• 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

TheGoverness said:
I also believe marriage is a civil right. And honestly I can't find one valid reason to deny gay people the right to marriage.
Click to expand...

I can't find any reason for any two consenting adults to be denied legal marriage. Plenty of reasons for being denied religious marriage though.
 
Southern Dad said:
I see no reason that same sex marriage or polygamy should be illegal. Let every marry whomever and however many they wish.
Click to expand...

Right now, even most of the poly community isn't for a straight up making polygamy legal. We want it eventually, but most of the community recognizes that there are other legal changes that need to be made first. This is unlike SSM, since SSM still is a two person institution. Only wording needs to change for that.
 
MinRogerCooper said:
Why does it seem that people, especially the Church at large, want to make it as though Marriage is all about religion? Marriage in this country is a civil institution that can be given religious connotations, but is overall a legal institution. I personally believe that marriage is a civil right and shouldn't be denied anyone, and when granted it shouldn't be ridiculed and judged by people who are SUPPOSED to love everyone. So I am asking what are you guys' opinions regarding same sex marriage and the Constitutionality of denying/ or granting marriages between people of the same sex.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

marriage is a fundamental right. here's how that was determined :

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment renders laws banning SSM unconstitutional.
 
MinRogerCooper said:
Why does it seem that people, especially the Church at large, want to make it as though Marriage is all about religion? Marriage in this country is a civil institution that can be given religious connotations, but is overall a legal institution. I personally believe that marriage is a civil right and shouldn't be denied anyone, and when granted it shouldn't be ridiculed and judged by people who are SUPPOSED to love everyone. So I am asking what are you guys' opinions regarding same sex marriage and the Constitutionality of denying/ or granting marriages between people of the same sex.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I have no problem with the use of most words to describe what they relate to. That said, there are some words that are offensive to individuals and entire groups when used or used incorrectly.

The word "boy" is in and of itself pretty bland. Use it to address a person that believes he is a man, and he might take issue with you. Use it to address a Black man in a group of Black men and you might find out the meaning of various other words from vitriolic to contusion to fracture.

The word "marriage" carries a religious connotation to certain individuals and to entire groups. They find it offensive to apply it to an act that they feel is not defined by it. It is, however, only a word, a label; "a rose by any other name".

Can't the same-sex legal union have a different name than marriage? Is it a requirement that we have to offend some to please others? Is it the word itself or the union with legal responsibility and privilege that is important?

I would bet that given time, the word "marriage" would be supplanted by the new word, whatever it might be, and be a quaint vestige of a by-gone age.

Does anyone remember the the feeling of the awe of technology inspired by the word Aeroplane? I have an actual, hard copy (hard copy?) of an actual encyclopedia, another word about to fade into history, that is a time piece of the then-current view of the world.

Wiki will eliminate the need to add another volume every year to account for the updates. The old is now discarded so quickly and readily that we easily accept the gaslighting from the glib.
 
code1211 said:
I have no problem with the use of most words to describe what they relate to. That said, there are some words that are offensive to individuals and entire groups when used or used incorrectly.

The word "boy" is in and of itself pretty bland. Use it to address a person that believes he is a man, and he might take issue with you. Use it to address a Black man in a group of Black men and you might find out the meaning of various other words from vitriolic to contusion to fracture.

The word "marriage" carries a religious connotation to certain individuals and to entire groups. They find it offensive to apply it to an act that they feel is not defined by it. It is, however, only a word, a label; "a rose by any other name".

Can't the same-sex legal union have a different name than marriage? Is it a requirement that we have to offend some to please others? Is it the word itself or the union with legal responsibility and privilege that is important?

I would bet that given time, the word "marriage" would be supplanted by the new word, whatever it might be, and be a quaint vestige of a by-gone age.

Does anyone remember the the feeling of the awe of technology inspired by the word Aeroplane? I have an actual, hard copy (hard copy?) of an actual encyclopedia, another word about to fade into history, that is a time piece of the then-current view of the world.

Wiki will eliminate the need to add another volume every year to account for the updates. The old is now discarded so quickly and readily that we easily accept the gaslighting from the glib.
Click to expand...

It's a culture war. The word is important. Regardless of whether you chose to call my relationship with my husband "marriage" or something else, I would call it marriage because that is what it is to me. I would not do so to offend anyone, but simply to acknowledge that is how my partner and I view our relationship. Using the government to try to enforce some alternative word would not change it.
 
CriticalThought said:
It's a culture war. The word is important. Regardless of whether you chose to call my relationship with my husband "marriage" or something else, I would call it marriage because that is what it is to me. I would not do so to offend anyone, but simply to acknowledge that is how my partner and I view our relationship. Using the government to try to enforce some alternative word would not change it.
Click to expand...

I can't tell from your post if you are a part of a same sex union or not.

It makes no difference to me one way or the other, but I do know that words can hurt people and that there is enough pain in the world already.

Are the religious who oppose the expansion of the meaning of this word small minded? Are the Same-Sexers who demand the expansion of this word small minded? I think an argument can be made for both ideas.
 
CriticalThought said:
It's a culture war. The word is important. Regardless of whether you chose to call my relationship with my husband "marriage" or something else, I would call it marriage because that is what it is to me. I would not do so to offend anyone, but simply to acknowledge that is how my partner and I view our relationship. Using the government to try to enforce some alternative word would not change it.
Click to expand...

What the state calls the arrangement doesn't make bit of difference to anything outside of it. Really, both sides are being stubborn over the issue and neither side should care that much. Still, I don't think people are asking for too much by suggesting the gay community could at least accept a different word to legally call their union.
 
code1211 said:
I can't tell from your post if you are a part of a same sex union or not.

It makes no difference to me one way or the other, but I do know that words can hurt people and that there is enough pain in the world already.

Are the religious who oppose the expansion of the meaning of this word small minded? Are the Same-Sexers who demand the expansion of this word small minded? I think an argument can be made for both ideas.
Click to expand...

Words can hurt people, but you are still allowed to say them. It is unreasonable to be hurt by someone calling their union a word you would use for yours or that you feel should be used only for certain unions. Too bad if you (universal you) feel hurt by them using that word. That is the issue of the person being hurt by the use of that word. That person doesn't own that word or its meaning.
 
Henrin said:
What the state calls the arrangement doesn't make bit of difference to anything outside of it. Really, both sides are being stubborn over the issue and neither side should care that much. Still, I don't think people are asking for too much by suggesting the gay community could at least accept a different word to legally call their union.
Click to expand...

When no "new word" was ever legitimately offered with all the same benefits of marriage, it is asking way too much. No proposal has ever even been sent to committee, let alone the floor of Congress to even expand legal federal benefits and rights of marriage to same sex couples under a word other than marriage or even just to expand it to all civil unions. And most states that banned same sex marriage also banned any equivalent arrangements to marriage under other words. So it was never really about a "word", that was just the rallying point once people realized that same sex couples getting married was inevitably going to happen in the near future.
 
roguenuke said:
When no "new word" was ever legitimately offered with all the same benefits of marriage, it is asking way too much. No proposal has ever even been sent to committee, let alone the floor of Congress to even expand legal federal benefits and rights of marriage to same sex couples under a word other than marriage or even just to expand it to all civil unions. And most states that banned same sex marriage also banned any equivalent arrangements to marriage under other words. So it was never really about a "word", that was just the rallying point once people realized that same sex couples getting married was inevitably going to happen in the near future.
Click to expand...

Yes, people didn't want it to happen, and yes, it's a fall back position, but still, it's not asking for too much.
 
Cardinal said:
You know, it's funny you say that, because that's actually my argument. I'm wondering if you co-opted it. When I used that argument, it was in response to the notion that government should "get out of marriage." And I pointed out, rightly, that government is only in the civil institution that it is involved with. Technically, if you don't want government to be in marriage, then simply put, you don't have to have a government marriage. Get married at your church. Get married at Burning Man. Get married with your dog acting as minister while it's wearing an adorable little black robe. It's up to you. Where of course you go wrong is in forgetting that gays were denied the ability to be married within the government institution, which is of course what they wanted all along.
Click to expand...

They were not denied the ability to marry within the government institution. What they wanted had nothing to do with what the law was, so they were allowed to it. Your argument is like some guy complaining about not being able to play tennis at a golf club.
 
Henrin said:
They were not denied the ability to marry within the government institution.
Click to expand...

On parallel earth, maybe. On this earth, they were.

Henrin said:
What they wanted had nothing to do with what the law was, so they were allowed to it. Your argument is like some guy complaining about not being able to play tennis at a golf club.
Click to expand...
 
Henrin said:
They were not denied the ability to marry within the government institution. What they wanted had nothing to do with what the law was, so they were allowed to it. Your argument is like some guy complaining about not being able to play tennis at a golf club.
Click to expand...
They were most definitely denied the ability to marry within the government institution.
 
Henrin said:
Yes, people didn't want it to happen, and yes, it's a fall back position, but still, it's not asking for too much.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. We, taxpayers, shouldn't have to pay for a whole different law and set of paperwork to cover a union that is going to be exactly the same as other unions, except for the genders of those involved. Especially not when legally people can change genders, and that would lead to more issues and/or laws dealing with what their unions should be called.

It is over now, people need to get over it.
 
Henrin said:
They were not denied the ability to marry within the government institution. What they wanted had nothing to do with what the law was, so they were allowed to it. Your argument is like some guy complaining about not being able to play tennis at a golf club.
Click to expand...

No. The argument that people were allowed to marry, under the rules in place on marriage at the time, is like arguing that the Lovings could each have married, just someone of their own race, since that was the rules of marriage at that time.
 
TheGoverness said:
They were most definitely denied the ability to marry within the government institution.
Click to expand...

So they couldn't get married under the law as it was written? Just because you're not interested in that arrangement doesn't mean you were denied access to it. Again, what the gay community wanted and what they got was a redefining of the institution.
 
roguenuke said:
No. The argument that people were allowed to marry, under the rules in place on marriage at the time, is like arguing that the Lovings could each have married, just someone of their own race, since that was the rules of marriage at that time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so?
 
Henrin said:
Yes, people didn't want it to happen, and yes, it's a fall back position, but still, it's not asking for too much.
Click to expand...

In a sense, you are asking the gay community to delegate themselves to a "separate but equal" class designation to protect the sensibilities of people who openly sought to deny them rights and equal protection under the law. How exactly is that not asking too much?
 
roguenuke said:
Yes, it is. We, taxpayers, shouldn't have to pay for a whole different law and set of paperwork to cover a union that is going to be exactly the same as other unions, except for the genders of those involved. Especially not when legally people can change genders, and that would lead to more issues and/or laws dealing with what their unions should be called.
Click to expand...

Don't you actually have to pay to get the license? Wouldn't the charge actually cover the cost in time?

It is over now, people need to get over it.
Click to expand...

How is that working for abortion and every welfare program on the books? Guess what? Nothing is ever over. People that think things are over just want to keep with the status quo.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
In a sense, you are asking the gay community to delegate themselves to a "separate but equal" class designation to protect the sensibilities of people who openly sought to deny them rights and equal protection under the law. How exactly is that not asking too much?
Click to expand...

Treating things differently that are different is perfectly is perfectly acceptable. Anyway, I suppose you don't have to care about anyone but yourself, but it's not going to mend any bridges either.
 
Henrin said:
So they couldn't get married under the law as it was written? Just because you're not interested in that arrangement doesn't mean you were denied access to it. Again, what the gay community wanted and what they got was a redefining of the institution.
Click to expand...
How the **** was marriage redefined? It's literally the same thing, except the fact that now it's just two people of the same gender.

And seriously, are you gonna bring out the old argument of "Gays weren't denied marriage, they can marry someone of the opposite sex any time they want"?
 
roguenuke said:
Words can hurt people, but you are still allowed to say them. It is unreasonable to be hurt by someone calling their union a word you would use for yours or that you feel should be used only for certain unions. Too bad if you (universal you) feel hurt by them using that word. That is the issue of the person being hurt by the use of that word. That person doesn't own that word or its meaning.
Click to expand...

And yet words throughout our American nomenclature are avoided by polite company.

Most notably, the "N" word is avoided. There are various gender and/sexual preference words that are avoided as well.

We, as a society, have demonstrated our willingness to amend meanings and avoid words to favor population segments.

Why is this word singled out by you and others to have the meaning expanded while that expansion is offensive to some? What is the difference between the use of the "N" word and the expansion of the meaning of this word? Why must this word be changed to please while the "N" word must be avoided?

Is the offense of one group desired while the offense of another is to be avoided? What is the dual standard you are hoping to define? Why is offense of one group desired while offense of another group is to be avoided?
 
TheGoverness said:
How the **** was marriage redefined? It's literally the same thing, except the fact that it's just two people of the same gender. Marriage has not been redefined. If anything it's been expanded.
Click to expand...

It was an institution between a man and woman, not now it can between two people of the same sex as well That is redefining marriage.

And seriously, are you gonna bring out the old argument of "Gays weren't denied marriage, they can marry someone of the opposite sex any time they want"?
Click to expand...

I did, so...
 
Henrin said:
It was an institution between a man and woman, not now it can between two people of the same sex as well That is redefining marriage.
Click to expand...

Maybe in the legal sense it was redefined. But that's basically it.


I did, so...
Click to expand...

It's a stupid ****ing argument.
 
TheGoverness said:
Maybe in the legal sense it was redefined. But that's basically it.
Click to expand...

Nope. It was redefined socially and legally.

It's a stupid ****ing argument.
Click to expand...

No, it's really not. If you're saying the law is discriminatory it's a perfectly fine argument to throw a hole in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom