• 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!

Indignity of DOMA

Marriages are equal. Homosexuality doesn't apply because those unions are not marriage. Although I do think friends and family should be allowed to visit others in the hospital and not just the spouse. Personally though, if anything marriage should be federally defined as a union between one man and one woman. There also needs to be an overhaul on how easily people can divorce and what happens to children.
 
Just abolish marriage. It's an archaic practice anyway.

When you consider how many relationships end due to infidelity, marriage almost defies man's innate nature.
 
Marriage is a vital social institution and it needs to be protected against infidelity, abuse, and divorce. What I don't understand is why it would need to be defended against homosexuals.

Is it better for homosexuals to merely cohabitate, with no legal ties, and raise children out of wedlock? That is the consequence of policies like the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. There are already too many children raised out of wedlock as it is, whether by divorce or carelessness or parents not thinking they need a "piece of paper" to legitimize their relationship.
 
Look, we need federally recognized, legal same-sex marriage across the board. Interracial marriage was "left up to the states" until it was found to violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and the "Due Process" clause.
Same-Sex marriage is Exactly the same in that it denies one group of citizens from Equal access to due process simply because of the genders of those within the "marriage."

Oh and to those who think "Civil Unions" aren't the same as "Marriage" it's only true when those unions do not afford all the same rights, protections and responsibilities as other "marriages" which is why we need Federally Recognized Same-sex marriage!

How are we "protecting" marriage when we exclude couples who are more likely to stay together simply beause they already have been together for a decade or more? How is it protecting marriage when we still allow divorce?
How is marriage protected when fathers abandon mothers before marriage because they're too immature to grow up and be a MAN?

I'm sorry, I just don't understand the lack of logic.
I don't understand how something is to be protected from damage when the only group of citizens allowed to participate are the very ones who are damaging it?
 
So your argument for gay marriage is "Britney can get a Vegas quickie"?
 
JustineCredible said:
Who was that directed toward? Certainly not me.
Click to expand...

I've noticed a tendency on this board for people to read a large post, pick out a single sentence, (often out of context) and attack it, completely ignoring the post as a whole.

To me, DOMA is clearly in violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause, and there's strong argument that it violates Equal Protection.

And yes, it's also just plain wrong. A couple can get married in Vermont, but if they move to Texas they're not considered to be married. Any straight couples out there should picture themselves in that situation: "Sorry, Mrs. Smith, you moved with Mr. Smith to Florida which doesn't recognize your marriage. Therefore, you are not eligible to gain ownership over his possessions after he died. The state will be seizing all of his assets."
 
Gay people should be able to do the same things as straight people with the possible exception of adoption, but I suppose that's for a different thread.
 
OrlandoGringo said:
Gay people should be able to do the same things as straight people with the possible exception of adoption, but I suppose that's for a different thread.
Click to expand...

Adoption's the only reason I support gay marriage. People who raise children should be married.
 
Just abolish marriage. It's an archaic practice anyway.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a vital social institution and it needs to be protected against infidelity, abuse, and divorce. What I don't understand is why it would need to be defended against homosexuals.
Click to expand...

beautiful.

two points of view, apparently diametrically opposed that reach the same conclusion.

looked at another way, from the point of view of law, marriage is irrelevant. It is meaningless to the political state. it is a personal or communal social structure.

In the earliest societies, marriage was a personal decision. There is no good reason that it should be any different today. The state should have no say in whom you marry.

The state does not now protect against infidelity or divorce. Although spousal abuse has a specific category in law, abuse is abuse, married or not.

So. let your minister, priest, rabbi, imam... whatever marry you. Let your neighbors marry you. Make personal contracts. You integrity as a spouse is YOUR responsibility.

geo,
 
Geo Patric said:
two points of view, apparently diametrically opposed that reach the same conclusion.
Click to expand...

I didn't reach the same conclusion at all. I believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry. For that matter, I believe polygamists ought to be allowed to marry. But I am still very much in favor of the State being able to decide which marriages it finds acceptable and which it does not. I do not believe that close relatives should be allowed to marry. I don't believe felons should be allowed to marry while still in prison. I don't believe people with incurable, communicable diseases should be allowed to marry. I believe the State has a legitimate interest in ensuring that marriages to foreigners are legitimate and sincere.

Geo Patric said:
looked at another way, from the point of view of law, marriage is irrelevant. It is meaningless to the political state. it is a personal or communal social structure.
Click to expand...

Marriage is the foundation that families are built upon, and strong families are essential to producing strong citizens. If the interests of the State are held to include the welfare of the people at all, then it is in the interests of the State to protect and promote marriage.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
I am still very much in favor of the State being able to decide which marriages it finds acceptable and which it does not.
Click to expand...

how bizarre!

why should not near relatives enjoy the same political and financial benefits of complete strangers? why should prisoners not be allowed to make alliances that they see beneficial?

you think that people with... ok, let's be honest... you do not mean "influenza" you mean AIDS. You think that AIDS patients should not be allowed to marry? why not?
Marriage is the foundation that families are built upon
Click to expand...
no, sex, reproduction and patrimony are the foundations families were based upon all of which extend much further back in our history that "state sanctioned marriage".

But of course, it is SEX that you are concerned with here. No SEX between near relatives - no SEX with AIDS patients. But the arguments regarding gay marriage have nothing to do with SEX. Gays can have SEX, they just cannot enjoy the legal and financial benefits of other people whom the state says are justified in have SEX.

humans have been having sex and making babies (as well as having sex and NOT making babies) for a LOT longer than they have been allowing others to tell then whether or not they may have sex, which is actually a relatively recent development.

geo.
 
Last edited:
Glad to see that I'm not fit to do many things including raise children unless we get a government-signed piece of paper and wear a tuxedo on a hot June afternoon.

The biggest reason to get married is that women were groomed from kindergarten that they have to wear a pretty white dress, walk down a path with her dad, and see Prince Charming waiting there. If they don't get that, you don't love them, you're a commitment-phobe, whatever. You're some swinging bachelor, I guess.

I can be the same father as a committed space-sharer that I can as a husband.
 
Geo Patric said:
why should not near relatives enjoy the same political and financial benefits of complete strangers?
Click to expand...

Because marriage is a joining of two families. That means there needs to be two families involved.

Geo Patric said:
why should prisoners not be allowed to make alliances that they see beneficial?
Click to expand...

Why should they be? It serves no purpose.

Geo Patric said:
you think that people with... ok, let's be honest... you do not mean "influenza" you mean AIDS. You think that AIDS patients should not be allowed to marry? why not?
Click to expand...

Because it isn't safe for them to have children and they're going to die before they could raise them.

no, sex, reproduction and patrimony are the foundations families were based upon all of which extend much further back in our history that "state sanctioned marriage".

Geo Patric said:
But of course, it is SEX that you are concerned with here. No SEX between near relatives - no SEX with AIDS patients.
Click to expand...

Marriage involves sex. If two people shouldn't be having sex, they shouldn't be married.

Geo Patric said:
humans have been having sex and making babies (as well as having sex and NOT making babies) for a LOT longer than they have been allowing others to tell then whether or not they may have sex, which is actually a relatively recent development.
Click to expand...

People have been making rules about who is and is not allowed to have sex with whom for as long as there have been people-- and primates have been doing so for even longer.
 
Marilyn Monroe said:
This is a "story" right? I thought it wasn't well written, and seemed to have a lot of holes in it. If it was even partially true it was a travesty, and people shouldn't lose control of their lives like that. The law needs changed. :(
Click to expand...

What do you expect from California?

So a man of that age did not have medicare or medicaid? So much for government healthcare
 
OrlandoGringo said:
Gay people should be able to do the same things as straight people with the possible exception of adoption, but I suppose that's for a different thread.
Click to expand...

There is a staggering amount of evidence to show that children with same-sex parents do just fine, not at all worse than children with heterosexual parents. "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" has been proven false.

Korimyr the Rat said:
I didn't reach the same conclusion at all. I believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry. For that matter, I believe polygamists ought to be allowed to marry. But I am still very much in favor of the State being able to decide which marriages it finds acceptable and which it does not. I do not believe that close relatives should be allowed to marry. I don't believe felons should be allowed to marry while still in prison. I don't believe people with incurable, communicable diseases should be allowed to marry. I believe the State has a legitimate interest in ensuring that marriages to foreigners are legitimate and sincere.
.
Click to expand...

What the hell business is it of the state if I have a disease? Also, why should Idaho be able to ignore a valid certificate issued in Oregon? Wouldn't you hate to move to Idaho only to find out your spouse wont be inheriting your possessions after all? (or even considered a spouse anymore) Felons in marriage was already decided by the Supreme Court - they basically said the state has no legitimate interest in preventing convicts from getting married since the presumption is that the person will get married when they exit prison having served their time.
 
Last edited:
JustineCredible said:
A story that illustrates why Marriage Equality is so important, now more than ever!

Sonoma County CA separates elderly gay couple and sells all of their worldly possessions | The Bilerico Project
Click to expand...

Ahem....

Without authority, without determining the value of Clay and Harold's possessions accumulated over the course of their 20 years together or making any effort to determine which items belonged to whom, the county took everything Harold and Clay owned and auctioned off all of their belongings
Click to expand...

OK so either the government acted outside of the law and thus no marriage would have saved their things anyway, or this story is leaving out critical details regarding the couple's bankruptcy and ensuing estate sale.
 
OrlandoGringo said:
Gay people should be able to do the same things as straight people with the possible exception of adoption, but I suppose that's for a different thread.
Click to expand...

So we should let those "heathens" marry but not adopt kids? :roll:
 
Deuce said:
What the hell business is it of the state if I have a disease?
Click to expand...

Obama's new UHC is going to pay for your treatment....assuming they grant you treatment at all.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Because marriage is a joining of two families. That means there needs to be two families involved.
Click to expand...

and? that means that relatives should not enjoy the same political and financial benefits of complete strangers? i am afraid i do not get the reasoning.
Why should they be? It serves no purpose.
Click to expand...

sez you. I would say that marriage serves no purpose. but... i am not the one looking to marry.
Because it isn't safe for them to have children and they're going to die before they could raise them.
Click to expand...

marriage is not having children. and we do not disallow other folks with debilitating genetic illness from marrying.

Marriage involves sex.
Click to expand...
no, it does not, necessarily. and sex is certainly not restricted to marriage.
If two people shouldn't be having sex, they shouldn't be married.
Click to expand...

well, as i say... you have a problem with sex. the issue of legal marriage is not about sex but about individual personal rights and legal assumptions (eg: inheritance etc).

People have been making rules about who is and is not allowed to have sex with whom for as long as there have been people-- and primates have been doing so for even longer.
Click to expand...
well, that is redundant. people ARE primates. and the only rules nonhuman primates have regarding sex is me first, me last, me whenever i can get a little in. come to think of it... sounds a lot like human primates, too.

and that still has little to do with marriage

geo.
 
OrlandoGringo said:
Gay people should be able to do the same things as straight people with the possible exception of adoption, but I suppose that's for a different thread.
Click to expand...

No, not really...it's all related in a way.
I'm curious, with all the evidence showing that gays/lesbians as parents are just as good as straight parents, why would anyone take issue with it?
I guess because I am gay/lesbian/bi...whatever, and my partner and I raised a child together without anyone ever giving us or my son any problems, I just don't understand that kind of mentality. My son never lacked for adult male role models, he had plenty: My father, my brother, my adult male cousins (who were all very close), my Uncle, my partner's Uncle and several adult male friends who were all very helpful and I could always count on if and when needed.
He never questioned his own sexuality, he was attracted to girls before he knew what attraction was!! (Flirting with waitresses at 3yrs old!! )
He was never picked on at school, actually his friends were really cool with it and so were their parents...we were good friends with several of them.
He was always hardworking, loyal, trustworthy, a good student, a talented musician and good all around athelete.

So, where does this idea that gays/lesbians...same-sex partners can't/shouldn't be parents/adopt?
I'm confused. I just don't get it.
 
Marilyn Monroe said:
This is a "story" right? I thought it wasn't well written, and seemed to have a lot of holes in it. If it was even partially true it was a travesty, and people shouldn't lose control of their lives like that. The law needs changed. :(
Click to expand...

No...it wasn't a "Story" (ie made up) it actually HAPPENED!

Why on Earth would I even bother posting an article about a made up set of circumstances? What would it prove?
Of course it's real...that's the whole point!
This sort of crap actually occurs! It did to these poor men and it could happen to any other same-sex couple!

What holes were you implying?
Just curious, maybe I could find more information to help fill in those gaps for you.

:)
 
JustineCredible said:
No, not really...it's all related in a way.
I'm curious, with all the evidence showing that gays/lesbians as parents are just as good as straight parents, why would anyone take issue with it?
Click to expand...

Admittedly I don't know much about the topic. Therefore, I inserted "possibly". My only concern was if it would be unfairly difficult on a "straight" child being raised in a gay household. Maybe they would feel strange, etc. as gay households are not the norm. You and another poster say there is much evidence to show they do just fine so that's good enough for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom