• 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!

How will gay marriage affect your marriage?

How will gay marriage affect your marriage?

  • It wont

    Votes: 37 86.0%

  • It'll make me want to divorce my partner

    Votes: 6 14.0%
  • Total voters
    43
Eko Ren said:
No, they hold the answers to questions about definitions.
Click to expand...

Depends, definitions are contentious when applied to many social and political terms. For instance I have learned the dictionary definition of socialism is one that is quite different to most socialists conception of their ideology.
 
emdash said:
I like that they want to get married.

I also like that they can't get married.

I want to keep it the way it is (inaction) as opposed to make it legal (action).
Click to expand...

ooOOOooo, another good one.

But:

Two gay guys try to get married--you must stop them, which is an action.

Two gay guys try to get marries--you let them, which is inaction.

I see your logic, but in terms of reality, although there would be a lot of bureaurocratic red tape and such, there wouldn't be much action involved in allowing a group of people to marry if they want.
 
Wessexman said:
Depends, definitions are contentious when applied to many social and political terms. For instance I have learned the dictionary definition of socialism is one that is quite different to most socialists conception of their ideology.
Click to expand...

That makes their perceptions wrong, not the definition! :doh

Socialism is actually a half-step to Communism, although most people understand it as what's actually Utopian Socialism.

But that mistake is easier to make and rationalize than, say, only acknowledging one out of five or so definitions of a word.
 
Eko Ren said:
That makes their perceptions wrong, not the definition! :doh
Click to expand...
Ah so the definition is different to what the vast majority believe or rather is only a minor part of what some believe.

Socialism is actually a half-step to Communism, although most people understand it as what's actually Utopian Socialism.

But that mistake is easier to make and rationalize than, say, only acknowledging one out of five or so definitions of a word.
Click to expand...
The definition of socialism is usually the state owning the means of production or something like that but I've learned that most consider this incidental and many are in fact libertarians or anarchists who don't see too great a role for the state.

By learnt I mean through personal experience of being a libertarian socialist and having to explain that does not necessarily mean I want the state to own the means of production.

Dictionaries are a poor basis for indepth analysis of social and political terms.
 
Last edited:

Sigh.

Okay, on one hand, you're right that language is dynamic as opposed to static, hence making it difficult to be pedantic about definitions. But that doesn't belie the necessity for a standard in lingual meaning.

The definition of Socialism is the state appropriating capital (in other words, a capitalistic society sans profit) as opposed to revenue being issued directly to the individual, and it is ideally a transition as opposed to a full-on political theory, in that it was a vehicle that Marx contrived to convert a society from Capitalism to Communism.

What you're referring to is Utopian Socialism, which is practically a barter system with money thrown in for kicks.
 
I'm well aware of the Marxist theory but not all socialists are Marxists nor do a lot of them keep strictly to the theory when talking about socialism. Socialism is a transition but it isn't just the state owning capital, and it doesn't have to involve the state at all, it relates to the workers controlling the capital. After all the state doesn't have to be controlled by the workers but then it could hardly be called socialist to any socialist.


What you're referring to is Utopian Socialism, which is practically a barter system with money thrown in for kicks.
Click to expand...
Utopian socialism was a broad range of ideas by various thinkers. It is interesting, far more so than most of the Marxist stuff imho, but no that is not what I meant. I was talking about socialism in general and libertarian socialism and anarchism in general. These are socialist and yet are anti-state.

So one should be careful about the usage of dictionaries when looking at terminology like this.
 
Last edited:

if we're speaking in terms of reality, there'd be more action involved in changing laws than in leaving them the way they are. meaning, burden's still yours.
 
and for the record, people, I'm female.
 

It isn't relevant whether or not homophobia IN GENERAL compares to the atrocities that blacks have faced IN GENERAL. The analogy was between GAY MARRIAGE and INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. Those two things ARE largely comparable, as the arguments for preventing them (and for allowing them) are virtually identical.
 

Like Transexuality and Gender Identity Disorder, born-homosexuality is a biological error. Race is not. Therefore gay marriage and interracial marriage are not comparable even if gays ever did suffer though anything even remotely close to Black slavery.

Gay marriage = interracial marriage is fantastic hyperbole at best.
 

Why is it a "biological error"? Define "biological error" please. Furthermore, please explain why we should deny people basic rights even if they DO have a "biological error." Do we deny hemophiliacs the right to get married?
 
Last edited:
Eko Ren said:
That's sounded like a bunch of conjecture. On what grounds should a person be excluded from legal union aside citizenship?
Click to expand...

You're asking the wrong question. Again, the State extends numerous legal privileges to marriages that it recognizes, because it wants to encourage marriage; it has reasons for doing so, and thus the argument should focus on whether or not allowing homosexuals to marry helps serve those reasons.

On what grounds should the legal definition of marriage be expanded to include homosexual marriages?

Eko Ren said:
A functional society wouldn't be so distracted with such nonsensical, petty questions. Children are allowed to marry in some states, for Godsakes. It really isn't that important a question, and it has far fewer implications than you're suggesting.
Click to expand...

This issue is neither nonsensical nor petty; in fact, I'd argue that the number of people who agree with you, that the institution of marriage is legally and societally trivial, is indicative of the exact kind of moral decline that Jerry is concerned with.

The institution of marriage, in its role of cementing the bonds between families and lending legal, financial, and social stability to couples-- especially couples with children-- is the bedrock of society, and as it has crumbled in esteem, so have the moral values of society at large. The declining respect for marriage has led to broken homes, fatherless children, and three generations now of children who have grown up not understanding how vital it is for their own children to grow up in stable homes.

I actually agree with you that marriage ought to be legalized for homosexuals-- but it is because marriage is so important, especially for parents, that I believe homosexuals ought to be included in it.

Eko Ren said:
That is because incest is illegal in most states. Of course one cannot be legally bound illegally, wtf kind of argument was that?
Click to expand...

Actually, to my knowledge, it isn't illegal to have sex with your first cousins-- only to marry them.

Eko Ren said:
How is that relevant to gay marriage? Once again, this isn't because we necessarily want to exclude married people, but because bigamy is illegal.
Click to expand...

And in 47 States, so is gay marriage.

Eko Ren said:
Oh, a country can't legally bind and acknowledge the union of someone who isn't a citizen? GTFO! Dude. Honestly. That's like saying "We should make air illegal because attempting to breathe it underwater can kill you."
Click to expand...

In which case, people who are citizens of this country are denied the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice-- if that adult happens to be a citizen of a different country.

Eko Ren said:
Bold=100% false. The state imposes no limitations on marriage itself, but only nullifies it on the premise of oblique illegality.
Click to expand...

The State doesn't prohibit homosexuals from getting married, either-- it only refuses to recognize their marriage as legally binding. A friend of mine has been married twice, to two different women; thankfully, because of the law, she's been spared the indignity of divorce court both times.

For that matter, the State does not prohibit plural marriages or cousin marriages, either; bigamy is only a criminal offense if you attempt to legally register the second marriage with the State, unless you live in Utah. (Utah will actually declare plural spouses commonlaw married in order to prosecute for bigamy.) So, if that's your argument, homosexuals aren't being denied the right to marry at all.

Of course, I'd imagine that they see it differently, since they're still fighting for legal recognition of their marriages.

---

Jerry said:
A couple that can bear children? No, try again.
Click to expand...

Plenty of homosexuals have children, one way or another, and are raising them. That's the main reason I'm in favor of allowing them to marry.
 
Kandahar said:
Why is it a "biological error"?
Click to expand...

How am I supposed to know?

Kandahar said:
Define "biological error" please.
Click to expand...

An error of a biological nature.

Kandahar said:
Furthermore, please explain why we should deny people basic rights even if they DO have a "biological error."
Click to expand...

Gay marriage is not a basic right, so there is nothing to deny.

Kandahar said:
Do we deny hemophiliacs the right to get married?
Click to expand...

I would support that, yes, for the exact same reason I oppose incest.

1 of the 2 core purposes of marriage is to promote procreation if healthy children. Gays, hemophiliacs and familial couples cannot do this.

And no, gay couples cannot reproduce any more than an infertile couple can. And yes, infertility is grounds for divorce.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Plenty of homosexuals have children, one way or another, and are raising them. That's the main reason I'm in favor of allowing them to marry.
Click to expand...

Yes and many brothers and sisters are raising children together, and plenty of daughters are raising children with their parents, so now you must logically allow incest and polygamy, and accept the sociological consequences of that.

Marriage is the promotion of a particular way, not support for just whomever is doing it.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
1 of the 2 core purposes of marriage is to promote procreation if healthy children. Gays, hemophiliacs and familial couples cannot do this.
Click to expand...

There's actually very little risk of genetic defect between first cousins, unless one of them already has an expressed genetic disorder. It takes several generations of this before it's an issue that needs worried about.

Jerry said:
And no, gay couples cannot reproduce any more than an infertile couple can. And yes, infertility is grounds for divorce.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, many infertile couples adopt children, just as many homosexual couples do. And it turns out that homosexuals are much more open-minded about raising children that are only biologically related to their significant other; men can "lie back and think of England" just as well as women, apparently.
 
You are entirely correct but one should also be careful of only using "naked functionalism" because it has a limited hold among the mass of mankind.

It has been argued too that religion is important to society but if that were the only argument that permeated society in favour of it then it is unlikely to have much of an effect on the minds of individuals. As I read recently the family that prays together may stay to together but the family which prays to stay together is unlikely to do either for long.

It is important therefore not to loose sight of the patchwork of beliefs that define the institution of marriage in our current society and remember they go far deeper than obvious function very often.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Marriage is the promotion of a particular way, not support for just whomever is doing it.
Click to expand...

I think allowing homosexuals to marry each other, especially if they intend to raise children together, is preferable to requiring them to stay single or enter into marriages of convenience with opposite-sex partners.

And of the 2 core purposes of marriage, homosexual marriage fulfills the other just as well as heterosexual marriage does.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
There's actually very little risk of genetic defect between first cousins, unless one of them already has an expressed genetic disorder. It takes several generations of this before it's an issue that needs worried about.
Click to expand...

Allowing incest is allowing these generations to grow. No one said the problem was immediat.


In my experience with adoption and foster care, the "open-mindedness" you speak of is in no way exclusive to homosexual couples, but of any person who adopts a child not of close relation.

If adopting children were the main gay marriage argument, you would hear little objection out of me, as the children would be placed first and the homosexuality would be merely incidental.

But you know that is not the main argument. The main argument has nothing to do with putting children first, and everything to do with legitimizing a self identity. This is supposed to be accomplished in the teen years, not in adulthood and not through the courts.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
I think allowing homosexuals to marry each other, especially if they intend to raise children together, is preferable to requiring them to stay single or enter into marriages of convenience with opposite-sex partners.
Click to expand...
I only care about couples with children. I don’t have the slightest regard for couples without children, gay or striate.

Anyone with pre-existing children who marry same or opposite gender is establishing the step-parent dynamic, which is a leading cause of second divorces.
Anyone, gay or straight, with pre-existing children should not marry until the children are grown.
Korimyr the Rat said:
And of the 2 core purposes of marriage, homosexual marriage fulfills the other just as well as heterosexual marriage does.
Click to expand...

This is only a satisfactory line of reasoning if you choose to compartmentalize and divide the social organ that marriage is; which of course makes the organ dysfunctional and unable to perform it's function for the greater social organism.

Marriage is not about 1 and maybe the other if we feel like it...it's about both together.
 

My soon to be step son would disagree with you.
 

You are, of course, correct. This argument, like seemingly every other argument in American politics, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the important issues underlying it-- and everything to do with which political football team you root for.

Sometimes, I think this country is just too stupid for democracy.
 

I lean towards social liberalism, but didn't always. I used to be against "Gay Marriage", and if you dig around at old posts you might see me talking against it.

I grew up Democrat, and voted that way till I was in my middle 20's then I switched. My grandfather raised me and he was a big traditionalist when it was a tradition he admired or liked, and that's how we all are. I like marriage the way it is, with the bride being female, and the groom being male both heterosexual. But.....as has been stated at some point two gays could marry if they are opposite sexes, and who'd be the wiser. This is still going to be a mockery of the institution as it stands if it's not amended. Maybe that's what the gays should start doing, upheave the status quo. Marry, have kids, maybe let the real partner move in, and this would all be quite sorded. We are making upstanding individuals live their lives in unnecessary ways to accomodate an old, and what seems to be tired, tradition. Marriage just isn't what it used to be. To me it's just a bunch of showy nonsense. Most people have a tough time staying monogamous throughout the length of a long marriage, so the times they have already changed, and the gays didn't do it, the straights did it to themselves, by themselves.

Amazingly you claim to be slightly conservative at yet you are arguing against one of the two or three key pillars of conservatism.
That is what the Jacobins and Bolsheviks thought.
Click to expand...

I suspect that was in a very different climate than the one we have today. The government was oppressive. You have to look at the situations that led to these thought processes becoming popular. The rich were so excessive it was ridiculous, and the poor barely had enough to eat, and usually didn't.

I don't think it will if treated with caution, I support it when the people want it. I'm just arguing against the world view and methods of some of its other supporters
Click to expand...

What is the world view, and the aggressive supporters sometimes are the overboard types, but that's usually got an element of mob psychology to it and wouldn't represent the whole of the gay community. Most gays I have known are just like everybody else, there's no huge difference. They deserve to be happy like everybody else in this short lifetime we all share.
 
Phoenix said:
So you have changed your position from

"What makes you think government is interfering in marriage?"

to

"Government has a good reason to interfere in marriage."?

ok....
Click to expand...

No. how can government be interfering in something that it generally is in charge of? Marriage is a political institution, not a religious one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.