• 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.
CaptainCourtesy said:
And, as an aside, with what we know about developmental sexuality, I would caution ANYONE of trying to identify the sexual orientation of someone as young as 3 or 5, especially based on a behavior or two. Further, I have no idea what "acting gay" looks like on a 5 year old.
Click to expand...

Two different gay male acquaintances have described knowing they were gay "in kindergarten"; feeling that they were different than the other boys, and having crushes on boys.
Five is about the age that heterosexuals begin to have "crushes" on members of the opposite sex.
I remember my son coming home dispirited from kindergarten; when I asked him what was wrong, he said, "I need a girlfriend! All my friends have girlfriends."
When I suggested cluelessly that I was both a girl and his friend, he glared at me contemptuously and replied, "No, mom. I need a little girlfriend."

:lol:
 
mac said:
So, we have to use something other than science to answer the fundamental question in this argument. Is homosexuality, and by extension, homosexual marriage, something society will accept as legitimate?
Click to expand...

You just moved the goal posts. There is a difference between something being scientifically legitimate, and something that society will accept as legitimate. As for the former, this has been proven, both in the case of homosexuality and GM. As for the latter, society does not always base it's decisions on science alone. Morality, perception, societal needs, and beliefs come into play. So, you are addressing two different concepts.
 
1069 said:
Two different gay male acquaintances have described knowing they were gay "in kindergarten"; feeling that they were different than the other boys, and having crushes on boys.
Five is about the age that heterosexuals begin to have "crushes" on members of the opposite sex.
I remember my son coming home dispirited from kindergarten; when I asked him what was wrong, he said, "I need a girlfriend! All my friends have girlfriends."
When I suggested cluelessly that I was both a girl and his friend, he glared at me contemptuously and replied, "No, mom. I need a little girlfriend."

:lol:
Click to expand...

There are some children that age that are aware of their sexuality. Depends on the kid. Even if this is true, we still do not know, conclusively WHY it develops or from where.
 
1069 said:
Two different gay male acquaintances have described knowing they were gay "in kindergarten"; feeling that they were different than the other boys, and having crushes on boys.
Five is about the age that heterosexuals begin to have "crushes" on members of the opposite sex.
I remember my son coming home dispirited from kindergarten; when I asked him what was wrong, he said, "I need a girlfriend! All my friends have girlfriends."
When I suggested cluelessly that I was both a girl and his friend, he glared at me contemptuously and replied, "No, mom. I need a little girlfriend."

:lol:
Click to expand...

In my experience, most boys don't experience any real sexual attractions until they near or have commenced puberty. so, for them to say they knew in kindergarten is likely an unintentional exaggeration. The girlfriend, boyfriend thing becomes evident far earlier than any real sexual attraction and is learned from older children and/or adults.
 
mac said:
In my experience, most boys don't experience any real sexual attractions until they near or have commenced puberty. so, for them to say they knew in kindergarten is likely an unintentional exaggeration. The girlfriend, boyfriend thing becomes evident far earlier than any real sexual attraction and is learned from older children and/or adults.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this. I've worked with lots of kids who identified sexual attractions quite a bit earlier than puberty. It may not be mature sexual attractions in the sense that adults have, but there is literature that suggests that children do have sexual thoughts/attractions.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You just moved the goal posts. There is a difference between something being scientifically legitimate, and something that society will accept as legitimate. As for the former, this has been proven, both in the case of homosexuality and GM. As for the latter, society does not always base it's decisions on science alone. Morality, perception, societal needs, and beliefs come into play. So, you are addressing two different concepts.
Click to expand...

You just said: Since there is no conclusive proof of the causation of sexual orientation, the legitimacy of a sexual orientation cannot be scientifically based on genetics, biology, or biochemistry. Therefore, to scientifically legitimatize either or each, another foundation must be used. And then said the above. Is there, or is there not, Conclusive proof, scientifically?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I don't agree with this. I've worked with lots of kids who identified sexual attractions quite a bit earlier than puberty. It may not be mature sexual attractions in the sense that adults have, but there is literature that suggests that children do have sexual thoughts/attractions.
Click to expand...

Ok, but in kindergarten? Age 5?
 
I got my first kiss around then.... (with a girl :p)

Not that that has anything to do with this.

The point is Im essentially arguing against the notion that people cant be 'born' gay as far as our understanding goes.
 
mac said:
It not being a disorder doesn't make it not a choice.
Click to expand...

Why does it matter either way if it is a choice? Religion is a choice, and we still protect religious people's right to marry, even outside their religion.

Of course, I believe it isn't a choice, just from my own experience. I am heterosexual. I know this because I was never sexually attracted to women, only men. I will on occasion say a woman is pretty or is a good looking woman, but women don't arouse me the way some men do. In fact, some men don't arouse me. I think very little about attraction is a choice. Even if it is caused more by nurture, it doesn't make it wrong. There is nothing wrong with being homosexual, just like there is nothing wrong with being attracted to men with short hair or girls with big hips. The only time attractions are wrong is when those attractions cause harm to someone (or in the case of beastiality, to something). Perceived harm to morality is not real harm. There is no proof that homosexuality causes harm to anyone. Provide proof of harm to people and/or society that is exclusively caused by homosexual relationships, and then you might have a case against homosexual relationships.
 
mac said:
For the most part, people on both sides of this issue are using half truths and assumptions to support their stance. The reality is some are for and some are against. Using science to justify is folly, as the real issue at hand is society's right in judging what it considers acceptable. Just as many Christians selectively follow the Bible, many activists selectively follow science.
Click to expand...

actually the reality is that there are like 5-6 people against it (as in think its right to stop it, not just believeing or thiking its wrong) and there reasons have had holes shot in them each time.
 
Yes. Marriage is only between a man and a woman. I think that gay couples can obtain union, but I think the word marriage is not appropiate.

However, I can't tolerate how governments and NGOs have spent so much time debating this subject while there are millions of blind and deaf people who require more help from the society than homosexuals.
 
Jomiarias said:
Yes. Marriage is only between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...
opinion and a false opinion

Jomiarias said:
I think that gay couples can obtain union, but I think the word marriage is not appropiate.
Click to expand...
discrimination for the first part and opinion for the second part

Jomiarias said:
However, I can't tolerate how governments and NGOs have spent so much time debating this subject while there are millions of blind and deaf people who require more help from the society than homosexuals
Click to expand...

nothing more than appeal to emotion
 
Jomiarias said:
Yes. Marriage is only between a man and a woman. I think that gay couples can obtain union, but I think the word marriage is not appropriate.

However, I can't tolerate how governments and NGOs have spent so much time debating this subject while there are millions of blind and deaf people who require more help from the society than homosexuals.
Click to expand...
Amen to that.
The people have spoken....no to homosexual marriage.
Lets put this one to bed, its had more than enough air time.
Those with real afflictions need our attention; those with anger management; the bi-polar, the criminals - they are the ones who need help, and we all do as we are chosen to help others.
 
earthworm said:
Amen to that.
The people have spoken....no to homosexual marriage.
Lets put this one to bed, its had more than enough air time.
Those with real afflictions need our attention; those with anger management; the bi-polar, the criminals - they are the ones who need help, and we all do as we are chosen to help others.
Click to expand...

so lets give extra help and attention to other groups while discriminating against another that doesnt currently have equal, got it :)
 
Amen to that.
The people have spoken....no to homosexual marriage.
Lets put this one to bed, its had more than enough air time.
Click to expand...

Nope; the nation is divided nearly 50/50 on it.
When 49% of the populace is unhappy with a ruling (including many of those in positions of power), I can assure you, it won't simply be "put to bed".
It will be brought to the polls again and again, until we get our way and the discrimination ceases.
You see, we're on the side of right, and we care more than you do, and American citizens are coming to their senses and converting to pro-equal-rights supporters at a phenomenal rate (for example, I imagine that the rate of equal-marriage-right supporters has more than doubled in the past ten years).

In five years or so, this battle will be won.
Then we can "put it to bed" and move on, because progressive, egalitarian gains in society (such as the civil rights movement, or the women's liberation movement) do not tend to be lost; it is unlikely we will ever lose the right to same-sex marriage, once we've gained it.
Not until then can the matter be "put to bed", though.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
You just said: Since there is no conclusive proof of the causation of sexual orientation, the legitimacy of a sexual orientation cannot be scientifically based on genetics, biology, or biochemistry. Therefore, to scientifically legitimatize either or each, another foundation must be used. And then said the above. Is there, or is there not, Conclusive proof, scientifically?
Click to expand...

You are again confusing two different issues: causation and legitimacy. There is no conclusive scientific proof of causation of a sexual orientation. That does NOT disqualify any sexual orientation from being legitimate. Both are proven to be so. Causation and legitimacy can be mutually exclusive.
 
1069 said:
Nope; the nation is divided nearly 50/50 on it.
When 49% of the populace is unhappy with a ruling (including many of those in positions of power), I can assure you, it won't simply be "put to bed".
It will be brought to the polls again and again, until we get our way and the discrimination ceases.
You see, we're on the side of right, and we care more than you do, and American citizens are coming to their senses and converting to pro-equal-rights supporters at a phenomenal rate (for example, I imagine that the rate of equal-marriage-right supporters has more than doubled in the past ten years).

In five years or so, this battle will be won.
Then we can "put it to bed" and move on, because progressive, egalitarian gains in society (such as the civil rights movement, or the women's liberation movement) do not tend to be lost; it is unlikely we will ever lose the right to same-sex marriage, once we've gained it.
Not until then can the matter be "put to bed", though.
Click to expand...

even lower when asked properly, polls are tricky things, for example healthcare, when people were asked if they were simply "happy" with their health care large numbers said yes, but when asked if they think it needs improved or reformed large number also said yes

thats why in this very thread many people said they arent for the gay lifestyle and may not "support" it but they could never be selfish enough to stop it. Trust me I know Im one of them, Im not a gay fan but in america its none of my business nor does it effect me what so ever, i will not discriminate against my fellow american.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You are again confusing two different issues: causation and legitimacy. There is no conclusive scientific proof of causation of a sexual orientation. That does NOT disqualify any sexual orientation from being legitimate. Both are proven to be so. Causation and legitimacy can be mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Oh, I get what you're saying. I disagree with that conclusion, but I get your point.
 
roguenuke said:
Why does it matter either way if it is a choice? Religion is a choice, and we still protect religious people's right to marry, even outside their religion.

Of course, I believe it isn't a choice, just from my own experience. I am heterosexual. I know this because I was never sexually attracted to women, only men. I will on occasion say a woman is pretty or is a good looking woman, but women don't arouse me the way some men do. In fact, some men don't arouse me. I think very little about attraction is a choice. Even if it is caused more by nurture, it doesn't make it wrong. There is nothing wrong with being homosexual, just like there is nothing wrong with being attracted to men with short hair or girls with big hips. The only time attractions are wrong is when those attractions cause harm to someone (or in the case of beastiality, to something). Perceived harm to morality is not real harm. There is no proof that homosexuality causes harm to anyone. Provide proof of harm to people and/or society that is exclusively caused by homosexual relationships, and then you might have a case against homosexual relationships.
Click to expand...

Honestly, because if it were not a choice then I would indeed believe it to be discrimination and would support gay marriage despite my personal misgivings. Yes, religion is a choice, but it's a choice acceptable to society as a whole.
 
I stand by my statement that most people are aware of their sexual orientation from earliest childhood.
One doesn't "discover" one is gay at puberty.
It is normal and typical for young children to have schoolyard crushes and even pair up in innocent boyfriend/girlfriend "relationships" in elementary school.
I recall this from my own childhood as well as my children's.

It's unbelievable to me that some here are claiming not to have known their own sexual orientation until puberty or later.
You were seriously unaware you were heterosexual until then?
Just kind of hanging around waiting for puberty so you could find out whether or not you were gay? :roll:
 
mac said:
Honestly, because if it were not a choice then I would indeed believe it to be discrimination and would support gay marriage despite my personal misgivings. Yes, religion is a choice, but it's a choice acceptable to society as a whole.
Click to expand...

That depends on the religion. There are a lot of people who have issues with certain religions, including Satanism. Would you support a marriage law against Satanists being allowed to get married? Would you approve if there was enough support for it, to deny people the right to marry someone outside their own religion or to deny people who weren't religious the right to marry? There are some religions that completely disapprove of marrying someone outside your own religion. What if it were just one state that had a law denying people who weren't religious or who were of two different religions from being able to marry?
 
roguenuke said:
That depends on the religion. There are a lot of people who have issues with certain religions, including Satanism. Would you support a marriage law against Satanists being allowed to get married? Would you approve if there was enough support for it, to deny people the right to marry someone outside their own religion or to deny people who weren't religious the right to marry? There are some religions that completely disapprove of marrying someone outside your own religion. What if it were just one state that had a law denying people who weren't religious or who were of two different religions from being able to marry?
Click to expand...

Though there are some religions that will not recognize marriage on some level, that's really not the issue. What is the issue is society's acceptance. Marriage is defined by most religions as a union between Man and a Woman. The concept of Marriage is religious while the legality is secular. That puts legalization squarely in the hands of society, in America at least.
 
mac said:
Though there are some religions that will not recognize marriage on some level, that's really not the issue. What is the issue is society's acceptance. Marriage is defined by most religions as a union between Man and a Woman. The concept of Marriage is religious while the legality is secular. That puts legalization squarely in the hands of society, in America at least.
Click to expand...

The benefits of marriage are given by the government. We are talking about civil marriage in this discussion. It doesn't matter what a religion or certain people wish to accept/recognize as marriage. It matters that the laws governing marriage are treat people equally. So I'll ask again, if a state, let's say Utah, decides that they want to deny marriage to couples of different religions, would it be okay? Would it be okay if a state denied marriage to couples who weren't religious?

BTW, I'll add that marriage is not fully in the hands of what society finds acceptable. A good portion of society did not find interracial marriage acceptable. Interracial marriage was deemed to be protected because marriage is a right and denying it due to race is discrimination. The pro-GM side is saying that it is also discrimination to deny it to homosexuals, because there is no reasonable state/government interest in making restrictions on the gender of the person another is allowed to marry.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom