• 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!

Marriage is between a Man and a Woman.

bub said:
That's how YOU see marriage, but there are different perceptions of that concept. It's a social construction, that evolves over time.

My way to see it, which is the way more and more people see it, is that "marriage" (or some kind of official union with legal effects, whatever you call it) is a right, that everyone has equal rights, and thus that gays can be married too.

Besides, I do not really mind about them being married, since it has zero effect on me.

support-gay-marriage-love_thumb_medium380_0.jpg
Click to expand...

Why do you discriminate against married adults?
 
cpwill said:
That's what Jesus said. Seems to me He would know what God was up to when He came up with sexuality in the first place.
Click to expand...

Since we practice separation of church and state in America, that's not really relevant.
 
CriticalThought said:
The libertarian positoin on marriage is that the government should be out of it completely. It's a conservative position when you want to use the state to enforce a "traditional" definition.
Click to expand...


i'll give you 10,000 bucks if you can show me where I have ever stated that the state should enforce a "traditional definition".
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
The libertarian positoin on marriage is that the government should be out of it completely. It's a conservative position when you want to use the state to enforce a "traditional" definition.
Click to expand...

And that's why the Loosertarians will never have a viable candidate for President.

...well that and their position on drugs....
 
I find it very odd that people who believe in small government are so willing to let them invade the bedroom and decide on what they are allowed to call their domestic arrangements. This is why I am very sceptical of people who describe themselves here as libertarian, this issue seems like a good bellwether for sniffing out real libertarians and those who just don't like paying federal taxes.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
i'll give you 10,000 bucks if you can show me where I have ever stated that the state should enforce a "traditional definition".
Click to expand...

So even though you're personally in favour of heterosexual marriage only, you're okay if the government gives equal access to same-sex couples, since it's not impeding on your ability to live your life the way you want?

If you're not in favour of statism and enforcement of tradition, then your answer should be yes.
 
Andalublue said:
I find it very odd that people who believe in small government are so willing to let them invade the bedroom and decide on what they are allowed to call their domestic arrangements. This is why I am very sceptical of people who describe themselves here as libertarian, this issue seems like a good bellwether for sniffing out real libertarians and those who just don't like paying federal taxes.
Click to expand...




I guess if you are going to call me a fake libertarian, you should quote me where i stated support for government intervention in what people do when it comes to marriage.


You and CI have some work ahead of you. :thumbs:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I guess if you are going to call me a fake libertarian, you should quote me where i stated support for government intervention in what people do when it comes to marriage.


You and CI have some work ahead of you. :thumbs:
Click to expand...


You certainly like to operate by your own definitions. And that in its self means you are libertarian to some extent.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I believe marriage is between a Man and a Woman.

Marriage=Man+Woman_Front.jpg


What say you?
Click to expand...

I believe marriage can be between a man and a woman, or two women, or two men. My belief coincides with how the government should view marriage. Marriage should never be limited to simply one man and one woman.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
That's what Jesus said. Seems to me He would know what God was up to when He came up with sexuality in the first place.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with this interpretation of what Jesus said. In the only place that I can recall that Jesus specifically mentions marriage being between a man and a woman, he was giving an account of Genesis. He then went on to say that those who are married can not be divorced. I'm not sure that him giving an account of the Old Testament is the same as him saying that what it had to say on the matter was necessarily the case or always the case. The argument wasn't over who could marry who, anyways. After all, you probably know he wasn't fond of playing it by the book in every instance when the Old Testament dictated how something ought to be done.

That said, I'm sure that if Jesus were directly asked about it he would probably not answer that same sex marriage is permissible. Im just saying that I don't agree with the common interpretation that that particular passage reveals anything about Jesus' personal thoughts on whether or not marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman. It doesn't seem to follow with any logical necessity, though I can understand it's being used as possible evidence for how Jesus "might" have thought about it.

CriticalThought said:
He also said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

Religious marriage belongs to God, but civil marriage belongs to the state.
Click to expand...

Whose god?
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
I guess if you are going to call me a fake libertarian, you should quote me where i stated support for government intervention in what people do when it comes to marriage.


You and CI have some work ahead of you. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring specifically to you, I've never thought of you as a libertarian, I assumed your 'lean' claim was irony... but if the cap fits...

So, if you believe that marriage = man + woman and not man + man/ woman + woman, but you don't believe in government intervention to maintain that position, why do you need to state your belief? Is it just a kind of traditionalist Tourette's? I believe that owners of cars that deliver less than 40 MPG should pay treble the annual road tax. I don't believe the government should intervene to impose this, however, so how useful is it for me to state my belief?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I believe marriage is between a Man and a Woman.

Marriage=Man+Woman_Front.jpg


What say you?
Click to expand...

I believe that marriage is between one legal adult another legal adult for as long as they wish to maintain that status. I don't think that it should be limited by gender or by quantity.
 
stars2heaven said:
I'm not sure I agree with this interpretation of what Jesus said. In the only place that I can recall that Jesus specifically mentions marriage being between a man and a woman, he was giving an account of Genesis. He then went on to say that those who are married can not be divorced. I'm not sure that him giving an account of the Old Testament is the same as him saying that what it had to say on the matter was necessarily the case or always the case. The argument wasn't over who could marry who, anyways. After all, you probably know he wasn't fond of playing it by the book in every instance when the Old Testament dictated how something ought to be done.

That said, I'm sure that if Jesus were directly asked about it he would probably not answer that same sex marriage is permissible. Im just saying that I don't agree with the common interpretation that that particular passage reveals anything about Jesus' personal thoughts on whether or not marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman. It doesn't seem to follow with any logical necessity, though I can understand it's being used as possible evidence for how Jesus "might" have thought about it.
Click to expand...

Jesus also, in the same passage, said that not everyone was meant to have a one man one woman marriage. He cited a few examples. Men made eunuchs from birth, men made eunuchs by other men, and made eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of God. He didn't say these were the only examples. For example, he might have added men who were made gay by chemicals in the uterus, men who were made gay by their environment, women who were made lesbian by insensitive ex-boyfriends, people who were made hermaphrodites by birth, etc...

Who knows? Certainly not those who claim to.
 
Orion said:
So even though you're personally in favour of heterosexual marriage only, you're okay if the government gives equal access to same-sex couples, since it's not impeding on your ability to live your life the way you want?

If you're not in favour of statism and enforcement of tradition, then your answer should be yes.
Click to expand...

Why does it have to directly effect me in order for me to act?
 
Jerry said:
Why does it have to directly effect me in order for me to act?
Click to expand...

If it's not harming anyone and not infringing on your rights or your pursuit of happiness, then there is no justifiable reason to deny it.
 
Panache said:
Jesus also, in the same passage, said that not everyone was meant to have a one man one woman marriage. He cited a few examples. Men made eunuchs from birth, men made eunuchs by other men, and made eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of God. He didn't say these were the only examples. For example, he might have added men who were made gay by chemicals in the uterus, men who were made gay by their environment, women who were made lesbian by insensitive ex-boyfriends, people who were made hermaphrodites by birth, etc...

Who knows? Certainly not those who claim to.
Click to expand...

That is a pretty broad interpretation for something he said that literally meant people who could not have sex.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
"Harm" is subjective.
Click to expand...

Not when defined legally.

The right of heterosexuals to marry and structure their families is in no way infringed by homosexuals having the same rights. That, and modern studies have solidly concluded that families are just as well off.

Where it is illegal, same-sex marriage was struck down due to populism in. If it were up to rational, modern arguments, it would be legal nationwide. There is no rational reason to grant the same freedoms.
 
stars2heaven said:
It would be awfully interesting to see how subjectively someone could use the term in order to claim that same sex marriage "harmed" them.
Click to expand...

I believe Korimyr is referring to the harm it does to the moral fabric of a society, I could be wrong, but you'll have to wait from him to come back to explain it better.
 
I don't oppose same sex marriages or civil unions, but my view of a traditional marriage will always be of a man and a woman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom