• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do you think gays should be allowed to marry?

Do you think gays should be allowed to marry?

  • No

    Votes: 30 28.6%
  • Yes

    Votes: 74 70.5%
  • Unsure

    Votes: 1 1.0%

  • Total voters
    105
Status
Not open for further replies.

Recon 16

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
in my opinion no.
 

Conflict

Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
745
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Recon 16 said:
in my opinion no.
I would have to agree.

Now don't take me wrong... I don't hate gay people. However I think the concept of gay marriage would be detrimental to family values. I don't dislike gay people. I have friends who are gay. Despite that I just don't see anything holistic in embracing the concept of gay marriage. It's a complete contradiction to the christian doctrine behind the concept of holy matrimony. (meaning that the gay people are only attempting to taunt and instigate the beliefs of matrimony).
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I believe that gays should be allowed to marry because I don't see anything wrong with it and I think the argument that all family values are gonna go up in a blaze is idiotic.
 

MrFungus420

Legend in my own mind!
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
2,018
Reaction score
345
Location
Midland, MI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Oops, hit the wrong button.

I meant to vote in favour of gay marriage.

There's no valid reason to not allow it. The only arguments against it seem to be rooted in either religious belief, which should have no place in law, or personal prejudice.
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
Messages
845
Reaction score
305
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The state has legitimate reasons to register pair-bonds, but I think marriage is a religious event, and government really shouldn't be sticking its nose in such things. I feel that any pair-bond, regardless of sexual orientation, should be allowed to fill out paperwork to gain legal rights, but the marriage ceremony itself should be left to the church. If your religion feels gays shouldn't marry, nobody should force them to perform that ritual; but their queasiness shouldn't prevent gays from receiving equal rights.
Since there's no option for civil unions, I voted a qualified 'yes.'
 

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Befuddled_Stoner said:
The state has legitimate reasons to register pair-bonds, but I think marriage is a religious event, and government really shouldn't be sticking its nose in such things. I feel that any pair-bond, regardless of sexual orientation, should be allowed to fill out paperwork to gain legal rights, but the marriage ceremony itself should be left to the church. If your religion feels gays shouldn't marry, nobody should force them to perform that ritual; but their queasiness shouldn't prevent gays from receiving equal rights.
Since there's no option for civil unions, I voted a qualified 'yes.'
:applaud That is awesome and I whole-heartedly agree. It may or may not come as a surprise to you, but most gay people feel the same way. Its just a very small, very vocal group among us who would not be happy with civil union. That small militant group is also frowned upon by the rest of the homosexual community.

As far as I am concerned, in order to maintain the separation of church and state, it is imperative that the government NOT legislate against the wishes of the established religious institutions. In order to maintain the equal rights of all Americans, it is imperative for the state to institute alternative partnering contracts that exclude the sacraments of the church.
 
T

The Real McCoy

I agree with the 2 guys above me... Marraige is traditionally between a man and a woman but it's also an institution of the church. If a gay couple can find a church willing to wed them, what right does the government have to intervene?
 

mikhail

blond bombshell
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
4,729
Reaction score
763
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Im also of the opinion of civil partnerships should be allowed but not to marry in a religious sense the church has had to back down on so many issues in recent years its not like a newspaper that can change its view depending on which way the wind blows if it was then there is no point to it.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Conflict said:
I would have to agree.

Now don't take me wrong... I don't hate gay people. However I think the concept of gay marriage would be detrimental to family values.
In what way? The only state that allows gay marriage, Massachusetts, has the lowest divorce rate in the country. Is divorce a family value?

Confilct said:
Despite that I just don't see anything holistic in embracing the concept of gay marriage.
Umm...Are you sure that's the word you're looking for?

Conflict said:
It's a complete contradiction to the christian doctrine behind the concept of holy matrimony. (meaning that the gay people are only attempting to taunt and instigate the beliefs of matrimony).
Even if that was true (which I'd argue with...in another thread), what "the Christian doctrine" says should NOT be the determining factor in whether or not the state allows its citizens to be equal.
 

Conservative1

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Well the Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. and as seen as the majority of Americans are Christian, then it should not be made law. I have nothing against civil unions, but they shouldn't expect to recieve all the benefits straight couples should, eg. adoption, and they shouldn't expect my church to marry them.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Conservative1 said:
Well the Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. and as seen as the majority of Americans are Christian, then it should not be made law. I have nothing against civil unions, but they shouldn't expect to recieve all the benefits straight couples should, eg. adoption, and they shouldn't expect my church to marry them.
Just because someone is Christain doesn't necessarily mean they're anti-gay rights, many aren't. There is still a very large portion that isn't Christain, and also my first sentence might also push those numbers around. Why shouldn't they recieve marraige benefits? Church blowz.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Absolutely they should be allowed to marry. I think a church can deny marrying them, but a justice of the peace that is employed by the state should be allowed to marry two adults who love each other and are willing to commit to each other.

I don't see how people can say that it will negatively affect family values. Family values are taught AT HOME. So how does two members of the same sex, married, living next door to you affect your family values?

I am so grateful that my parents are open minded because it has made me a very tolerant person.
 
H

hipsterdufus

As a pragmatist what I think we should do is to allow the word "marriage" to be a purely religious term. Something done at your place of worship. That would take away the problem that many Christians have with gay-marriage.

The legally binding document would not be called a marriage certificate - but something else, whether it's civil union. Then we could give gay people ALL of the rights afforded to other couple.
 
H

hipsterdufus

Conservative1 said:
Well the Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. and as seen as the majority of Americans are Christian, then it should not be made law. I have nothing against civil unions, but they shouldn't expect to recieve all the benefits straight couples should, eg. adoption, and they shouldn't expect my church to marry them.
The Bible also says that you can own slaves, and does little for woman's rights:

(Leviticus 25:44) - "‘As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you."

(NIV, Genesis 2:18)
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
No.
Marriage, by definition, is a union of a man and a woman.
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
aps said:
Absolutely they should be allowed to marry. I think a church can deny marrying them, but a justice of the peace that is employed by the state should be allowed to marry two adults who love each other and are willing to commit to each other.

I don't see how people can say that it will negatively affect family values. Family values are taught AT HOME. So how does two members of the same sex, married, living next door to you affect your family values?
Any argument for same-sex marriage also supports multiple-partner marriage.
Why shouldnt 6 men and 6 women all be able to marry one another?

And then, lets have kids!
We'll have to allow all the non-biological parents - each of them married to the biological parents - to adopt each of the kids. Molly has 6 mothers and 6 fathers...

Then, someone decides to get a divorce -from just three of the men and two of the women.

Slippery slope? Sure. But thats what happens when you start messing with a fundamental definition of a fundamental tenet of society.
 
Last edited:

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
M14 Shooter said:
No.
Marriage, by definition, is a union of a man and a woman.
And do you have a problem with civil union? You know, a non-religious civil binding of two committed adults?

This should be interesting...
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The Real McCoy said:
I agree with the 2 guys above me... Marraige is traditionally between a man and a woman but it's also an institution of the church. If a gay couple can find a church willing to wed them, what right does the government have to intervene?
Marriage is created and defined by the state, and as such, is a privilege gratnted to people by the state. That gives the government EVERY 'right' to 'intervene', and it also gives the people of a state a very loud voice in how marriage is defined.
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jallman said:
And do you have a problem with civil union? You know, a non-religious civil binding of two committed adults?
Many marriages are non-religious. In fact, in a religious ceremony, those performing the ceremony are actors of the state, as they are fulfilling the requirements necessary to create a marriage according to the laws of the state. One can only wonder why the ACLU hasnt yet filed suit to prevent churhces from marrying people under the establisment clause (I suspect its because they know the people of the US would immediately demand and pass a constitutional amendment allowing such a thing, should the SCOTUS ever dare make such a ruling).

As far as 'civil unions' go, they arent marriages, and as such, they arent part of the argument as to whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.
 
Last edited:

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
M14 Shooter said:
Any argument for same-sex marriage also supports multiple-partner marriage.
Why shouldnt 6 men and 6 women all be able to marry one another?

And then, lets have kids!
We'll have to allow all the non-biological parents - each of them married to the biological parents - to adopt each of the kids. Molly has 6 mothers and 6 fathers...

Then, someone decides to get a divorce -from just three of the men and two of the women.

Slippery slope? Sure. But thats what happens when you start messing with a fundamental definition of a fundamental tenet of society.

That is the single most assinine argument that has been made against gay marriage/civil union. Legislation allowing polygamous partnerships would require a totally new contract to be formed along with totally new guidlelines and restrictions. As it stands now, the proponents of gay marriage only want an inclusion into the same contract that is in place now. Further, most only want civil unions and are willing to distance themselves from the religious aspect. And what of religions that do allow for gay marriage...is it the place of the government to put ban on one of their sacraments?

The whole slippery slope argument has been debunked time and time again. You are going to have to do a lot better than that.
 
H

hipsterdufus

M14 Shooter said:
Any argument for same-sex marriage also supports multiple-partner marriage.
Why shouldnt 6 men and 6 women all be able to marry one another?

And then, lets have kids!
We'll have to allow all the non-biological parents - each of them married to the biological parents - to adopt each of the kids. Molly has 6 mothers and 6 fathers...

Then, someone decides to get a divorce -from just three of the men and two of the women.

Slippery slope? Sure. But thats what happens when you start messing with a fundamental definition of a fundamental tenet of society.
Your logic doesn't hold up, it's apples and oranges. Plenty of countries allow same sex marriage and have no desire to allow polygamy or bestiality for that matter.

Did you hear me Rick (Man on Dog) Santorum?
 

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
M14 Shooter said:
Many marriages are non-religious. In fact, in a religious ceremony, those performing the ceremony are actors of the state, as they are fulfilling the requirements necessary to create a marriage according to the laws of the state. One can only wonder why the ACLU hasnt yet filed suit to prevent churhces from marrying people under the establisment clause (I suspect its because they know the people of the US would immediately demand and pass a constitutional amendment allowing such a thing, should the SCOTUS ever dare make such a ruling).

As far as 'civil unions' go, they arent marriages, and as such, they arent part of the argument as to whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.
I do believe that a few people in this very debate have made it part of the argument. Are you refusing to answer the question or are do you not have an answer?
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jallman said:
That is the single most assinine argument that has been made against gay marriage/civil union.
You finding it asinine really doesnt mean much, and it certainly doesnt mean I'm not right.

Legislation allowing polygamous partnerships would require a totally new contract to be formed
You mean it would make a fundamental change in what is defined as a marriage.
Just as same-sex marriages would.
Why is one fundamental change OK but not the other?

Further, most only want civil unions and are willing to distance themselves from the religious aspect. And what of religions that do allow for gay marriage...is it the place of the government to put ban on one of their sacraments?
Marriage is defined by the state and is a state, not religous insitution. It is the governments 'place' to define marriage however the people of the state see fit.

The whole slippery slope argument has been debunked time and time again.
Not by you, and not here.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
M14 Shooter said:
You mean it would make a fundamental change in what is defined as a marriage.
Just as same-sex marriages would.
Why is one fundamental change OK but not the other?
Because they are completely different and have NOTHING to do with each other. We can fundamentally change the tax code by simplifying it, or we can fundamentally change the tax code by increasing taxes on all ventriloquists and computer programmers; why is one fundamental change OK but not the other?

M14 Shooter said:
Marriage is defined by the state and is a state, not religous insitution. It is the governments 'place' to define marriage however the people of the state see fit.
So your argument seems to be that gay marriage should be illegal because the people of your state don't want it (a self-fulfilling prophecy). As a test of your sincerity, will you suddenly become a supporter of gay marriage if public opinion in your state swings in favor of it?
 

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
M14 Shooter said:
You finding it asinine really doesnt mean much, and it certainly doesnt mean I'm not right.
I am glad you hold your own, even when its an assinine point. I cannot say whether you are right or wrong as of yet, but I can look at history and see that the slippery slope argument didn't hold then and wont hold now. The slippery slope argument is a transparent attempt to create a logic for denying aspects of the constitution to a group of people based on personal biases. It holds no truth that can be proven and is nothing more than the opining of a small minded group who believe they have trumped liberty with a big idea. In truth, the slippery slope argument is ridiculous and most people know it.

You mean it would make a fundamental change in what is defined as a marriage.
Yes, polygamous marriage would make a fundamental change in the definition of marriage...the inclusion of more than two partners, the parental relationship would be expanded, divorce would be complicated, tax law to be rewritten, medical rights would be complicated by multiple partners, death benefits would have to be redefined, insurance rights reworked...it goes on and on.

Just as same-sex marriages would.
Why is one fundamental change OK but not the other?
Nice try, but it doesnt hold water. Same sex marriage would not involve a fundamental change, only a change in nomenclature. You know, the same kind of change that was made when the interracial marriage ban was repealed. Still one person married to one person...using the same laws that are in place now and no added laws. Now I can already hear you hemming and hawing about adoption...but gays are already adopting and have been for some time. Adoption laws are not directly tied to marriage laws...this is pure misinformation on the part of anti-liberty zealots. The undeniable truth is that allowing for civil union or gay marriage is no more a change to the marriage contract than any other change that has been made in the past 50-100 years and any opposition to it is based in the same bias that was shown to interracial marriage less than 60 years ago.

Marriage is defined by the state and is a state, not religous insitution. It is the governments 'place' to define marriage however the people of the state see fit.
I do believe that most religious institutions and most of your conservative peers would disagree with you on that notion. In fact, most of the liberal mass would disagree with you on that, also. I dont feel a need to touch this one.

Not by you, and not here.
Oh, my bad, I was trying to avoid boring our readers by rehashing a tired and solidly debunked debate. I didnt realize I was talking to Johnny Come Lately, but ok. For you, I will summarize the conclusion of that debate of months ago.

The slippery slope argument is unprovable by the opponents of gay marriage because it hinges on prediction of future public opinion. Even if it did hold true, then it is not a valid argument because we are a democracy and if public opinion moved in that direction, by our own standards of government, we would have to allow that movement. However, in the past when the slippery slope was used as an argument (for example, interracial marriages will slide into a total blending of races and an end to the white race) it has been proven to carry no validity. Name me one slippery slope argument from the past that came true, and I will be willing to re open that debate. Unless you can, this particular case is closed and the argument remains debunked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom