• 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.
Gay Marriage, is illogical

It is always the agenda of the satanic to
mimic and or pervert or invade the sacred institution/s created by God . . . link
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
You may personally believe it to be religious, but as soon as the Marriage License came into existence; marriage left the realm of religion and entered the realm of the State.
Click to expand...

Please point out where my argument hinges on marriage being religious?

I said morally my religion says it is wrong. Has nothing to do with marriage being a religious or government institution.

I personally would like to see the government get out of the marriage business. It has very little to do with my argument.
 
Blackdog said:
Please point out where my argument hinges on marriage being religious?

I said morally my religion says it is wrong. Has nothing to do with marriage being a religious or government institution.

I personally would like to see the government get out of the marriage business. It has very little to do with my argument.
Click to expand...

Really?

Blackdog said:
My reasons for being against gay marriage is purely religious and semantics.
Click to expand...

I mean, I had even quoted it. As I said, you may feel that you're religiously motivated in this. But it doesn't matter. As soon as the Marriage License was created, marriage left the realm of religion and entered the realm of the State. You cannot, thus, use religious arguments what so ever so long as the Marriage License exists.
 
Ikari said:
Really?



I mean, I had even quoted it. As I said, you may feel that you're religiously motivated in this. But it doesn't matter. As soon as the Marriage License was created, marriage left the realm of religion and entered the realm of the State. You cannot, thus, use religious arguments what so ever so long as the Marriage License exists.
Click to expand...

Marriage is social, with sub-categories of religious, legal, economic, etc. Some marriages may be more or less religious or legal than others, but they are all social. Marriage never left the religious subcategory, that's just an ignorant thing to say.
 
Jerry said:
That right doesn't exist, for anyone. It's rumor which has been repeated so many times that people believe it, but there is no actual law establishing hospital visitation. That issue is dealt with by the specific hospital, and the typical example is that anyone is allowed during visitation hours. Also, I had non relatives stay with me when I spent a week in the hospital as a teen, so I know first hand that you don't have to be family.

Also, I'm not married to my mother but I'm inheriting everything she has when she passes. There is no law helping me out there, either, because if she didn't have a will then my oldest sister would have legal favor under CA law. So obviously gays don't need 'marriage' to take care of that, either.
Click to expand...

Being from the UK, I can't really comment on the specifics of Californian law. But if it is anything like UK law (and I suspect it is any many ways) then there will almost certainly be certain "rights" and protections that are afforded to hetrosexual couples that are definately not extended to homosexual couples.

Personally I don't care about whether its called marriage, civil partnerships or whatever, but I think gay couples should be afforded exactly the same rights as hetrosexual couples.

I take your point that at the moment in the US, visitation rights are an issue for each hospital. But clearly enough hospitals were actively preventing gay people from seeing their loved ones that Obama felt it was necessary to intervene to prevent it at a federal level. If this weren't happening I don't think the feds would have intervened at all.

Best Regards

S
 
Ikari said:
Really?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Ikari said:
I mean, I had even quoted it. As I said, you may feel that you're religiously motivated in this. But it doesn't matter. As soon as the Marriage License was created, marriage left the realm of religion and entered the realm of the State. You cannot, thus, use religious arguments what so ever so long as the Marriage License exists.
Click to expand...

Yes I can. My religion says it is wrong. My moral compass says it is wrong. Since God, comes before government for me (and almost everything else). I most certainly can, have and will continue. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Marriage is social, with sub-categories of religious, legal, economic, etc. Some marriages may be more or less religious or legal than others, but they are all social. Marriage never left the religious subcategory, that's just an ignorant thing to say.
Click to expand...

It did as soon as the State usurped it. Religion and State are separate, the State cannot rule along religious lines; it must respect the rights of the individual. When the State claimed the Marriage License, they claimed Marriage. It is not a religious institution any longer, as the State is forbidden from being a religion institution. The Marriage License is a State granted and recognized contract, the individual has right to contract. That's that. Claiming that marriage is still a religious possession is just an ignorant thing to say.
 
Blackdog said:
Yes I can. My religion says it is wrong. My moral compass says it is wrong. Since God, comes before government for me (and almost everything else). I most certainly can, have and will continue. :2wave:
Click to expand...

So thanks for admitting you are making it based upon religion. I don't know where your little indignant remark came from then since you seemed to know your opinion was based solely on your religious opinion. And since the Marriage License is property of State and not Church, your religious opinion has no functional, rightful, or legal bearing on the subject.
 
Ikari said:
It did as soon as the State usurped it. Religion and State are separate, the State cannot rule along religious lines; it must respect the rights of the individual. When the State claimed the Marriage License, they claimed Marriage. It is not a religious institution any longer, as the State is forbidden from being a religion institution. The Marriage License is a State granted and recognized contract, the individual has right to contract. That's that. Claiming that marriage is still a religious possession is just an ignorant thing to say.
Click to expand...

You are still missing the point. I am not saying it is a religious institution, not even close. I am saying I as an American for whatever reason find it wrong, period. So I will not support it whether you like it or not.

So It does not matter what kind of institution it is. Gay marriage is wrong, and I do not have to support or condone it. Since I live here and I am a citizen it is my right to vote or speak out against it for wish.
 
sh856531 said:
Being from the UK, I can't really comment on the specifics of Californian law. But if it is anything like UK law (and I suspect it is any many ways) then there will almost certainly be certain "rights" and protections that are afforded to hetrosexual couples that are definately not extended to homosexual couples.

Personally I don't care about whether its called marriage, civil partnerships or whatever, but I think gay couples should be afforded exactly the same rights as hetrosexual couples.

I take your point that at the moment in the US, visitation rights are an issue for each hospital. But clearly enough hospitals were actively preventing gay people from seeing their loved ones that Obama felt it was necessary to intervene to prevent it at a federal level. If this weren't happening I don't think the feds would have intervened at all.

Best Regards

S
Click to expand...

We heteros don't need any more help ****ing up marriage, so unless gays are part of the solution, they are part of the problem. They are part of the problem because of the fact that they view the issue of marriage through the lens of identity politics instead of Functionalism, which lends them to ignore the real problems.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
It did as soon as the State usurped it.
Click to expand...

We know that's a false statement because Clergy can solemnize and certify marriage.

A specific marriage may not have a religious component, but marriage as an institution retains a strong religious element.
 
Jerry said:
We know that's a false statement because Clergy can solemnize and certify marriage.

A specific marriage may not have a religious component, but marriage as an institution retains a strong religious element.
Click to expand...

The State has granted privilege to organizations to issue the marriage contract. That doesn't mean that marriage is solely religious. As long as it's a state issued contract, that's what it is.
 
Ikari said:
So thanks for admitting you are making it based upon religion.
Click to expand...

I did not say I was. I have also mentioned even if I was not a Chrsitian I would still be against it.

Ikari said:
I don't know where your little indignant remark came from then since you seemed to know your opinion was based solely on your religious opinion.
Click to expand...

Because it is not "solely" based on religion. You are making this assumption about me based on a post on an Internet message board? You don't know me.

Ikari said:
And since the Marriage License is property of State and not Church, your religious opinion has no functional, rightful, or legal bearing on the subject.
Click to expand...

Funny how people who want less government are the ones who always cry for more when it suits their purposes.

Either way it changes nothing, and I most certainly can. :mrgreen:
 
I'm not crying for more government, I'm telling you exactly what it is. Marriage is a State issued contract; that's the reality of the situation. People are still trying to use government to enforce their religious bigotries, and that's what's going too far. That's what the marriage license was invented for, and that's what is sadly still being used for. Like we didn't get out of the dark ages on some level.
 
Ikari said:
The State has granted privilege to organizations to issue the marriage contract. That doesn't mean that marriage is solely religious. As long as it's a state issued contract, that's what it is.
Click to expand...

No one ever said marriage is solely religious.

In fact I clearly stated that marriage is a conglomerate of many subcategories not only of religious but of law and economy as well. Blackdog supports gays having the legal rights...so I don't know who's posts you're reading but you aren't reading ours.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
I'm not crying for more government, I'm telling you exactly what it is. Marriage is a State issued contract; that's the reality of the situation. People are still trying to use government to enforce their religious bigotries, and that's what's going too far.
Click to expand...

So I must give up my freedom to support your way of thinking or be a bigot. I see.

Ikari said:
That's what the marriage license was invented for, and that's what is sadly still being used for. Like we didn't get out of the dark ages on some level.
Click to expand...

It was invented to keep blacks and whites from marrying. So here we can agree. But sexual preference has nothing to do with race or my willingness to support it as a marriage.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
So I must give up my freedom to support your way of thinking or be a bigot. I see.

It was invented to keep blacks and whites from marrying.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It was enforced bigotries of the day, people thought it an abomination for interracial couples to get married. Just as some see it an abomination for gays to get married. The marriage license hasn't changed function, it remains a power used to enforce bigotries against a people.

You're not giving up any freedom, that's just propaganda on your part to try to excuse your behavior.
 
Ikari said:
I'm not crying for more government, I'm telling you exactly what it is. Marriage is a State issued contract; that's the reality of the situation. People are still trying to use government to enforce their religious bigotries, and that's what's going too far. That's what the marriage license was invented for, and that's what is sadly still being used for. Like we didn't get out of the dark ages on some level.
Click to expand...

My mother in-law is married and there's no legal aspect to it at all. She doesn't have a marriage license, she doesn't file "married-joint" on her taxes, etc. She and her husband had a religious ceremony, wear rings, and live as a married couple. The family regards them as married.

They are married, just as many gay couples are married now without the law.

A specific marriage may have no religious component just as a specific marriage may have no legal component, but marriage per-se as an institution maintains religious and legal elements.
 
Ikari said:
Exactly. It was enforced bigotries of the day, people thought it an abomination for interracial couples to get married. Just as some see it an abomination for gays to get married. The marriage license hasn't changed function, it remains a power used to enforce bigotries against a people.
Click to expand...

It is not the same. Marriage is one man and a woman. In this country it has always been that way. Race is nothing more than a social construct and so it should not be relevant. Going against human biology is different.

Ikari said:
You're not giving up any freedom, that's just propaganda on your part to try to excuse your behavior.
Click to expand...

Propaganda? LOL!

No, I am standing by what I believe to be right as an American citizen.
 
Jerry said:
My mother in-law is married and there's no legal aspect to it at all. She doesn't have a marriage license, she doesn't file "married-joint" on her taxes, etc. She and her husband had a religious ceremony, wear rings, and live as a married couple. The family regards them as married.

They are married, just as many gay couples are married now without the law.

A specific marriage may have no religious component just as a specific marriage may have no legal component, but marriage per-se as an institution maintains religious and legal elements.
Click to expand...

And the Marriage License is free from any religious mandate since it is property of the State. So any religious argument built upon marriage being solely between a man and a woman has no regard within the Marriage License itself. Religiously married and legally married are two different things, and the Marriage License is not product of religion, but product of State. Thus it is subjected to all the limitations and requirements that government is made to observe.
 
Blackdog said:
It is not the same. Marriage is one man and a woman. In this country it has always been that way. Race is nothing more than a social construct and so it should not be relevant. Going against human biology is different.
Click to expand...

According to you based on religious belief, marriage is one man and one woman. You cannot use religious belief to enforce bigotry through government contract. That is nothing short of tyranny.

Blackdog said:
Propaganda? LOL!

No, I am standing by what I believe to be right as an American citizen.
Click to expand...

You're not standing for jack **** beside trying to push your religious beliefs on other people and enforce it through State contract.
 
Ikari said:
And the Marriage License is free from any religious mandate since it is property of the State. So any religious argument built upon marriage being solely between a man and a woman has no regard within the Marriage License itself. Religiously married and legally married are two different things, and the Marriage License is not product of religion, but product of State. Thus it is subjected to all the limitations and requirements that government is made to observe.
Click to expand...

There is no requirement for a vote to be free from religious mandate, and it's a person's vote which is the target of the discussion, not the marriage license.

If The People decide that they don't want gay marriage, then it's a "communal" law, not a religious mandate.

Also, you're just assuming that there is no objective merit in a religious argument, merit which could be supported with secular reasoning.
 
Ikari said:
According to you based on religious belief, marriage is one man and one woman. You cannot use religious belief to enforce bigotry through government contract.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can, if it supports a secular purpose.

Blackdog could come here and say that he has no problem if some other 1st cousins want legal rights because Familial Relation is a Protected Class, but doesn't support those rights being called "marriage" due to religious convictions against incest. Blackdog casting a vote reflecting his religious beliefs is valid because opposing incest serves the secular purpose of public health by controlling genetic disorders from inbreeding.

Like murder. Using a religious rational to justify an objection to murder is valid if reducing murder serves a secular purpose.

The same is true of theft. The same is true of adultery. etc, etc, ad nausium.

Me personally, where I oppose gay marriage is the same place I oppose hetero marriage, that being where the divorce rate is either not reduced or even increased.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
There is no requirement for a vote to be free from religious mandate, and it's a person's vote which is the target of the discussion, not the marriage license.

If The People decide that they don't want gay marriage, then it's a "communal" law, not a religious mandate.

Also, you're just assuming that there is no objective merit in a religious argument, merit which could be supported with secular reasoning.
Click to expand...

Votes which come from the individual may be religious in nature. Votes which come from government must abide by the restrictions placed upon government. The majority of people may not like gay marriage; but so long as the Marriage License exists there is not anything they can justly do about it. Any action which prohibits same sex couples from obtaining a marriage license is one of bigotry and oppression. And that's what we're not supposed to be able. Communal law may not rightfully override the rights and liberties of the individual. It's that simple. Thus as long as there is a Marriage License, there is nothing one can legitimately and rightfully do to forbid same sex couples from obtaining a Marriage License. That's all there is to it.
 
Ikari said:
According to you based on religious belief, marriage is one man and one woman. You cannot use religious belief to enforce bigotry through government contract. That is nothing short of tyranny.
Click to expand...

Based on the fact in our society religion or not it is one man our woman. You can scream that it is purely based on religion, but it's not. That makes you wrong.

And yes I can do anything I like via the ballot box. In this country I have that right.

Ikari said:
You're not standing for jack **** beside trying to push your religious beliefs on other people and enforce it through State contract.
Click to expand...

Thats a hell of an argument. :roll:

I am not enforcing anything. I am submitting my thoughts and wants for the society in which I live. You don't like it? Move?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom