• 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!

Same sex marriage: what is it really?

What is same sex marriage?


  • Total voters
    62
You mean by forcing the issue on the american people whether they support it or not. Pity.

Also, I want to add that interracial marriage was "forced" onto the people in the same manner, when the American people did not want it because of the Loving v. VA ruling. Although most people who are against same sex marriage don't want to acknowledge the fights as similar, they share a lot of similar arguments from those who oppose them.
 
Look, I'm familiar with the socialist vision of government to "control" their peoples (for their own good). However, I'm a classical liberal. Like the founders of our nation I feel the people are better at determining their needs, wants, and desires than any "ruling class." Simply put, government should represent the will of the people, not simply use people to support the state. I'm not a fan of etatism. I'll leave that for you liberals/leftists/socialists.

We are given certain rights by the Constitution so that the majority cannot take those rights away from us, because we are a free nation. Government should be secular and not based off of religious beliefs. Even when we are just talking about fair and equal treatment in regards to benefits/rights in relationships, without threat of criminal penalties, the laws should have a rational basis and not be based on religious or any other "beliefs", but rather proven with facts about harm.
 
Also, I want to add that interracial marriage was "forced" onto the people in the same manner, when the American people did not want it because of the Loving v. VA ruling. Although most people who are against same sex marriage don't want to acknowledge the fights as similar, they share a lot of similar arguments from those who oppose them.

Change in societies is best when it comes as a result of better ideas becoming mainstream thought. When you "force" change on a culture you most often get kind of rendering that has occured in america. You are advocating the same kind of situation that occured with abortion some forty years ago. We were all supposed to come "into the fold" with time. It hasn't occured. When government no longer represents the peoples they govern they lose their legitimacy. I believe that is occuring right now in this country.
 
Last edited:
Change in societies is best when it comes as a result of better ideas becoming mainstream thought. When you "force" change on a culture you most often get kind of rendering that has occured in america. You are advocating the same kind of situation that occured with abortion some forty years ago. We were all supposed to come "into the fold" with time. It hasn't occured. When government no longer represents the peoples they govern they lose their legitimacy. I believe that is occuring right now in this country.

No, I am advocating the exact same kind of change that came from the Loving v. VA decision, expanding marriage to include other people. Doing so will not cause harm to any person or potential person (I am pro-life btw). It is simply a change to tradition.

People will always be fighting about abortion, even if religious people become a minority, because there are plenty of people out there who consider abortion (in most cases) to be taking the life of a child, no matter how a particular higher power may feel about it. Homosexuality is mainly fought because of religion (there are a very small minority who simply find it icky without any religious problems with it, but most without religious convictions against it could care less about whether or not they are allowed to marry).
 
Look, I'm familiar with the socialist vision of government to "control" their peoples (for their own good). However, I'm a classical liberal. Like the founders of our nation I feel the people are better at determining their needs, wants, and desires than any "ruling class." Simply put, government should represent the will of the people, not simply use people to support the state. I'm not a fan of etatism. I'll leave that for you liberals/leftists/socialists.

BTW, it was the founders of this nation that specifically put the legal methods in for how the Constitution was to be Amended. Most of them did not want the citizens to be subject to the tyranny of the majority, especially one that could easily decide to restrict enough rights, including voting rights, to ensure that they remained the "majority".

And how is a political philosophy concerning social issues that are based off of religious beliefs or moral standings, without any actual evidence that a behavior actually causes harm, not controlling the public for their own good? If it doesn't harm you or society, then the majority has no legal right to restrict it without actually changing the Constitution through the Amendment process set down by our founders.
 
No, I am advocating the exact same kind of change that came from the Loving v. VA decision, expanding marriage to include other people. Doing so will not cause harm to any person or potential person (I am pro-life btw). It is simply a change to tradition.

People will always be fighting about abortion, even if religious people become a minority, because there are plenty of people out there who consider abortion (in most cases) to be taking the life of a child, no matter how a particular higher power may feel about it. Homosexuality is mainly fought because of religion (there are a very small minority who simply find it icky without any religious problems with it, but most without religious convictions against it could care less about whether or not they are allowed to marry).

Ok, you oppose using government as a agent to affect societal change for the benefit of a minority, in this case upper class white women, against the will of the majority of it's peoples for abortion but you are a supporter of this same tactic in the case of gay marriage, also for the benefit of a minority against the wishes of the majority of americans? Have you thought this thing thru? Am I misreading your position on this?

I'm not looking at this thru the lens of religion. I don't attend church. I see both issues thru the lens of it's effects on my culture and the democratic party's commitment to identity politics.

I must also reiterate my support for the idea of a government commited to representing it's people. The problems with a multi-cultural society such as our is the government cannot adequately represent all the needs and wants of so many different cultures. Using government to advance the cause of one culture/sub-culture means a loss for the other cultures making up this country. At some point it will experience an epic failure. It's mearly a question of time.
 
Last edited:
Book Antiqua"]Ok, so you are a supporter of life yet you propose using the same tactic's used to kill off tens of millions of americans in an effort to increase democratic party support among upper class women. Have you thought this thing thru?

I'm not looking at this thru the lens of religion. I don't attend church. I see both issues thru the lens of it's effects on my culture and the democratic party's commitment to identity politics.

I must also reiterate my support for the idea of a government commited to representing it's people. The problems with a multi-cultural society such as our is the government cannot adequately represent all the needs and wants of so many different cultures. Using government to advance the cause of one culture/sub-culture means a loss for the other cultures making up this country. At some point it will experience an epic failure. It's mearly a question of time.

How does same sex marriage kill or even harm anyone directly? Give proof of this, and you have a case.

BTW, I do not vote for candidates based on one issue. I vote for the candidate who has the most number of issues that I can agree with them on, and hope like hell that they actually are able to get those things done while not screwing up anything that I disagree with them on. And, that candidate in the 2008 Presidential election happened to be McCain, not Obama, despite McCain's discriminatory views on gay rights issues.
 
How does same sex marriage kill or even harm anyone directly? Give proof of this, and you have a case.

I don't believe I suggested gay marriage would kill anyone. Nor did I suggest it would harm the participants. Of course neither do bestiality or necrophilia. However, neither are supported by tradition western european culture either. I can say marriage has an important role as an institution that supports the procreation and rearing good citizens for that culture. It's much the same with all successful traditional cultures.

I could argue that gay marriage has nothing to do with either procreation or raising citizens. Keep in mind I firmly believe children represent a black hole of need and one of those many needs are two parent of both genders and whenever possible biological. I am a conservative after all.

In regards to gay marriage in the here and now I see this as a political issue. One in which the democratic party wishes to reward a valued demographic for it's support and monies over the years. I see abortion as a result of the same kind of identity politics that also benefited the democratic party decades ago. Do you want to argue abortion hasn't harmed or killed anyone?


BTW, I do not vote for candidates based on one issue. I vote for the candidate who has the most number of issues that I can agree with them on, and hope like hell that they actually are able to get those things done while not screwing up anything that I disagree with them on. And, that candidate in the 2008 Presidential election happened to be McCain, not Obama, despite McCain's discriminatory views on gay rights issues.

Ok. You do realize that I don't harbor any animosity against you or yours. I disagree with your ideas on gay marriage. I reject your vision for this country but that is all.
 
I don't believe I suggested gay marriage would kill anyone. Nor did I suggest it would harm the participants. Of course neither do bestiality or necrophilia. However, neither are supported by tradition western european culture either. I can say marriage has an important role as an institution that supports the procreation and rearing good citizens for that culture. It's much the same with all successful traditional cultures.

I could argue that gay marriage has nothing to do with either procreation or raising citizens. Keep in mind I firmly believe children represent a black hole of need and one of those many needs are two parent of both genders and whenever possible biological. I am a conservative after all.

In regards to gay marriage in the here and now I see this as a political issue. One in which the democratic party wishes to reward a valued demographic for it's support and monies over the years. I see abortion as a result of the same kind of identity politics that also benefited the democratic party decades ago. Do you want to argue abortion hasn't harmed or killed anyone?




Ok. You do realize that I don't harbor any animosity against you or yours. I disagree with your ideas on gay marriage. I reject your vision for this country but that is all.

Beastiality nor necrophilia have provide any benefits for the people involved nor society as a whole. Plus, beastiality and necrophilia are both sexual acts, not sexualities, and are both illegal acts.

Homosexuality is about the attraction of a person to a member of the same sex. It does not involve dead people (who cannot consent to sex) or animals (which also cannot consent to sex). Nor does it have to involve sex at all. It is quite possible for a person to form a loving and even intimate relationship with another of the same sex without having sex, just like it is possible for a person to form a loving and intimate relationship with a person of the opposite sex without having sex.

Marriage is not just about procreation and raising kids. If it were, then many opposite sex marriages would not be allowed, including those when one or both of the partners is infertile or when the woman of the couple has gone through menopause. Also, the government would not be recognizing marriages between cousins from states where those cousins cannot get married unless they cannot procreate. And, to top all this off, the government recognizes the state's view on what the state considers the "gender" of the person within a marriage. So, if a person has undergone gender reassignment surgery and their state recognizes them as the new gender, then they can marry someone of the same genetic sex as them.

Plus, gay people can have children. There could be children from other marriages/relationships. There is surrogacy, and there is adoption. Your ideal parenting situation is not always available for most children, even those raised by their biological mother and father. Any loving parent is better than none, and two are better than one, no matter what their sexes or sexualities.

Marriage serves many purposes, but the one that applies to every couple, is that it makes a person a member of another person's legal family, eventhough the two are not blood related.

There are also other benefits to society that come from marriages, including someone to make legal and/or medical decisions for a person in the event of incapacitation or death. Someone to be legally responsible for the burial costs/decisions of a deceased person. Someone to be legally responsible for the debts of a deceased person. Stable households in which the couple is married are all better for the community, no matter the sexualities of the couple.

The only negative you have is a change in tradition. Which many do not see as a negative at all.
 
I don't believe I suggested gay marriage would kill anyone. Nor did I suggest it would harm the participants.

I wanted to address this separately.

You did suggest that gay marriage somehow kills or harms someone just by equating it to abortion.

Abortion kills a living being, even pro-choice people admit this. They believe that the rights of the mother are more important than the fetus's right to life. I don't agree. But there really isn't any denying that a being loses its life in an abortion. It just becomes a matter of whose rights are more important.

However, that is not the same issue as same sex marriage. The issue here is one group of people having the right to enter into a marriage contract with someone that they actually want to become their closest family member vs. another group's right to deny those people that right because of their traditions and/or beliefs.

This is why I gave the much better comparison of same sex marriage to interracial marriage. There really isn't much debate anymore about allowing interracial marriage, despite the amount of people who were against changing the laws to allow it. Most people accept interracial marriages as a right.
 
Beastiality nor necrophilia have provide any benefits for the people involved nor society as a whole. Plus, beastiality and necrophilia are both sexual acts, not sexualities, and are both illegal acts.

Homosexuality is about the attraction of a person to a member of the same sex. It does not involve dead people (who cannot consent to sex) or animals (which also cannot consent to sex). Nor does it have to involve sex at all. It is quite possible for a person to form a loving and even intimate relationship with another of the same sex without having sex, just like it is possible for a person to form a loving and intimate relationship with a person of the opposite sex without having sex.

Marriage is not just about procreation and raising kids. If it were, then many opposite sex marriages would not be allowed, including those when one or both of the partners is infertile or when the woman of the couple has gone through menopause. Also, the government would not be recognizing marriages between cousins from states where those cousins cannot get married unless they cannot procreate. And, to top all this off, the government recognizes the state's view on what the state considers the "gender" of the person within a marriage. So, if a person has undergone gender reassignment surgery and their state recognizes them as the new gender, then they can marry someone of the same genetic sex as them.

Plus, gay people can have children. There could be children from other marriages/relationships. There is surrogacy, and there is adoption. Your ideal parenting situation is not always available for most children, even those raised by their biological mother and father. Any loving parent is better than none, and two are better than one, no matter what their sexes or sexualities.

Marriage serves many purposes, but the one that applies to every couple, is that it makes a person a member of another person's legal family, eventhough the two are not blood related.

There are also other benefits to society that come from marriages, including someone to make legal and/or medical decisions for a person in the event of incapacitation or death. Someone to be legally responsible for the burial costs/decisions of a deceased person. Someone to be legally responsible for the debts of a deceased person. Stable households in which the couple is married are all better for the community, no matter the sexualities of the couple.

The only negative you have is a change in tradition. Which many do not see as a negative at all.

I considered answering each of your well thought out and thought provoking arguments. However, I won't. Ultimately this will only come to naught. You will simply come to the conclusion I'm an ignorant lout fully incapable of appreciating "logic." Your logic.

You see what this boils down to is a matter of politics. Politics based on cultural differences and mores. I'm more than willing to compromise, a distinct cultural trait. I've stated on this forum and others many times I would support civil unions, along with my obama. I am willing to let the states decide the issue, as with abortion, as long as my state has the same capability.

But your culture cannot and will not compromise, also a cultural trait btw. ;) Yes, I can appreciate your position. You want to believe your cultural mores are superior to mine. You want to believe your position is based on love, tolerance, science, and dispasionate reason. I like that last one. There can only be one truth in the universe, and it's mine.

Sorry, no sale. I view your culture as essentially flawed. It cannot reproduce it's own numbers. You people take too many shortcuts, and it's hurt not only you, but the rest of us as well. Ultimately, your culture will die. It's dying now, of decadence. It's child and family unfriendly. It's materialistic, narcissistic, inhumane and completely absorbed with tertiary issues completely unrealated to survival.

Traditional western european culture has survived thousands of years largely intact. I'm just wondering how it can survive your humanistic variation. I don't want to change your culture, I just want to be free of it. I want to be left alone. I want to continue to do my part to create a just and fair society, one that can survive into the next century or so. We simply cannot do that if we are to submit to every whim your culture deems appropriate for us to adopt. It isn't that I don't understand your position on this or any other issue you deem important. I just reject it. You voted for the wrong man. Next time vote for mr obama. The least you can do is to be honest with yourself.
 
Last edited:
I wanted to address this separately.

You did suggest that gay marriage somehow kills or harms someone just by equating it to abortion.Abortion kills a living being, even pro-choice people admit this. They believe that the rights of the mother are more important than the fetus's right to life. I don't agree. But there really isn't any denying that a being loses its life in an abortion. It just becomes a matter of whose rights are more important.

However, that is not the same issue as same sex marriage. The issue here is one group of people having the right to enter into a marriage contract with someone that they actually want to become their closest family member vs. another group's right to deny those people that right because of their traditions and/or beliefs.

This is why I gave the much better comparison of same sex marriage to interracial marriage. There really isn't much debate anymore about allowing interracial marriage, despite the amount of people who were against changing the laws to allow it. Most people accept interracial marriages as a right.

No I didn't. I suggested, strongly, they flowed from the same well, that of democratic party identity politics. I'm somewhat surprised you don't seem to understand that. You did indicate you oppose abortion. Please don't assume I only need a proper analogy in order to "see the light." I see and understand these issues quite well thank you.

Usually when well meaning individuals such as yourself assume I'm just ignorant and can be brought around. Normally you guys get very angry and hostile when I do not. Pity. The truth is I've arrived at my positions on a number of issues after a great deal of introspection, education, and personal experiences, just like you. I've simply come to different conclusions than you. That should be completely understandable from individuals from very different cultures.
 
Last edited:
I voted for “other” because marriage shouldn’t be recognized by the government in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Gay marriage is a made up term, kind of like Muslim Bar Mitzvah would be, which shows the terrible intrusion of government into our personal lives that special rights and benefits are tied to someone's marital status. If you redefine the religious institution of marriage, you are violating the first amendment. If you don't, you are violating the 14th amendment. The solution is to get the government out of the marriage business. Stop tying tax and social benefits to marriage status and let people have freedom of conscience to get married or not be married without government recognition.
 
Gay marriage is a made up term, kind of like Muslim Bar Mitzvah would be, which shows the terrible intrusion of government into our personal lives that special rights and benefits are tied to someone's marital status. If you redefine the religious institution of marriage, you are violating the first amendment. If you don't, you are violating the 14th amendment. The solution is to get the government out of the marriage business. Stop tying tax and social benefits to marriage status and let people have freedom of conscience to get married or not be married without government recognition.

You are not violating the first amendment by allowing gay marriage. That is a horrible argument. Religion does not own the word marriage in the US. In fact, if that were true, then there would be a legal case for any and all religions to sue the government for allowing anyone to get married without having some religious ceremony.

A person will still maintain their personal definition of marriage. A church will still maintain their personal definition of marriage and will in no way be required to recognize or perform ceremonies for couples that don't want to.

And, legal marriage is more than just a personal commitment of two people in love. It is a way of making a person who isn't already immediate family, a legal relative. It comes with legal and financial obligations to those in the marriage. It provides a single document to take the place of many legal documents to ensure that a person's spouse has the final say in medical and legal matters concerning the person.

It isn't necessary to give people tax breaks or any monetary benefits of marriage, so if that is what you are concerned with, fine. Advocate to get rid of those, and truly make it just a contract. But the contract is important to many married couples, whether they are religious or not.

If it is the word marriage, then advocate to get the marriage contract changed to a contract of civil union for everyone. Otherwise, it technically is discrimination, even if it is just because of a word.
 
At the time when marriage was being designed and implemented, a few hundred thousand years back in time

A few hundred thousand years you say.

I take it, cultural anthropology isn't your thing.
 
I considered answering each of your well thought out and thought provoking arguments. However, I won't. Ultimately this will only come to naught. You will simply come to the conclusion I'm an ignorant lout fully incapable of appreciating "logic." Your logic.

You see what this boils down to is a matter of politics. Politics based on cultural differences and mores. I'm more than willing to compromise, a distinct cultural trait. I've stated on this forum and others many times I would support civil unions, along with my obama. I am willing to let the states decide the issue, as with abortion, as long as my state has the same capability.

But your culture cannot and will not compromise, also a cultural trait btw. ;) Yes, I can appreciate your position. You want to believe your cultural mores are superior to mine. You want to believe your position is based on love, tolerance, science, and dispasionate reason. I like that last one. There can only be one truth in the universe, and it's mine.

Sorry, no sale. I view your culture as essentially flawed. It cannot reproduce it's own numbers. You people take too many shortcuts, and it's hurt not only you, but the rest of us as well. Ultimately, your culture will die. It's dying now, of decadence. It's child and family unfriendly. It's materialistic, narcissistic, inhumane and completely absorbed with tertiary issues completely unrealated to survival.

Traditional western european culture has survived thousands of years largely intact. I'm just wondering how it can survive your humanistic variation. I don't want to change your culture, I just want to be free of it. I want to be left alone. I want to continue to do my part to create a just and fair society, one that can survive into the next century or so. We simply cannot do that if we are to submit to every whim your culture deems appropriate for us to adopt. It isn't that I don't understand your position on this or any other issue you deem important. I just reject it. You voted for the wrong man. Next time vote for mr obama. The least you can do is to be honest with yourself.

What the heck are you talking about?

I happen to be heterosexual, a married woman with two children. I am not basing my beliefs on this subject off of some ideology that fits into one of your little boxes that you seem to be putting people into.

I have my own reasons for the side I am on for every issue there is. I have posted before that, depending on what the issue are that I find most important at the time, I vote according to how in line the candidate is with me on multiple issues, not just one. It would be really stupid for anyone to vote on just one issue, unless that one issue affects your life way more than any other one. There are at least hundreds of issues, and so many varying levels of support for those issues, that there is little chance that a candidate will match any person's views exactly, on every single issue.

I have no belief that gays having the right to marry cause anyone to stop having children or even slow down the baby-making. And you have no proof to back up your claim, even any that says it might. Same sex marriage gives same sex couples the same right that I currently enjoy, to be able to sign a legal marriage contract with the person that I fell in love with and want to raise children with. It will give them the rights I have, like being able to live in military housing (eventually), being able to make medical decisions for my husband when he can't and having him make them for me when I can't, being able be claimed as a legal dependent, and many, many more. None of those things have anything to do with religion. And all of them should be available to homosexuals through a marriage contract.
 
What the heck are you talking about?

I happen to be heterosexual, a married woman with two children. I am not basing my beliefs on this subject off of some ideology that fits into one of your little boxes that you seem to be putting people into.

I have my own reasons for the side I am on for every issue there is. I have posted before that, depending on what the issue are that I find most important at the time, I vote according to how in line the candidate is with me on multiple issues, not just one. It would be really stupid for anyone to vote on just one issue, unless that one issue affects your life way more than any other one. There are at least hundreds of issues, and so many varying levels of support for those issues, that there is little chance that a candidate will match any person's views exactly, on every single issue.

I have no belief that gays having the right to marry cause anyone to stop having children or even slow down the baby-making. And you have no proof to back up your claim, even any that says it might. Same sex marriage gives same sex couples the same right that I currently enjoy, to be able to sign a legal marriage contract with the person that I fell in love with and want to raise children with. It will give them the rights I have, like being able to live in military housing (eventually), being able to make medical decisions for my husband when he can't and having him make them for me when I can't, being able be claimed as a legal dependent, and many, many more. None of those things have anything to do with religion. And all of them should be available to homosexuals through a marriage contract.

The only thing that seems to be stopping people from having kids is affluence, the more affluent a society gets, the less children they have, raising a child is expensive in our countries.

The notion that somehow gays marrying will discourage people from having kids is about as far removed from reality as a Micheal Jackson ressurection...

Good post rogue.
 
Same sex marriage is a corruption and re-definition of marriage. It's not about a special right or equal protection. It's about changing marriage and the roles of marriage to fit a sexuality that is incapable of marriage under proper terms.
 
Same sex marriage is a corruption and re-definition of marriage. It's not about a special right or equal protection. It's about changing marriage and the roles of marriage to fit a sexuality that is incapable of marriage under proper terms.

It is only incapable of the marriage that view as acceptable. It is completely capable of fitting the proper terms of a legal marriage that is granted to heterosexual couples, since there are no actual requirements that a heterosexual couple in a legal marriage have any religious beliefs and/or either want or can have their own biological children.
 
It is only incapable of the marriage that view as acceptable. It is completely capable of fitting the proper terms of a legal marriage that is granted to heterosexual couples, since there are no actual requirements that a heterosexual couple in a legal marriage have any religious beliefs and/or either want or can have their own biological children.

No it's not. Marriage is a union between a man and woman, a husband and wife. By definition, a man cannot be a wife and a woman cannot be a husband. Two husbands or two wives do not make a marriage. It is not capable of fitting the proper terms for marriage and should not be recognized as such Homosexual unions should be recognized as civil unions, not a marriage.
 
No it's not. Marriage is a union between a man and woman, a husband and wife. By definition, a man cannot be a wife and a woman cannot be a husband. Two husbands or two wives do not make a marriage. It is not capable of fitting the proper terms for marriage and should not be recognized as such Homosexual unions should be recognized as civil unions, not a marriage.

It's just a word...
 
It's just a word...

Which is why we should keep it proper ;) You wouldn't improperly call a dudes penis a vagina because he says he's a woman would you? Definition is important, the moral aspects and social aspects to marriage are also important and in my opinion, should be upheld to a higher standard than what we currently have.
 
Back
Top Bottom