• 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
Centrist77 said:
Ok cpwill Im done with your word games and you dancing around so Im getting back on topic and staying on topic.
Click to expand...

yeah. i'm done feeding the troll. gosh i hope i wasn't that annoying when i was 17.
 
roguenuke said:
Murder violates another person's right to life. Allowing gays to marry members of the same sex doesn't violate another person's rights at all. Legal marriage is a contract.
Click to expand...

marriage itself is a social institution; the licensing etc. that we have set up around it is designed to reflect that. you are mistaking the derivative for the source.
 
cpwill said:
yeah. i'm done feeding the troll. gosh i hope i wasn't that annoying when i was 17.
Click to expand...

Troll?
17?:lamo

Wow your desperation and attempts to save face grow with every post LMAO. It wont work, you've been exposed.
Now back to the topic at hand in the REST of my post you let out.

Please tell me ONE sound, reasonable, logical, non-bias, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, non anti-american, non-discriminating reason to "Stop" gay marriage.

This is all Im interested in discussing
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
yeah. i'm done feeding the troll. gosh i hope i wasn't that annoying when i was 17.
Click to expand...

You probably won't want to look into that too much. hehehe

cpwill said:
marriage itself is a social institution; the licensing etc. that we have set up around it is designed to reflect that. you are mistaking the derivative for the source.
Click to expand...

Marriage itself is a commitment between two people, legally it is a contract as the Marriage License is a government issued and recognized contract. Nothing he said was incorrect. Legaly marriage is in fact, no matter how much you wish it wasn't, a contract.
 
Ikari said:
You probably won't want to look into that too much. hehehe
Click to expand...
agreed.

My first thought was why is he asking that. Why would he wonder if he wass annoying at 17, he is annoying NOW so of course he was at 17. Usually people mature with age so he was probably WORSE than now. Some of us mature with age and some clearly do not. :) Its amazing how he thinks all that jumping around, projecting, dodging and circle talks actually works, it doesent.



Ikari said:
Marriage itself is a commitment between two people, legally it is a contract as the Marriage License is a government issued and recognized contract. Nothing he said was incorrect. Legaly marriage is in fact, no matter how much you wish it wasn't, a contract.
Click to expand...

this is actually right, legally it is a contract.
 
A solution that I think would make both sides happy is just get government out of the religious aspects of marriage, and allow people to join in civil unions. Let private entities handle the controversy, but as long as government is involved in marriage and a ban on gay marriage, there is discrimination. The Bible is irrelevant here as it is not the basis of our legal system. The government took marriage from the private realm to the public by getting involved in marriage.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
A solution that I think would make both sides happy is just get government out of the religious aspects of marriage, and allow people to join in civil unions. Let private entities handle the controversy, but as long as government is involved in marriage and a ban on gay marriage, there is discrimination. The Bible is irrelevant here as it is not the basis of our legal system. The government took marriage from the private realm to the public by getting involved in marriage.
Click to expand...

It would be nice to get rid of the Marriage License all together. There should be no tax incentives in the least for being married or having children. Those are personal choices which come with consequences. It does not take a village, it takes a parent to be a parent. The contracts which are bundled into the Marriage License can be made easily available to everyone. You shouldn't have to be married to get access to some of the choices. The Churches could handle marriage and they can sort out the mess on their own.

But it's unlikely. Government doesn't like to give up power it's usurped.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
A solution that I think would make both sides happy is just get government out of the religious aspects of marriage, and allow people to join in civil unions. Let private entities handle the controversy, but as long as government is involved in marriage and a ban on gay marriage, there is discrimination. The Bible is irrelevant here as it is not the basis of our legal system. The government took marriage from the private realm to the public by getting involved in marriage.
Click to expand...

I personally wouldn't be opposed to this but my stance on it is that discrimination can still be claimed. And I would never argue against it.

The simple question would have to be asked,"why is it changed" and any answer not involving the acknowledged of certain people not wanting gays to use that word would be dishonest.

IMO name changing is a cop out, plain and simple its letting the bad guys win instead of doing what is right.
 
cpwill said:
marriage itself is a social institution; the licensing etc. that we have set up around it is designed to reflect that. you are mistaking the derivative for the source.
Click to expand...

Marriage has thousands(literally) of benefits and privileges written into US law. To claim it is just a social institution is incredibly false.
 
Zyphlin said:
I would love to hear the difference you believe there is between "sex" and "gender", unless you're meaning "sex" as something other than defining if someone is male or female and are talking more about the carnal act.
Click to expand...

Sure I'd be happy to give you my personal religious belief on what "sex" and "gender" are.

The Book of Webster, 16: 9-14:

Behold, for this is what the Lord says: "Sex is either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures, for I am the Lord".

Then I made an alter to the Lord and gave fellowship and sin offerings, and the Word of the Lord came to me again. "Go to DebatePolitics.com and say to them 'Behold, for this is what the Lord says: 'Sex' is also the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females', for I am the Lord who lives forever and ever."
Click to expand...

Also, from the Book of Merriam: 12:3-8:

And Jesus said unto them "Blessed is a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb, as appointed by the Lord our Father in heaven) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex, amen) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms b : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass c : an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass

Verily I say unto you, a : sex <the feminine gender> b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
You probably won't want to look into that too much. hehehe
Click to expand...

:p probably not. there are people on this forum whom i've been talking with for.... yeesh, 7 years now? they could definitely out me - no doubt at one point i, too, thought that merely typing something constituted a 'response'. how time does fly...

Marriage itself is a commitment between two people, legally it is a contract as the Marriage License is a government issued and recognized contract. Nothing he said was incorrect. Legaly marriage is in fact, no matter how much you wish it wasn't, a contract.
Click to expand...

it strikes me that whether or not the licenses predate the social institution is a bit of an a priori argument here.

i'd like to hear your argument for it.
 
Redress said:
Marriage has thousands(literally) of benefits and privileges written into US law. To claim it is just a social institution is incredibly false.
Click to expand...

i didn't claim "just" a social institution, i claimed it was a social institution, upon which we have built (among other things) a licensing system. but that system does not preexist the institution upon which it was built, anymore than a church's tax-exempt status predates Christianity.
 
cpwill said:
it strikes me that whether or not the licenses predate the social institution is a bit of an a priori argument here.

i'd like to hear your argument for it.
Click to expand...

For what? The license predating the social institution? It doesn't. The founding fathers did not have to ask government's permission to get married (which is what the Marriage License really is, and what it was originally intended to be). I don't know what you want me to argue for. But whether the chicken came first or not is inconsequential to the current debate on hand. What does matter is that the government did usurp marriage for its own. What does matter is that the Marriage License is real, and it really is a government issued and recognized contract. Once government took it, it left all other realms and exists now in any legal sense only as a legal contract.

None of the arguments are to make society accept same sex marriage. The arguments are along the line of free exercise of one's right to contract.
 
Jerry said:
You have to already believe in science in order to properly interpret technical scientific definitions. If you don't first have faith, then you will not understand.
Click to expand...

translation: you were wrong and misspoke, thanks :D
 
Ikari said:
For what? The license predating the social institution? It doesn't. The founding fathers did not have to ask government's permission to get married (which is what the Marriage License really is, and what it was originally intended to be). I don't know what you want me to argue for. But whether the chicken came first or not is inconsequential to the current debate on hand. What does matter is that the government did usurp marriage for its own. What does matter is that the Marriage License is real, and it really is a government issued and recognized contract. Once government took it, it left all other realms and exists now in any legal sense only as a legal contract.

None of the arguments are to make society accept same sex marriage. The arguments are along the line of free exercise of one's right to contract.
Click to expand...

dont get involved in his double talk its a waste of time, he will dodge and beat around the bush all day while logic common sense and reality just go right over his head. Its a tatic to get off topic thats all, its none sense, thats why I told him stay on topic of im done. The topic is equality or special right or other.

It is in fact a fight for equality and its about discrimination and how in this case theres no good reason to discriminate.
 
cpwill said:
:p probably not. there are people on this forum whom i've been talking with for.... yeesh, 7 years now? they could definitely out me - no doubt at one point i, too, thought that merely typing something constituted a 'response'. how time does fly...



it strikes me that whether or not the licenses predate the social institution is a bit of an a priori argument here.

i'd like to hear your argument for it.
Click to expand...

The "social institution" predates the actual, physical contract (the license), but the institution itself is not the same as the way we see it today. It has only been recently that most marriages were based on love between the two involved. In fact, especially for the more affluent of society, marriage was an unwritten contract between families. The woman was the property of the man. There are even marriages today that are prearranged, even in our own country. There are many parents who will not support a marriage between their son or daughter to a woman or man who is not of the "proper" class or upbringing.

The only difference in today's legal marriage and what marriage originally was is that today there is written proof that both parties agree to the marriage and the wife is no longer the property of the husband. The personal marriage is very different than what it originally was. Generally, love developed between the couple after the wedding vows, if it developed at all, except for a small minority of people in many cultures worldwide.
 
Redress said:
If civil unions are different from marriage, then this is an entirely unacceptable solution. If it is the same as marriage, then it is a stupid solution since there is no point in calling two of the same thing different names to appease a few people.
Husband and wife are typically defined by gender, but less and less so and it is not necessary.
Click to expand...

That would be the majority of the american people at present.
 
Dutch said:
That would be the majority of the american people at present.
Click to expand...

Yes the majority. Just like in 1990 when the majority of people thought interracial marriage was wrong. To bad the government saw it was discrimination and righted its wrongs 23 years earlier, and California was the FIRST to right its wrongs 42 years earlier.

:D
 
Dutch said:
That would be the majority of the american people at present.
Click to expand...

The majority are allowed to think anything they want. They are not, however, allowed to infringe upon the rights and liberties of the minority when the minority has not infringed upon the rights and liberties of others first.
 
cpwill said:
i didn't claim "just" a social institution, i claimed it was a social institution, upon which we have built (among other things) a licensing system. but that system does not preexist the institution upon which it was built, anymore than a church's tax-exempt status predates Christianity.
Click to expand...

None of which is in the least relevant. Which came first means nothing. What matters is that it is not a social institution, it is a legal one currently.
 
Redress said:
None of which is in the least relevant. Which came first means nothing. What matters is that it is not a social institution, it is a legal one currently.
Click to expand...

Common sense at its finest.

And common sense always triumphs circle talk.
 
Centrist77 said:
translation: you were wrong and misspoke, thanks :D
Click to expand...

No you're correct, you caught me. I, and the American Psychological Association, were wrong.

What is the difference between sex and gender?

Sex refers to biological status as male or female. It includes physical attributes such as sex chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, internal reproductive structures, and external genitalia. Gender is a term that is often used to refer to ways that people act, interact, or feel about themselves, which are associated with boys/men and girls/women. While aspects of biological sex are the same across different cultures, aspects of gender may not be.

Answers to Your Questions About Transgender Individuals and Gender Identity
Click to expand...

Sex is Sex, Not Gender
“gender vs sex: gender refers to the psychological/societal aspects of being male or female, sex specifically to the physical aspects. Do not interchange.”


The term “gender” refers to culture and should be used when referring to men and women as social groups, as in this example from the Publication Manual: “sexual orientation rather than gender accounted for most of the variance in the results; most gay men and lesbians were for it, most heterosexual men and women were against it” (APA, 2001, p. 63).

Sex is Sex, Not Gender « Medical Writing, Editing & Grantsmanship
Click to expand...

I promise to use more credible sources like NARTH in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom