• 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.
roguenuke said:
What "could" happen 100 years from now is not a good reason to deny people the right to enter into a civil marriage with each other. 100 years ago we wouldn't have had interracial marriages either.

Also, you are still arguing under the false premise that because it might be a choice, that homosexuals are not being discriminated against because of it. This is wrong. Our discrimination laws clearly cover religion as protected against discrimination, and there is no doubt that religion is a choice. The argument you really must make is if there is a legitimate reason for that discrimination, such as homosexuality would be harmful to someone in the relationship or even someone outside the relationship(must be able to prove the harm) or that there is a unique government benefit that every heterosexual couple that is allowed to marry provides society, that homosexual couples do not. If you can't prove these, then the discrimination is unjust and wrong.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. I think it IS a choice. What I am saying is that those that argue that it is not choice cite studies that if read and understood in their entirety don't say that it IS NOT a choice. What they all say is that it may be genetic. Not that it IS genetic.
 
mac said:
I agree with what Alastor said on this but would like to add that if homosexuals are granted "rights and privileges" based on lifestyle choices then it sets a precedent that can be utilized by folks who have what is now considered unnatural lifestyles to claim the same legitimacy. Keep in mind that this conversation would have never taken place a hundred years ago. What happens a hundred years from now? Do we legitimize everyones lifetyles simply because there is a small group who wishes some aberrant lifestyle to be legitimized?
Click to expand...

Well, and that's a good point.

Whether or not someone is a pedophile is probably also somewhat genetic.

I think the line in the sand gets drawn where the question of, "Does this harm someone else or society" is answered affirmatively.

The reality is that homosexuality is not harmful to society, nor to any individual rights the rest of the citizenry are entitled to.

For deviations or "abnormalities" that are harmful (such as pedophilia) the answer is that we must try to prevent it.

I don't think the line in the sand is determined by whether or not we're genetically predisposed one way or the other. The only reasonable place to draw the line is when it impacts society negatively.

In which case homosexuality would not qualify as it doesn't infringe upon anyone else's individual rights and does not degrade society in any substantive way.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
No, I'm not. I think it IS a choice. What I am saying is that those that argue that it is not choice cite studies that if read and understood in their entirety don't say that it IS NOT a choice. What they all say is that it may be genetic. Not that it IS genetic.
Click to expand...

So if sexual preference is a choice, then you could easily enter a homosexual relationship with another man? I mean, if its a choice, all you would have to do is choose to like him.
 
mac said:
Exactly my point really. Why is polygamy illegal in the US? If a man is married to two consenting females, or vice versa, who's to say that is wrong?
Click to expand...

Actually, there are at least some people who believe polygamy should be legal. I do. I just think that it should definitely be more of a group marriage thing, rather than a man has multiple wives or woman has multiple husbands thing. There are currently a lot of negative stereotypes and child-abuse stigmas that have to be overcome before this will get anywhere close to the backing that gay marriage has.

A major problem with polygamy marriage is that there are extra legal considerations that could cause major issues, such as who has last say in deciding a medical decision of one of the group or parental rights questions, especially if it is one woman and two men, if the group raises the children as a group. Also, divorce would be a lot more complicated, not to mention including more people into the marriage. It is more complicated than gay marriage. Still doable, but it would be better to try to address at least some of these issues before trying to get the law changed.
 
roguenuke said:
Actually, there are at least some people who believe polygamy should be legal. I do. I just think that it should definitely be more of a group marriage thing, rather than a man has multiple wives or woman has multiple husbands thing. There are currently a lot of negative stereotypes and child-abuse stigmas that have to be overcome before this will get anywhere close to the backing that gay marriage has.

A major problem with polygamy marriage is that there are extra legal considerations that could cause major issues, such as who has last say in deciding a medical decision of one of the group or parental rights questions, especially if it is one woman and two men, if the group raises the children as a group. Also, divorce would be a lot more complicated, not to mention including more people into the marriage. It is more complicated than gay marriage. Still doable, but it would be better to try to address at least some of these issues before trying to get the law changed.
Click to expand...

I'd add to this by pointing out that our society, because of the roots of our culture, may be somewhat undermined by polygamy. In some cultures polygamy can work because of the fundamental belief systems of the people within it.

I don't think ours is one of those cultures.

In a few decades that may change, but right now I could see an awful lot of waste, destruction, anarchy, and degradation of society as a result of legalized polygamy - because of the belief system most members of our culture have currently.

Ancient Greece? It'd probably work. 2010 Hoboken, Indiana? Not so much...
 
mac said:
No, I'm not. I think it IS a choice. What I am saying is that those that argue that it is not choice cite studies that if read and understood in their entirety don't say that it IS NOT a choice. What they all say is that it may be genetic. Not that it IS genetic.
Click to expand...

But it still doesn't matter because discrimination laws don't just cover things that are genetic. Religion is not genetic. Yet no one on the anti-gm side seems to want to address this. You can say that discrimination is okay as long as it is there for a good, just reason. All you have to do is address why it is okay to discriminate against homosexuals because of their sexuality.

Yes, I think it is not a choice. I don't see why anyone would choose to be homosexual. Especially in countries where it is pretty much a death sentence. I have no idea what causes people to be homosexual, but I am pretty certain from what I have read about it and what I have observed and what I know about my own sexuality and sexual attractions, that it is not a conscience choice.
 
Alastor said:
I'd add to this by pointing out that our society, because of the roots of our culture, may be somewhat undermined by polygamy. In some cultures polygamy can work because of the fundamental belief systems of the people within it.

I don't think ours is one of those cultures.

In a few decades that may change, but right now I could see an awful lot of waste, destruction, anarchy, and degradation of society as a result of legalized polygamy - because of the belief system most members of our culture have currently.

Ancient Greece? It'd probably work. 2010 Hoboken, Indiana? Not so much...
Click to expand...


And once you kick the door open to redefine marriage to accomodate gays, what makes you think you can shut it again before the polygamists, polyamorists, and who knows what else get their foot in? Seriously, if you can justify gay marriage, it is hard to imagine how you could justify denying the same rights to polygamists, group-marriage, line-marriage, or basically about any damn thing anybody wants. The very same pro-SSM arguments would be used against you.
 
Alastor said:
I'd add to this by pointing out that our society, because of the roots of our culture, may be somewhat undermined by polygamy. In some cultures polygamy can work because of the fundamental belief systems of the people within it.

I don't think ours is one of those cultures.

In a few decades that may change, but right now I could see an awful lot of waste, destruction, anarchy, and degradation of society as a result of legalized polygamy - because of the belief system most members of our culture have currently.

Ancient Greece? It'd probably work. 2010 Hoboken, Indiana? Not so much...
Click to expand...

And you are actually probably right, and the harm that may come from legalized polygamy being abused would probably be worse than allowing those few that would actually like to just legitimately benefit from it to have it. It is definitely something that could not be done right now. I do see your point. But I still feel bad for those people who are truly polyamorous, however, since they don't seem to really be clamoring for polygamy to be legal anyway, it probably isn't a big deal.
 
Alastor said:
Well, and that's a good point.

Whether or not someone is a pedophile is probably also somewhat genetic.

I think the line in the sand gets drawn where the question of, "Does this harm someone else or society" is answered affirmatively.

The reality is that homosexuality is not harmful to society, nor to any individual rights the rest of the citizenry are entitled to.

For deviations or "abnormalities" that are harmful (such as pedophilia) the answer is that we must try to prevent it.

I don't think the line in the sand is determined by whether or not we're genetically predisposed one way or the other. The only reasonable place to draw the line is when it impacts society negatively.

In which case homosexuality would not qualify as it doesn't infringe upon anyone else's individual rights and does not degrade society in any substantive way.
Click to expand...

Well, there you go....you don't think homosexuality infringes on anyone else's rights, while others do. This is where it comes down to a simply societal interpretation of what is right and what is not.
 
Goshin said:
And once you kick the door open to redefine marriage to accomodate gays, what makes you think you can shut it again before the polygamists, polyamorists, and who knows what else get their foot in? Seriously, if you can justify gay marriage, it is hard to imagine how you could justify denying the same rights to polygamists, group-marriage, line-marriage, or basically about any damn thing anybody wants. The very same pro-SSM arguments would be used against you.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The government could use the valid argument that they need to draw a limit somewhere in the number of people that can benefit from the marriage contract. I think pretty much all of what you are describing is polygamy marriages, just perhaps different versions of it. Just as homosexuals are now having to prove why their marriage can benefit the government while not harming it, the polygamists would have to do the same thing. It is a much more difficult argument when you consider the complications that would inherently come from polygamy marriage anyway. Homosexual marriage would still just involve 2 people, as heterosexual marriage does. No extra legal complications come from allowing 2 homosexuals to get married.
 
roguenuke said:
And you are actually probably right, and the harm that may come from legalized polygamy being abused would probably be worse than allowing those few that would actually like to just legitimately benefit from it to have it. It is definitely something that could not be done right now. I do see your point. But I still feel bad for those people who are truly polyamorous, however, since they don't seem to really be clamoring for polygamy to be legal anyway, it probably isn't a big deal.
Click to expand...


If you support the right to gay marriage, how can you not support the right to polygamous marriage? Don't they have a right to be happy too? Don't they have a right to love according to their nature and enjoy the benefits of marriage just like gays? Currently they are persecuted and outlawed, doesn't that qualify as injustice and discrimination? And aren't you stereotyping polygamous persons as child molesters just because of a handful of high-profile cases?

I thought everyone was supposed to have equal access to the benefits of lawful marriage, and here I find you're discriminating against polygamists!
 
mac said:
Well, there you go....you don't think homosexuality infringes on anyone else's rights, while others do. This is where it comes down to a simply societal interpretation of what is right and what is not.
Click to expand...

You have to prove that homosexual marriage is harming you or society in some way. You can't simply make an assertion that it is/does without proof. The pro-gm side can show how homosexual marriage can benefit society, so to counter, you would have to show that harm will be caused to society by homosexual marriage and that the harm would be less desirable than the benefits to society as a whole.
 
Alastor said:
Well, and that's a good point.

Whether or not someone is a pedophile is probably also somewhat genetic.

I think the line in the sand gets drawn where the question of, "Does this harm someone else or society" is answered affirmatively.

The reality is that homosexuality is not harmful to society, nor to any individual rights the rest of the citizenry are entitled to.

For deviations or "abnormalities" that are harmful (such as pedophilia) the answer is that we must try to prevent it.

I don't think the line in the sand is determined by whether or not we're genetically predisposed one way or the other. The only reasonable place to draw the line is when it impacts society negatively.

In which case homosexuality would not qualify as it doesn't infringe upon anyone else's individual rights and does not degrade society in any substantive way.
Click to expand...

What happens when groups begin trying to redefine pedophilia? Is a 22 year old student sleeping with a willing 15 year old student pedophilia? There are a lot of variables in there that can be "redefined".
 
roguenuke said:
You have to prove that homosexual marriage is harming you or society in some way. You can't simply make an assertion that it is/does without proof. The pro-gm side can show how homosexual marriage can benefit society, so to counter, you would have to show that harm will be caused to society by homosexual marriage and that the harm would be less desirable than the benefits to society as a whole.
Click to expand...

actually the burden of proof lies with those who are attempting to change the laws.
 
roguenuke said:
Not necessarily. The government could use the valid argument that they need to draw a limit somewhere
Click to expand...

Gosh that sounds like a familiar phrase, I seem to have heard it somewhere before... I think it was an anti-SSM person! "We have to draw a line somewhere..." :lamo

It is a much more difficult argument when you consider the complications that would inherently come from polygamy marriage anyway. Homosexual marriage would still just involve 2 people, as heterosexual marriage does. No extra legal complications come from allowing 2 homosexuals to get married.
Click to expand...

If two lesbians marry and one of them has a child through artificial insemination, or the "assistance" of a male "Friend", whose baby is it? Hers alone, or is it a "product of the marriage"? Does the "sperm donor" have a say? What about a woman playing "host mother" for a male gay couple? A recent case where a lesbian couple split up and one of them had a kid, she "converted" to hetero... the other former partner sued to keep her from taking her little girl to a Christian church because of their "anti gay positions"... yeah it can get a smidge more complicated than the traditional forms of marriage too, mainly because of that third-party-reproduction issue I've mentioned.

So you DO think that government has a right to limit other people's right to marry according to their wishes then? You just draw the line in a different place... :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
If you support the right to gay marriage, how can you not support the right to polygamous marriage? Don't they have a right to be happy too? Don't they have a right to love according to their nature and enjoy the benefits of marriage just like gays? Currently they are persecuted and outlawed, doesn't that qualify as injustice and discrimination? And aren't you stereotyping polygamous persons as child molesters just because of a handful of high-profile cases?

I thought everyone was supposed to have equal access to the benefits of lawful marriage, and here I find you're discriminating against polygamists!
Click to expand...

Wow! Misrepresent my argument much?

First, I never said that all polygamous persons are child molesters. There certainly is evidence to show that some people who believe strongly in polygamy, also take young girls as wives (legal or not). Most of our society does not find this okay. Especially when it seems that the girls are taught to believe that it is their proper place in life from birth. However, there certainly are polyamorous people and people of other religious beliefs that are okay with polygamy that are only interested in having a mutual, loving relationship with other consenting adults.

Second, try to actually read some of my arguments, rather than trying to get all up in arms about me discriminating against someone. I am not automatically failing to that it would be wrong to give them the benefits of marriage. I am saying that it is not as simple as allowing homosexuals to get married. I have weighed the cost of allowing homosexuals to marry to the benefits of allowing homosexuals to get married, to both the people involved and society. The benefits definitely outweigh any costs.

I was all for polygamy being legal, but even before Alastor pointed out some extra problems and possible unsavory uses of such, I could see problems with allowing polygamy. There is no way that it is as simple as allowing gay marriage.
 
mac said:
No, but the Bible does say it's unnatural. The followers of Christianity and believers in the bible are greatly influenced by what is written in it. If it is genetically proven that the bible's assumption that homosexuality is unnatural is proven false, then organized Christian religions have a lot of problems on their hands.

The main argument against legitimizing or legalizing homosexuality is that it is unnatural and they they should not be entitled to the rights and privileges of those that follow a "natural" or "legitimate" lifestyle. If people are in fact born gay just as they are born Caucasian or male or female, then it is, in fact, discrimination to deny them these rights and privileges.
Click to expand...

Not even close. Absolute scientific proof that homosexuality was 100% genetic wouldn't even phase most religious folk. The most popular belief I know of is that Adam and Eve were created perfect, and that sin has corrupted the human genome. Naturally, man was flawless, and flaws are the unnatural result of sin passed down through generations. The faithful would find the discovery of a "homosexuality gene" only further proof of the convictions they already hold.

Being born with unnatural desires is just one of the trials that we are given, but with faith we can turn from our sinful inclinations blah blah blah etc... Proof that people are born with a certain impulse doesn't mean that we should condone them acting upon it.

For example, if it could be proven that pedophiles and a strong genetic predisposition to have sex with prepubescent children that doesn't mean we should let them do so, much less grant them legal privileges associated with their illness.

Now I am sure, as is always the case when pedophilia is brought into a homosexuality thread, there will be plenty of folk saying that pedophilia is nothing like homosexuality. But here's the thing. They both are sexual preferences. The difference is not that one is "natural" and the other is "unnatural," but rather that one is between consenting adults, and one is not.

That is really the only issue here, is whether or not the government has any business concerning itself with what transpires between consenting adults. Whether it is a choice or not is irrelevant with regards to whether it is a moral impulse to act on, or one that should be discriminated against.
 
roguenuke said:
Wow! Misrepresent my argument much?
Click to expand...

Probably less than people have misrepresented mine.




I was all for polygamy being legal, but even before Alastor pointed out some extra problems and possible unsavory uses of such, I could see problems with allowing polygamy. There is no way that it is as simple as allowing gay marriage.
Click to expand...

I think it is hypocritical to criticize someone for having reservations about SSM, then turn around and express reservations about polygamy or really almost any other "alternative" form of marriage. If you're going to kick over generations of common practice for the sake of one tiny minority, I don't think you can justify denying another just because it might be more complicated.
 
Goshin said:
Gosh that sounds like a familiar phrase, I seem to have heard it somewhere before... I think it was an anti-SSM person! "We have to draw a line somewhere..." :lamo



If two lesbians marry and one of them has a child through artificial insemination, or the "assistance" of a male "Friend", whose baby is it? Hers alone, or is it a "product of the marriage"? Does the "sperm donor" have a say? What about a woman playing "host mother" for a male gay couple? A recent case where a lesbian couple split up and one of them had a kid, she "converted" to hetero... the other former partner sued to keep her from taking her little girl to a Christian church because of their "anti gay positions"... yeah it can get a smidge more complicated than the traditional forms of marriage too, mainly because of that third-party-reproduction issue I've mentioned.

So you DO think that government has a right to limit other people's right to marry according to their wishes then? You just draw the line in a different place... :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Really? I recently recall an argument about a mother and father and their church choices. Also, there are the cases when a heterosexual couple uses a sperm donor or a surrogate mother or even just adopt, and later have complications concerning the parental rights pertaining to biological parenthood versus who is legally raising the child and/or been in the child's life the most. The issues you mentioned have come up with heterosexual couples also. However, I don't recall an issue (although, granted I could be wrong) where three people were all raising a child as their child, not even really informing or caring about who the child's actual biological parents are. (Think My Two Dad's situation) The three live together in love with each other and the child calls all three mom or dad (dependent only on their sex). In such a case, it would be a lot more complicated than two separate parties raising a child, especially since the child is most likely going to know why they have at least two of one parent.
 
Panache said:
Not even close. Absolute scientific proof that homosexuality was 100% genetic wouldn't even phase most religious folk. The most popular belief I know of is that Adam and Eve were created perfect, and that sin has corrupted the human genome. Naturally, man was flawless, and flaws are the unnatural result of sin passed down through generations. The faithful would find the discovery of a "homosexuality gene" only further proof of the convictions they already hold.

Being born with unnatural desires is just one of the trials that we are given, but with faith we can turn from our sinful inclinations blah blah blah etc... Proof that people are born with a certain impulse doesn't mean that we should condone them acting upon it.

For example, if it could be proven that pedophiles and a strong genetic predisposition to have sex with prepubescent children that doesn't mean we should let them do so, much less grant them legal privileges associated with their illness.

Now I am sure, as is always the case when pedophilia is brought into a homosexuality thread, there will be plenty of folk saying that pedophilia is nothing like homosexuality. But here's the thing. They both are sexual preferences. The difference is not that one is "natural" and the other is "unnatural," but rather that one is between consenting adults, and one is not.

That is really the only issue here, is whether or not the government has any business concerning itself with what transpires between consenting adults. Whether it is a choice or not is irrelevant with regards to whether it is a moral impulse to act on, or one that should be discriminated against.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you. I think you took my comment as an attack on Christianity, it wasn't.
 
roguenuke said:
Really? I recently recall an argument about a mother and father and their church choices. Also, there are the cases when a heterosexual couple uses a sperm donor or a surrogate mother or even just adopt, and later have complications concerning the parental rights pertaining to biological parenthood versus who is legally raising the child and/or been in the child's life the most. The issues you mentioned have come up with heterosexual couples also. However, I don't recall an issue (although, granted I could be wrong) where three people were all raising a child as their child, not even really informing or caring about who the child's actual biological parents are. (Think My Two Dad's situation) The three live together in love with each other and the child calls all three mom or dad (dependent only on their sex). In such a case, it would be a lot more complicated than two separate parties raising a child, especially since the child is most likely going to know why they have at least two of one parent.
Click to expand...


Okay, but you DO think that gov't has a right to restrict some people's access to legal marriage, as long as it is some group you have reservations about? That's what it is sounding like... you're for SSM but have reservations about polygamy as a viable legal form of marriage in the USA. That would be a form of denying marriage benefits to a minority based on your individual viewpoint that their form of marriage might be a problem of some kind... which isn't that different a viewpoint than many anti-SSM's view of gay marriage.
 
mac said:
actually the burden of proof lies with those who are attempting to change the laws.
Click to expand...

As I've said there is as much proof that homosexual marriage can benefit society as heterosexual marriage does, since the only difference is the genders of the people involved in the marriage. The only direct benefit that can't come is increasing the chances that a child born between two people in a relationship is raised by the biological mother and father. However, since I have already shown how not all the benefits to society have to apply or even legally can apply (in some cases) to all heterosexual marriages, then the ability to actually reproduce cannot be used against homosexuals. All the other benefits of marriage to society can come from at least a few homosexual couples. The benefits to society by allowing homosexuals' the ability to marry is no different than those from heterosexuals, so the pro-gm proof is already there. We have our proof.
 
Goshin said:
Okay, but you DO think that gov't has a right to restrict some people's access to legal marriage, as long as it is some group you have reservations about? That's what it is sounding like... you're for SSM but have reservations about polygamy as a viable legal form of marriage in the USA. That would be a form of denying marriage benefits to a minority based on your individual viewpoint that their form of marriage might be a problem of some kind... which isn't that different a viewpoint than many anti-SSM's view of gay marriage.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, I think the government should restrict persons access to legal marriage.

Not on the grounds of sexual preference, race, or the like, but on grounds designed to promote stable financial situations, good child-rearing environments, and so forth.

If those grounds excluded some gay couples, I am fairly sure they would exclude a comparable number of hetero couples.

I think they would also INclude some unions of more than two people.
 
roguenuke said:
You have to prove that homosexual marriage is harming you or society in some way. You can't simply make an assertion that it is/does without proof. The pro-gm side can show how homosexual marriage can benefit society, so to counter, you would have to show that harm will be caused to society by homosexual marriage and that the harm would be less desirable than the benefits to society as a whole.
Click to expand...

again, the burden of proof lies with those that are trying to change the laws....I'm not trying to change the law.
 
The Mark said:
Just to be clear, I think the government should restrict persons access to legal marriage.

Not on the grounds of sexual preference, race, or the like, but on grounds designed to promote stable financial situations, good child-rearing environments, and so forth.

If those grounds excluded some gay couples, I am fairly sure they would exclude a comparable number of hetero couples.

I think they would also INclude some unions of more than two people.
Click to expand...


Say what? :lol:
Which individual or organization in government would you trust to be the unbiased arbiter of who should and should not be allowed to get married?
And do you realize how costly it would be to have a government entity charged with judging each individual potential marriage and deciding whether or not to allow it?
Do you realize how many marriages take place in our country each and every day?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom