government with "providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare."
Yeah, I know... the preamble is not considered by some to be legally or constitutionally binding... to them (you?) I ask,... then what is the purpose having a preamble at all?... if not to amplify the writers intentions? (also see; Article 8, section 1)

No one is saying (at least I'm not) that gays couldn't still form other types of unions,... have whatever religious or otherwise legal contracts between one another, etc... that's all well and good.

What I am saying is,.. being that the family is the most basic self sustainable element in a society,... and the one man one woman couple being the most basic self "sustainable" structure for a family (generally speaking here, remember?)... Then why not have the government recognize and even reward those things which are GENERALLY good for the general welfare of all?

I am a minimalist where government is concerned. I understand and even share many of your concerns about having less intrusive, smaller government.... But that being said,.. I believe that there are some legitimate roles for the government to play in the preservation of our societies (general welfare) as well as the protections of our rights (rights of pre-birth children).

If in the end we just have to agree to disagree... at least we both got to present our positions. Thanks!
Click to expand...

AND;

If the case can be made that same sex "marriage" is essential for the "general welfare" of the Nation? By all means, amend the definition. But do so keeping it in mind; how it will affect immigration, naturalization, and all the other laws concerning "marriage."

Again, I don't view being treated with indifference as being the same as one being "discriminated against."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Thomas Jefferson advocated for the castration of homosexual males. And his view was considered "progressive" at the time.

But that is irrelevant. You argument could just as easily be used to argue for same sex marriage. I've demonstrated how society could profit immensely from having it, whereas you have provided no evidence that it is harmful to society and that society is not better off for having it.

You have taken the small government defense, but you have failed to provide an argument for why heterosexual families should get to enjoy marriage whereas same sex families should not.

I can't see that you even have an argument. And that leads me to the conclusion that you are basing your opinions on your feelings rather than on reason.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom