• 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!

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.

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
In Texas when gay marriage was on the ballot only 13% of the eligible voters showed up. I would propose that the majority really just don't care.
what was the outcome?
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Then you do think that marriage shouldn't be discussed in school.



And this is where I disagree and agree with CC. The government has no interest in excluding homosexuals from being able to marry other homosexuals. The government is discriminating against homosexuals because of societal fears. This happened with interracial marriage. To a degree early on, people were correct about concerns of biracial kids being shunned by both sides. Society has gotten past that and is for the better now. I'd be interested to see how people would vote if a law would need to be past to legalize interfaith marriages.

Civil rights should not be put to a vote. "Fear of the unknown" based bigotry in a society is the reason why.

Other countries have legalized it. They are fine. Gays can raise families. There is no down side to legalizing it. Unsubstantiated fears don't count. There are existing models that exist.
but then, not everyone in America agrees that it is a civil rights issue.
 

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
43,631
Reaction score
15,071
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
but then, not everyone in America agrees that it is a civil rights issue.
The same was true about interracial marriage. Not everyone in America saw it as a civil rights issue. The popular thought of the time was it was fair because everyone had to marry inside their own race, including whites. And the laws that actually arrested people for living together as a mixed couple were defended because the white person was arrested too. The biggest difference between the homosexual marriage fight and the interracial marriage fight is that for interracial marriage, Loving v. Virginia took care of both the laws against interracial couples being together and changed the marriage laws at the same time, but the laws against homosexuals living together were already deemed wrong by Lawrence v. Texas, so it makes the fight for homosexual marriage harder.
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,723
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
How? Environmental impact. Kids raising themselves due to parental absence. Nutritional impact due to parents not having time to cook real food. I didn't say women were inferior to men, I said there were negative impacts resulting from womens lib.
You seem to be doing the same thing with this issue that you do with sexual orientation. Looking at ONE side of the issue only, when, to examine it logically, you must look at BOTH. Any social change will have both negative and positive outcomes. You are condemning something by ONLY looking at the negatives without considering the positives. Woman's lib has had plenty of positive outcomes. Same with the civil rights movement of the '50's and 60's. And GM would do the same. What one must look at is a cost-benefit analysis, both from a quantitative, but more importantly, from a qualitative standpoint. The information that I posted demonstrates the benefits to society and, both qualitatively and quantitatively, it overshadows the negatives.

Other than an infdividual's personal morality or dislike of homosexuality/GM, what do you think would be negative consequences of legalizing GM?
 

Meg13

New member
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
As a Christian I am against gay marriage. Marriage has always been a religious way to unite a couple for life and so that they can have children. The one thing that Christians get a bad name for is hating gay people. Those are the ones who misunderstand the bible and what your job is as a Christian. We are supposed to love everybody no matter what. A sin is a sin. There are pastors out there who are divorced and remarried and that is a sin. Just the same as being gay. But people don't see it the same.

So no I do not want gay marriage to be legal but I will not hate someone for it.
 

Alastor

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
645
Reaction score
45
Location
Reality
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Marriage has always been a religious way to unite a couple for life and so that they can have children.
Marriage, as a term, existed long before the Bible. Just puttin' that out there.

I think a lot of people consider "marriage" the invention of Christians. It's not. It was used long before such things as Christians existed.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
You seem to be doing the same thing with this issue that you do with sexual orientation. Looking at ONE side of the issue only, when, to examine it logically, you must look at BOTH. Any social change will have both negative and positive outcomes. You are condemning something by ONLY looking at the negatives without considering the positives. Woman's lib has had plenty of positive outcomes. Same with the civil rights movement of the '50's and 60's. And GM would do the same. What one must look at is a cost-benefit analysis, both from a quantitative, but more importantly, from a qualitative standpoint. The information that I posted demonstrates the benefits to society and, both qualitatively and quantitatively, it overshadows the negatives.

Other than an infdividual's personal morality or dislike of homosexuality/GM, what do you think would be negative consequences of legalizing GM?
Though I haven't read all your studies completely I can tell you that whether or not homosexuals can be good parents or not was never in question. It may be a concern for others who oppose gay marriage, not for me. Second, I am looking at it logicaly...the potential negative impacts concern me. One of the largest concerns are the ones that homosexuals have no control over and that's the reaction of those that will do violence. The level of which can not be estimated. Though you and many equate it interracial marraige, interracial marriage wasn't a religious issue. Homosexual marriage directly opposes fundamental religious belief (pretty much all of them). The potential reaction scares me, and I'm not sure it's something our society can handle.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Marriage, as a term, existed long before the Bible. Just puttin' that out there.

I think a lot of people consider "marriage" the invention of Christians. It's not. It was used long before such things as Christians existed.
In some form or other, maybe, but as you've pointed out, where is the proof? Some think marriage and monogamy was an invention of the catholic church put in place as a means of control.
 

winston53660

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
29,265
Reaction score
10,128
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Though I haven't read all your studies completely I can tell you that whether or not homosexuals can be good parents or not was never in question. It may be a concern for others who oppose gay marriage, not for me. Second, I am looking at it logicaly...the potential negative impacts concern me. One of the largest concerns are the ones that homosexuals have no control over and that's the reaction of those that will do violence. The level of which can not be estimated. Though you and many equate it interracial marraige, interracial marriage wasn't a religious issue. Homosexual marriage directly opposes fundamental religious belief (pretty much all of them). The potential reaction scares me, and I'm not sure it's something our society can handle.
What kuida of violence do you mean? Do you think peole will riot in the streets?
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
What kuida of violence do you mean? Do you think peole will riot in the streets?

who knows? Possibly. Such has happened for less...the point really is no one knows what the negative impacts are until they've been happening for about 20 to 30 years.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,931
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
who knows? Possibly. Such has happened for less...the point really is no one knows what the negative impacts are until they've been happening for about 20 to 30 years.
So you want to punish LGBT people for other people's intolerance?
 

winston53660

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
29,265
Reaction score
10,128
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
who knows? Possibly. Such has happened for less...the point really is no one knows what the negative impacts are until they've been happening for about 20 to 30 years.
Gays have been around since the beginnings of humankind. They have been forming relationships since then. Considering that they have been here forever and will continue to be here for as humankind will be around I see no reason for them not to get married to their same sex partners and form more stable relationships.
 
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
79
Reaction score
60
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Though you and many equate it interracial marraige, interracial marriage wasn't a religious issue.
It seems illogical today that interracial marriage was a religious issue, but the fact is that it WAS a religious issue to many of those that opposed it. Which is yet another reason why the interracial marriage analogy is so accurate. I posted it before but I'll post it again since it's been buried by an additional 40 pages in this discussion:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
That was the reasoning that a judge used in Loving v. Virginia to uphold anti-miscegenation laws. It seems silly now that people opposed interracial marriage for religious reasons, but that was the truth (in addition to opposing it because they were uncomfortable with/repulsed by the idea, I would imagine, which falls under the "it's not natural" argument), and that was only 40 years ago! And it's astonishing how almost identical reasons are being used to oppose same-sex marriage. I would bet that in 40 years, the "marriage is to unite the unique, special halves of humanity, man and woman" arguments against same-sex marriage, which are similarly based in religion and ignorance whether people want to admit it or not, will sound as silly as the "God put the races on separate continents for a reason" arguments against interracial marriage seem now.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Gays have been around since the beginnings of humankind. They have been forming relationships since then. Considering that they have been here forever and will continue to be here for as humankind will be around I see no reason for them not to get married to their same sex partners and form more stable relationships.
Yes they have been, for what percantage of that time has socially accepted gay marriage been recognized?
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
It seems illogical today that interracial marriage was a religious issue, but the fact is that it WAS a religious issue to many of those that opposed it. Which is yet another reason why the interracial marriage analogy is so accurate. I posted it before but I'll post it again since it's been buried by an additional 40 pages in this discussion:



That was the reasoning that a judge used in Loving v. Virginia to uphold anti-miscegenation laws. It seems silly now that people opposed interracial marriage for religious reasons, but that was the truth (in addition to opposing it because they were uncomfortable with/repulsed by the idea, I would imagine, which falls under the "it's not natural" argument), and that was only 40 years ago! And it's astonishing how almost identical reasons are being used to oppose same-sex marriage. I would bet that in 40 years, the "marriage is to unite the unique, special halves of humanity, man and woman" arguments against same-sex marriage, which are similarly based in religion and ignorance whether people want to admit it or not, will sound as silly as the "God put the races on separate continents for a reason" arguments against interracial marriage seem now.
I don't agree with you that interracial marriage was a religious issue since there is no reference to it in any religious text that I am familiar with. If there were some religious leaders opposing it, it doesn't make it a religious matter. The majority of the opposition to interracial marriage and desegregation came from Democrats, by the way.

A judge's personal interpretations of Gods will does not make it a religious issue for anyone but that Judge. Homosexuality is specifically addressed in many religious holy texts, and to me, that is the difference. Regardless, it's not only the religious who oppose homosexual marriage.
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
26,058
Reaction score
6,516
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
That there will be unforeseen ramifications to legalizing gay marriage.
Everything works that way.

And for that matter, they could be unforeseen positive ramifications...

But yeah…


The trick with any change is do your best to predict the positive and negative effects, then decide to go for it or not based on those factors.

One major problem, as I see it, with the current government and system, is that issues are solved by bandaging the problem with a cheap and/or unsanitary dressing.

It either falls off, malfunctions in some way, infects the wound, or some combination of the three.

And then you fix THAT issue using the same method.

Either that, or our governmental system never predicts the positive and negative effects correctly.

Or both.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,931
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
That there will be unforeseen ramifications to legalizing gay marriage.
So you've got nothing, and want to try and scare people with the fear of the unknown. You know what else has unforeseen ramifications? Leaving your house, interacting with other people. Just because it has unforeseen ramifications doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
 

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,978
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Might as well look on the bright side: there will be unforeseen benefits as well.
The future is unknowable.
 
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
79
Reaction score
60
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I don't agree with you that interracial marriage was a religious issue since there is no reference to it in any religious text that I am familiar with. If there were some religious leaders opposing it, it doesn't make it a religious matter. The majority of the opposition to interracial marriage and desegregation came from Democrats, by the way.

A judge's personal interpretations of Gods will does not make it a religious issue for anyone but that Judge. Homosexuality is specifically addressed in many religious holy texts, and to me, that is the difference. Regardless, it's not only the religious who oppose homosexual marriage.
Well, after a brief Google search, here are just a sampling of the Biblical passages that were used to condemn interracial marriage:

Leviticus 20:24 says:
But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I [am] the LORD your God, which have separated you from [other] people.
Exodus 33:16:
For how shall it be known that I have found favor in your sight, I and your people? Is it not in your going with us, so that we are distinct, I and your people, from every other people on the face of the earth?"
Joshua 23:12-13:
For if you ever go back and cling to the rest of these nations, these which remain among you, and intermarry with them, so that you associate with them and they with you, know with certainty that the LORD your God will not continue to drive these nations out from before you; but they will be a snare and a trap to you, and a whip on your sides and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from off this good land which the LORD your God has given you.
Deuteronomy 7:3:
neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
2 Corinthians 6:14:
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?
Acts 17:24-26:
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation
I think it's fair to say that these passages are at least as clearly anti-interracial marriage as the usual suspect passages are anti-gay marriage (or, more generally, anti-homosexuality). In fact, just looking up those Biblical passages somehow made the interracial marriage analogy even more accurate than I had already thought it was. The thing that bothers me the most is that people don't even seem to care to back up their statements. It only took me about 10 minutes of research to find evidence against your assertion that there was no reference to interracial marriage in religious texts, and yet you use that assertion as a foundation of your argument.

It seems unbelievable now that these passages could have been used to condemn interracial marriage as sinful and contradictory to God's will, but the fact is that people genuinely believed that that was the truth, and then they somehow convinced themselves it wasn't discriminatory because it was God's word. It's not like I'm not making it up. People really believed that the races shouldn't mix, and those are some of the Biblical passages that they construed to support their view, a view which, in my opinion, was almost certainly rooted in some deeper level of discomfort with the idea and with breaking the status quo.

I mean seriously, how much more valid can this analogy get? It's so similar I can hardly believe anyone would try to deny it at this point. If people want to simply ignore the concept of context and accept these outdated interpretations about what marriage is and isn't, then that's fine, they can live in their fantasy world where Biblical interpretations have never evolved at any point in history. But don't dare try paint over history with absurd illusions that this is somehow completely different from the shamefully late cultural, moral and legal awakening that gave interracial couples the right to marry.
 
Last edited:

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,723
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Though I haven't read all your studies completely I can tell you that whether or not homosexuals can be good parents or not was never in question. It may be a concern for others who oppose gay marriage, not for me. Second, I am looking at it logicaly...the potential negative impacts concern me. One of the largest concerns are the ones that homosexuals have no control over and that's the reaction of those that will do violence. The level of which can not be estimated. Though you and many equate it interracial marraige, interracial marriage wasn't a religious issue. Homosexual marriage directly opposes fundamental religious belief (pretty much all of them). The potential reaction scares me, and I'm not sure it's something our society can handle.
I do not dispute the point that there could be negative ramifications. IMO, the positives far outweigh the potential negatives.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Well, after a brief Google search, here are just a sampling of the Biblical passages that were used to condemn interracial marriage:

Leviticus 20:24 says:


Exodus 33:16:


Joshua 23:12-13:


Deuteronomy 7:3:


2 Corinthians 6:14:


Acts 17:24-26:


I think it's fair to say that these passages are at least as clearly anti-interracial marriage as the usual suspect passages are anti-gay marriage (or, more generally, anti-homosexuality). In fact, just looking up those Biblical passages somehow made the interracial marriage analogy even more accurate than I had already thought it was. The thing that bothers me the most is that people don't even seem to care to back up their statements. It only took me about 10 minutes of research to find evidence against your assertion that there was no reference to interracial marriage in religious texts, and yet you use that assertion as a foundation of your argument.

It seems unbelievable now that these passages could have been used to condemn interracial marriage as sinful and contradictory to God's will, but the fact is that people genuinely believed that that was the truth, and then they somehow convinced themselves it wasn't discriminatory because it was God's word. It's not like I'm not making it up. People really believed that the races shouldn't mix, and those are some of the Biblical passages that they construed to support their view, a view which, in my opinion, was almost certainly rooted in some deeper level of discomfort with the idea and with breaking the status quo.

I mean seriously, how much more valid can this analogy get? It's so similar I can hardly believe anyone would try to deny it at this point. If people want to simply ignore the concept of context and accept these outdated interpretations about what marriage is and isn't, then that's fine, they can live in their fantasy world where Biblical interpretations have never evolved at any point in history. But don't dare try paint over history with absurd illusions that this is somehow completely different from the shamefully late cultural, moral and legal awakening that gave interracial couples the right to marry.
I'm not here to defend Christians, or Muslims, or Jews on their positions on any issue. However, further reading around those passages will show you that they generally speak of people of faith consorting with people with no faith...no people of different races. I'm sure they could be twisted to mean whatever the speaker wished.

Further, because a preacher, priest, imam, or rabbi believes something regarding a secular issue doesn't mean the entirety of their particular religion believes the same.

What I've seen, universally, is that all Christians believe homosexuality is a sin since it IS specifically addressed in the bible. The few Muslims I know believe the same.

I'm not here to defend religion, I'm just saying there is a fundamental difference to the opposiotions of the two separate issues.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I do not dispute the point that there could be negative ramifications. IMO, the positives far outweigh the potential negatives.
This is what it basically boils down to. Opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom