• 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.

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
80,422
Reaction score
29,075
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Im sure this issue has been debated over and over again but since im doing research and studying Id love more opinions cause its fun.

Also let me add not only am I looking for your opinion im looking for your reasoning if your answer is yes.

I have discussed gay marriage many many times and have yet to hear ONE sound, reasonable, logical, non-bais, non-selfish, non-arrogant, hypercritical, non anti-american reason to "Stop" gay marriage Almost every reason I have ever heard was also used about womens rights, equal rights interracial marriage etc. they were dumb and didnt apply then and they certainly havent changed now

now mind you, pay attention to my verbiage, I said reason to STOP it.

That means in America I think its fine for anybody to:
THINK its wrong, gross or offensive etc
TEACH its wrong gross or offensive etc
PREACH its wrong gross or offensive etc
BELIEVE its wrong gross or offensive etc
FEEL its wrong gross or offensive etc
etc

but once you try to stop it I think you wrong on so many levels.
I cant imagine how AMERICANS think they have the right to tell two CONSENTING ADULTS who and who they cant marry lmao
Does it get anymore pompous and arrogant and selfish and hypercritical and anti american than that. How anybody thinks they have the right to tell a person they cant marry another one is beyond me.

I myself im not gay so i REALLY feel its non of my business but has an american I have to call BS on the other so called americans that do think its there buisness some how.

Anyway maybe this time will be different, it actually be VERY interesting if it is different. So does anybody have ONE sound, reasonable, logical, non-bais, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, non anti-american reason to "Stop" gay marriage. Who thinks they have a sound reason on why they should get to determine who two consenting adults can and can not marry.
 
Last edited:
Let people call themselves what they want, just don't force me to call it that.
 
Let people call themselves what they want, just don't force me to call it that.

????
not sure what you mean or are saying?
what would you be "forced" to call anybody?
 
????
not sure what you mean or are saying?
what would you be "forced" to call anybody?

I don't want it legally defined as marriage. Just have the state issue partnership licenses and end it at that.
 
I don't want it legally defined as marriage. Just have the state issue partnership licenses and end it at that.

Why does it matter if its called marriage, thats in fact what it would be?
Also the argument against partnerships is that they are not equal to marriage, status wise and legally.

Now again I myself would be fine with partnerships IF they were the same but since Im not gay thats not my call and calling it something different comes off as bias and not granting people equal rights.
 
Only logical anti-gay marriage position that I know of is the one that takes government out of the marriage business altogether. This position is usually based on not wanting to allow special privileges for folks just because they are married.
 
Only logical anti-gay marriage position that I know of is the one that takes government out of the marriage business altogether. This position is usually based on not wanting to allow special privileges for folks just because they are married.

hmmmm well not sure that would be anti-gay though unless im misunderstanding. That would just be anti government relating to marriage and in that case gay marriage would/could still be allowed just without the government involvement.
 
hmmmm well not sure that would be anti-gay though unless im misunderstanding. That would just be anti government relating to marriage and in that case gay marriage would/could still be allowed just without the government involvement.

Probably. It's just the only argument towards forbidding gay marriage that I've ever seen that has any logic and reasonableness to it.
 
Probably. It's just the only argument towards forbidding gay marriage that I've ever seen that has any logic and reasonableness to it.

fair enough just looking for something more specific against only gay marriage but thanks!
 
fair enough just looking for something more specific against only gay marriage but thanks!

No problem. Most of the anti-GM crowd posts during the day. I'm SURE you'll get a few commenting, but I doubt that there will be any logic to their reasoning.
 
No problem. Most of the anti-GM crowd posts during the day. I'm SURE you'll get a few commenting, but I doubt that there will be any logic to their reasoning.

Thats cool. Just looking for some thought.
 
If I think and feel that something is morally wrong, then I think it's absolutely acceptable to use the government to try to put a stop to it. That is what government is for.
 
Everyone who complains about the "traditional meaning" of marriage is missing one extremely important fact. The traditional meaning of marriage does NOT involve the state, it involves a church. The traditional meaning is a promise between a man and woman between God, not a court. The government has no claim to be issuing "traditional marriages" between people as they are a secular body and claim no religious authority. In other words, all that marriage is to the gov't is something you put on your tax forms, which i have no problem letting two men or women do.
 
If I think and feel that something is morally wrong, then I think it's absolutely acceptable to use the government to try to put a stop to it. That is what government is for.

Well define morals?
morals based on what? religion? feelings? etc.

heres are small example of what some people find "morally wrong"

guns
masturbation
sex without conception intent
nudity
cursing
tatoos
music
etc etc

sorry but in america theres no logic on forcing your morals on me especially when there is no victim.

Murder, child molesting, stealing those are also morals but they have a victium and theres not consent.

Ill need more than that. again I totally respect YOUR right to have YOUR morals you just dont get to force them on others. Thats way to arrogant and selfish for me
 
Everyone who complains about the "traditional meaning" of marriage is missing one extremely important fact. The traditional meaning of marriage does NOT involve the state, it involves a church. The traditional meaning is a promise between a man and woman between God, not a court. The government has no claim to be issuing "traditional marriages" between people as they are a secular body and claim no religious authority. In other words, all that marriage is to the gov't is something you put on your tax forms, which i have no problem letting two men or women do.

people like to use that word "traditional" but what does that really mean? what makes a tradition? how long? 10 years? 100 years? 1000? years?

only asking because there were same sex marriages in Rome. While not has common of course as straight marriage they existed none the less. Thats pretty far back so what is tradition.
 
I don't think its wrong, but its pretty damn stupid.

What are we "protecting" when we vote against gay marriage? The right to complain hypocritically?

There is really no point to be against it, other than standing behind an age-old argument that marriage is an "institution" and that it is an entity itself.

We make too big a deal out of marriage really, meanwhile our nation has the highest divorce rate. Blocking gay marriage is useless and it makes those supporters look like idiots.

So if we ever vote to make gay marriage legal, it would be dandy. I personally would not vote because I simply don't care, it doesn't affect me personally so why should I?
 
Last edited:
I don't think its wrong, but its pretty damn stupid.

What are we "protecting" when we vote against gay marriage? The right to complain hypocritically?

There is really no point to be against it, other than standing behind an age-old argument that marriage is an "institution" and that it is an entity itself.

We make too big a deal out of marriage really, meanwhile our nation has the highest divorce rate. Blocking gay marriage is useless and it makes those supporters look like idiots.

So if we ever vote to make gay marriage legal, it would be dandy. I personally would not vote because I simply don't care, it doesn't affect me personally so why should I?




thats the part i dont get the most. I dont understand how it effects these people who are against it. Its none of their business who two consenting adults marry dont know how they believe it is.
 
Well define morals?

Rules for proper conduct.

morals based on what? religion? feelings? etc.

It doesn't matter what they're based on. What matters is that they are agreed upon, taught to our children, and rigorously enforced.

heres are small example of what some people find "morally wrong"

Some people have stupid morals and shouldn't be allowed to make laws. Theoretically, this is what the representative republic is supposed to protect us from-- stupid people with stupid morals making stupid laws. In practice, of course, we find that these stupid people are in the majority and want to be governed by people like them. Democracy is nothing if not a flawed institution.

sorry but in america theres no logic on forcing your morals on me especially when there is no victim.

Murder, child molesting, stealing those are also morals but they have a victium and theres not consent.

Consent and victimhood are both moral notions that must be defined by the law before they can be enforced. Child molestation is the perfect example, because it is only a crime by virtue of the fact that the law defines children of being incapable of giving consent-- and thus may be prosecuted despite the victim's wishes.

Theft is the same. In order for there to be a victim of theft, we have to morally define property and determine the rules by which people may own and exchange property.

Even murder must be defined morally before it can be enforced as law. Otherwise, what is the difference between murder and manslaughter? What is the acceptable use of force in self-defense? In defense of one's home?

The answers to all of these questions are moral values. There is no categorical difference between the law which prohibits murder and the laws that prohibit homosexual marriage. The only difference is that most people generally agree with the laws on murder-- with some notable exceptions, such as assisted suicide-- while the laws on homosexual marriage are highly controversial.

Ill need more than that. again I totally respect YOUR right to have YOUR morals you just dont get to force them on others. Thats way to arrogant and selfish for me

By having a system of laws, any laws, we are forcing our morals upon anyone who does not agree with them. By trying to tell me what the government-- my government-- can and can not do, you are trying to force your morals not only upon me, but upon the rest of society. You are proclaiming that your moral values, your specific notions of tolerance and liberty, are superior to the moral values of everyone who disagrees with you and that we should be forced to abide by them.

I happen to agree with you on gay marriage. It isn't wrong and it shouldn't be prohibited. But I can guarantee you there are at least a dozen things we disagree about in which the law takes your side-- and they are all based on the same wholly subjective moral values that you claim not to be forcing upon anyone.
 
Rules for proper conduct.



1 It doesn't matter what they're based on. What matters is that they are agreed upon, taught to our children, and rigorously enforced.



2 Some people have stupid morals and shouldn't be allowed to make laws. Theoretically, this is what the representative republic is supposed to protect us from-- stupid people with stupid morals making stupid laws. In practice, of course, we find that these stupid people are in the majority and want to be governed by people like them. Democracy is nothing if not a flawed institution.



3 Consent and victimhood are both moral notions that must be defined by the law before they can be enforced. Child molestation is the perfect example, because it is only a crime by virtue of the fact that the law defines children of being incapable of giving consent-- and thus may be prosecuted despite the victim's wishes.

4 Theft is the same. In order for there to be a victim of theft, we have to morally define property and determine the rules by which people may own and exchange property.

5 Even murder must be defined morally before it can be enforced as law. Otherwise, what is the difference between murder and manslaughter? What is the acceptable use of force in self-defense? In defense of one's home?

6The answers to all of these questions are moral values. There is no categorical difference between the law which prohibits murder and the laws that prohibit homosexual marriage. The only difference is that most people generally agree with the laws on murder-- with some notable exceptions, such as assisted suicide-- while the laws on homosexual marriage are highly controversial.



7 By having a system of laws, any laws, we are forcing our morals upon anyone who does not agree with them. By trying to tell me what the government-- my government-- can and can not do, you are trying to force your morals not only upon me, but upon the rest of society. You are proclaiming that your moral values, your specific notions of tolerance and liberty, are superior to the moral values of everyone who disagrees with you and that we should be forced to abide by them.

8 I happen to agree with you on gay marriage. It isn't wrong and it shouldn't be prohibited. But I can guarantee you there are at least a dozen things we disagree about in which the law takes your side-- and they are all based on the same wholly subjective moral values that you claim not to be forcing upon anyone.

1 of course it matters in america what the morals are based on! If e dont look at what they are based on rights like freedom of speech and religion can be greatly hindered

2 so OTHER peole have stupid morals but yours is fine? got it lol

3,4,5 & 6 these examples the way YOU are using them are MEANINGLESS for the debate at hand, for gay marriage there is NO victim so there no need for law to define it. so that was a waste for "this debate"

7-8 you actually couldnt be more wrong I am actually for a WIN WIN situation if you want to marry gay, you do, if you dont you dont. That isnt forcing ANYBODY to do anything sorry LMAO

Like I CLEARLY said other can believe, teach, preach etc whatever they want but they dont get to tell others what to do. my stance allows all to be happy the other stance is the one that wants people to "abide"

explain to me how my view are forced on anyone Id LOVE to hear this LMAO

allowing gays to marry doesnt force straights to marry hahahahahaha I am in fact not forcing anything you have it backwards those that stop it are forcing, they are in fact not only forcing their views but denying others of their same rights

in my system you get to KEEP and ABIDE and LIVE by your own values in the other system I have to live by theirs, hope you know see that ;)
 
also Korimyr the Rat just an FYI
Sorry if my wording is a little off with the "my view" "your view" "thier view" stuff. I know you said you agree with me so im not trying to single you out just got sloppy with my wording
 
of course it matters in america what the morals are based on! If e dont look at what they are based on rights like freedom of speech and religion can be greatly hindered

Rights are a moral construct. They're no more important than any other moral construct.

so OTHER peole have stupid morals but yours is fine? got it lol

You laugh at me for it, but you're expressing the exact same attitude.

these examples the way YOU are using them are MEANINGLESS for the debate at hand, for gay marriage there is NO victim so there no need for law to define it. so that was a waste for "this debate"

You seem to have missed my point entirely. The entire concept of "victim" is based on moral definitions, and is unnecessary in determining the law. There's no victim in the majority of traffic offenses, either. There's no victim in incest or drug abuse. There's no victim in suicide.

That doesn't make any difference as to whether or not these laws are invalid.

you actually couldnt be more wrong I am actually for a WIN WIN situation if you want to marry gay, you do, if you dont you dont. That isnt forcing ANYBODY to do anything sorry LMAO

Marriage isn't just a piece of paper. There are thousands of laws that relate to marriage, privileges and benefits that our government extends to married couples. Changing what our government does, changing the rules that our society is governed by, affects everyone because everyone has to live under those rules. When you change those rules, you are imposing changes on everyone-- including those who disagree with the new rules.
 
If I think and feel that something is morally wrong, then I think it's absolutely acceptable to use the government to try to put a stop to it. That is what government is for.

I disagree. Because "morals" are so subjective I don't think the government really needs to weigh in except in the very narrow band where what you are doing is infringing on the life, liberty or property of another. The downside to majority rule is that the tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

The government's position on marriage should be that the government has no position on marriage. It's none of their concern. Church's, of course, are free to marry anyone they want and you, of course, can have any position you like vis a vis marriage. Against gay marriage? Don't marry a gay person. Seems simple enough to me. (Note: That is not referring to you personally being against gay marriage).
 
1 Rights are a moral construct. They're no more important than any other moral construct.



2 You laugh at me for it, but you're expressing the exact same attitude.



3 You seem to have missed my point entirely. The entire concept of "victim" is based on moral definitions, and is unnecessary in determining the law. There's no victim in the majority of traffic offenses, either. There's no victim in incest or drug abuse. There's no victim in suicide.

4 That doesn't make any difference as to whether or not these laws are invalid.



5 Marriage isn't just a piece of paper. There are thousands of laws that relate to marriage, privileges and benefits that our government extends to married couples. Changing what our government does, changing the rules that our society is governed by, affects everyone because everyone has to live under those rules. When you change those rules, you are imposing changes on everyone-- including those who disagree with the new rules.[/QUOTE]

1 like I said of course what the morals are based on matter, because they matter to america, the bill of rights and the constitution. They matter no whether you acknowledge them or not

2 I am laughing at you because I in FACT am not expressing the same attitude by any stretch of the imagination, thats just a flat our lie or total lack of understanding on your part. Pick one :) My stand is MY morals dont matter because they are MINE. My stance on this issue is that if it was legal EVERYBODY gets to practice their OWN morals not have other morals forced on them. I have no clue how you could spin that and totally misinterpret that.
MY morals arent the issue I want it so BOTH sides can do what they want cant me any more clear than that. LOL

3-4 read this slow, in this case there is NO victim what so ever in gay marriage. put all the quarters in the washing machine you like theres no spin to be made.

again your examples have no barring on the matter at hand. no gay marriage singles out and punishes a group and denies them equal rights, your examples do NOT do that. next

5 actually it is just a piece of paper with those rules you mentioned attached to it and those would not impose ANYTHING on people that arent gay LMAO It doesnt FORCE you to agree with the rules. IF this was reality, its not, then there actually would be no freedom of religion by your standards. I guess since america doesnt punish people that have kids out of wedlock that "forces and imposes" people who disagree to do the same right? LOL no it doesnt, they can still choose not to have kids out of wed lock.

anyway and this isnt to you im still waiting for a good reason to stop it? waiting
 
Wow 13 to 1 so far for no
im a little shocked actully thought id get more insite to the other side
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom