• 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!

Should other types of marriage be legalized

Gay marriage was legalized awhile back. In 50 years, there will probably be talks of recognizing civil unions between siblings and cousins and then in another 50 years, polygamy. Do you think any of the other types of marriage should be legalized other than gay marriage?

Marriage between first cousins is legal in half of the states already. And those marriages are generally recognized in all jurisdictions.

The only reason to deny those marriages or even polgamy is the ick factor. That's a not a good reason. The only real issue with polygamy would be laws that assume marriages have two people and those are fixable easily enough.
 
TheGoverness,

Hitler said Jews needed to be exterminated, and many people agreed with him, but his saying so didn't mean that Jews had to be exterminated, it only meant he THOUGHT they had to be exterminated. If someone, even legal authorities, says same-sex marriage is marriage, it doesn't make it marriage, it only means that person or authority says and believes it to be marriage.

Please explain why marriage has not always been traditionally defined as a covenant between a man and a woman. Show proof for your claims. If you want proof that marriage has traditionally been a covenant between a man and a woman, I can give it to you, and will be glad to.

Same-sex "marriage" doesn't deny the differences between man and women, it denies the idea that they find complementarity in marriage. Please read more carefully.

Did the first modern humans marry for sexual pleasure? True, that was likely a part of it, but the underlying reason for that desire was and is procreation. Explain to me how it's not.

There are exceptions to some rules (bear in mind: not to all rules). Evidence shows clearly children are best off with a mother and a father, particularly if that mother and father are their natural parents.

Please do more than just say what I'm saying is gibberish. Just saying I'm speaking gibberish is being childish.

Don't go off on a rabbit trail. What I was saying was whether racial barriers were insurmountable and whether sexual barriers were insurmountable. I was not making a statement about racism or the lack thereof. I was and am addressing same-sex marriage. Please read more carefully.

Why is my statement that there's no such thing as a family in same-sex marriage "completely untrue"? Elaborate, don't just make that statement. Making a statement that something is not true is not the same as showing why you think that that something is not true.

I have nothing against using artificial means to have a child. But while artificial means is only required for some heterosexual couples, it is required 100 percent of the time for homosexuals, raising the question of whether the two forms of union are actually equal. Artificial means isn't wrong, but homosexuals require it to have children. Heterosexuals don't. The issue is heterosexual marriage versus homosexual marriage, not artificial means.

SS"M" is between two consenting adults, but that in and of itself makes it neither marriage nor even a naturally right thing to do.

That comment about not needing more people could be taken as an argument for population control. I'm not saying that's what you meant, but please be more careful what you write. And what's more, you're dodging the issue. If everyone became homosexuals, the human race would go utterly extinct within a hundred years. Homosexuals require heterosexuals in order to survive and avoid extinction, plain and simple. You cannot get around this argument, especially not by running off down rabbit trails concerning global population.

You know deep down I have made a rational and logical argument with many convincing points showing why same-sex marriage is wrong and isn't even marriage, and you don't want to accept it simply because you don't believe the way I believe. You don't appear to be looking at my argument logically; it seems like you're just glossing over and half-reading my points without giving them serious consideration because you have already decided I am wrong.

You haven't made a logical argument at all. And your arguments aren't new. I've heard these same old arguments before, and they have been refuted time and time again.

Even now, what you are still saying is
"I'm against SSM because I'm against it!"

You haven't presented a single logical argument for why you think SSM should be illegal. Your points are unconvincing and incorrect, and the fact that you think that your old, already refuted arguments, are convincing, just shows how illogical your position is.

Fact is SSM is marriage. You can choose accept that or not, I really don't care. Same-sex couples getting married is not "biologically impossible" either, it happens almost every single day. And I'm not even talking about your own personal definition of marriage. I don't care what your own personal definition of marriage is, you think of marriage however you want to. I'm talking about the legal definition of marriage, and SSM falls under the umbrella of marriage. So yes, SSM is in fact marriage.

And same-sex couples can raise a child just as well as any straight couple can. And those aren't "exceptions". There are literally THOUSANDS of people who aren't raised by their biological parents, but they ended up just fine, weren't they?


And marriage has not always been traditionally defined as a covenant between a man and a woman. Ever heard of men with multiple wives, and concubines of women? That goes against your traditional view of marriage doesn't it?
 
Gay marriage was legalized awhile back. In 50 years, there will probably be talks of recognizing civil unions between siblings and cousins and then in another 50 years, polygamy. Do you think any of the other types of marriage should be legalized other than gay marriage?
Feeling a bit, uh, butt-hurt because the political system didn't go your way, eh?

Anyway. I see no indications of changing perceptions of polyamory. I seriously doubt that will be legal, ever.

Cousin marriage is already legal in about 20 states. Some states place additional restrictions. About half outlaw cousin marriage.

There is absolutely zero chance that incest will ever be legal. Nor do any of the arguments in favor of SSM, or normalizing homosexuality, justify any type of incest. Proclaiming any link between the two is a moral blindness on the part of anti-SSM activists.
 
Then polygamy would be legal. It has been in the past, yet that Pandora's Box was closed.

The box was opened when we eliminated the definition of marriage as being between one many and one woman. Polygamy has never been legal in the United States. It was happening in the Utah Territory prior to the 1890 when the LDS Church declared that it would stop. Utah did not become a state until 1896. Polygamy was sort of like marijuana today. It was against federal law but enforcement was a problem. The territory of Utah allowed it in spite of federal law. Marijuana today is still against federal law but is allowed in several states.
 
The box was opened when we eliminated the definition of marriage as being between one many and one woman. Polygamy has never been legal in the United States. It was happening in the Utah Territory prior to the 1890 when the LDS Church declared that it would stop. Utah did not become a state until 1896. Polygamy was sort of like marijuana today. It was against federal law but enforcement was a problem. The territory of Utah allowed it in spite of federal law. Marijuana today is still against federal law but is allowed in several states.

Polygamy was legal in the US, but it isn't anymore. That puts your Pandora's Box argument in the shredder.
 
Gay marriage was legalized awhile back. In 50 years, there will probably be talks of recognizing civil unions between siblings and cousins and then in another 50 years, polygamy. Do you think any of the other types of marriage should be legalized other than gay marriage?

I don't think such unions are illegal, they just aren't recognized.
 
There was probably a good public policy reason for government ever to get involved in the marriage business. Government benefits for the potential good of the family is perhaps good for society. But, with SSM, there clearly is either no reason for government involvement or, if there must be, to open it up to any relationship. Throw out the outdated ideal that "marriage" has something to do with procreation, family, and sex that government really should not concern itself.

All marriage does is add to income inequality and give special benefits to married groups. End special rights. Or open it up for all.
 
I find the idea of siblings getting married...a bit ew.
I don't really care about polygyny. Who am I or anyone else to tell people how many people they can love?

If we ever meet our universal neighbors should we be able to marry other intelligent species?
Assuming they aren't stepping on us with tripod walkers?
 
I find the idea of siblings getting married...a bit ew.
I don't really care about polygyny. Who am I or anyone else to tell people how many people they can love?

If we ever meet our universal neighbors should we be able to marry other intelligent species?
Assuming they aren't stepping on us with tripod walkers?

839a9d6f335b50d42d5c62c386d2a320.jpg


Personally, I don't think the aliens would take the marriage proposal too kindly... [emoji89] [emoji89] [emoji89]
 
You haven't made a logical argument at all. And your arguments aren't new. I've heard these same old arguments before, and they have been refuted time and time again.

Even now, what you are still saying is
"I'm against SSM because I'm against it!"

You haven't presented a single logical argument for why you think SSM should be illegal. Your points are unconvincing and incorrect, and the fact that you think that your old, already refuted arguments, are convincing, just shows how illogical your position is.

Fact is SSM is marriage. You can choose accept that or not, I really don't care. Same-sex couples getting married is not "biologically impossible" either, it happens almost every single day. And I'm not even talking about your own personal definition of marriage. I don't care what your own personal definition of marriage is, you think of marriage however you want to. I'm talking about the legal definition of marriage, and SSM falls under the umbrella of marriage. So yes, SSM is in fact marriage.

And same-sex couples can raise a child just as well as any straight couple can. And those aren't "exceptions". There are literally THOUSANDS of people who aren't raised by their biological parents, but they ended up just fine, weren't they?


And marriage has not always been traditionally defined as a covenant between a man and a woman. Ever heard of men with multiple wives, and concubines of women? That goes against your traditional view of marriage doesn't it?

If you don't want to look at my argument in a rational, logical way, go ahead. You have made it clear you will not debate rationally, you will just repeat over and over that I'm wrong with little or no explanation of why. I do not debate those who fail to understand even the basic functions of a logical argument. Believe as you wish it's your choice. But I will no longer answer to these rabbit trails of yours. I have made my view clear and understandable; I will say no more unless you choose to debate me in an adult manner. Thank you.
 
If someone, even legal authorities, says same-sex marriage is marriage, it doesn't make it marriage, it only means that person or authority says and believes it to be marriage.
And so does the happy couple, and their family, and their friends, and their employers or employees, and so on.

Your declarations by fiat that SSM is not marriage have no force whatsoever.


Please explain why marriage has not always been traditionally defined as a covenant between a man and a woman.
Let's start with a long history of polyamorous relationships and marriages.

Let's continue with an understanding that marriage has significantly different meaning today than it did just 150 years ago. The modern "love marriage" really picked up steam in the early 1900s; prior to that, marriages were arranged by parents, mostly to secure socioeconomic positioning in the community.

Marriage rules were also much more relaxed at various points in time. E.g. in Heian-era Japan, a noble man would "marry" a woman by sleeping with her 2 or 3 nights in a row, then having a ceremony with her parents that involved tea and moon cakes. The bonds were rather loose, as husbands often had more than one wife, and wives occasionally packed up and went back to their parents when things really got bad (e.g. a younger rival gained too much influence in a household).


Same-sex "marriage" doesn't deny the differences between man and women, it denies the idea that they find complementarity in marriage. Please read more carefully.
SSM has nothing to do with any such claims, nor is it required to do so. It's a culmination of the idea of the love marriage. Two consenting adults who want to spend their life together, and have their commitment recognized by the community, can apply whatever standards they choose.


There are exceptions to some rules (bear in mind: not to all rules). Evidence shows clearly children are best off with a mother and a father, particularly if that mother and father are their natural parents.
No, there is no such evidence. There are unsubstantiated claims, but not real proof.


Why is my statement that there's no such thing as a family in same-sex marriage "completely untrue"?
Because it's screamingly obvious that it's not true.

A family is simply a small group of individuals, related to each other in various ways -- by birth, by marriage, by adoption, sometimes by association. There is no requirement whatsoever that the group must be anchored around a heterosexual couple. E.g. if a couple has 2 kids, and the husband dies, chances are pretty good his parents will still consider the mother and kids as part of their family.


I have nothing against using artificial means to have a child. But while artificial means is only required for some heterosexual couples, it is required 100 percent of the time for homosexuals....
lol

No, not even close.

Lesbians can still choose to have sex with men, and gay men can still choose to have sex with women. Homosexuals can certainly conceive children via the standard apparatus. Preference ≠ Requirement.

Further, there is nothing wrong with straight or gay couples or single women choosing to use artificial insemination or other techniques.


SS"M" is between two consenting adults, but that in and of itself makes it neither marriage nor even a naturally right thing to do.
"Natural?" lol

Marriage is not a natural state. Neither is monogamy. They're social conventions.

Homosexuality is natural. It occurs all the time in nature.


If everyone became homosexuals, the human race would go utterly extinct within a hundred years.
lol

1) There is no chance of the entire human population becoming gay
2) Even if it did, gay people can still conceive children, including using standard biological methods


You know deep down I have made a rational and logical argument with many convincing points showing why same-sex marriage is wrong....
Not in the post above. You haven't provided a single argument why it is unethical for two consenting adults who happen to be of the same gender to get married.

• SSM harms no one
• SSM doesn't alter heterosexual relationships
• Gay couples can successfully raise happy and healthy kids
• Marriage is not "natural," nor was it ever, nor does it need to be
• The survival of the human race is not threatened by SSM

You just don't like it, and that's not enough to justify any sort of moral judgment.
 
Since hypocrisy isn't an argument, there's no basis for proscribing any marriage that meets the standard of consent, including polygamy and incest. And since we can always hire vets to ensure animals' welfare, society can regulate bestiality. And since love is beautiful, and bigotry is ugly, don't be a judgemental **** and decry transspiecism.

Beastiality fails the consent standard.
 
I find the idea of siblings getting married...a bit ew.
I don't really care about polygyny. Who am I or anyone else to tell people how many people they can love?

If we ever meet our universal neighbors should we be able to marry other intelligent species?
Assuming they aren't stepping on us with tripod walkers?

Interesting. Why did you use this word?
 
All other kinds of marriage are already happening, unofficially, within various communities and between various people.

The question is and always has been whether or not the government should recognize it.

The government's duty, in this regard, is to place its support behind what is in the best interest of the nation. Marriage endorsement is about families and providing family support, so the question comes down to if these other marriages are in the best interest of families or not.

I have not seen much evidence that polygamist marriages are better than marriages between two individuals, in terms of raising children. Incest would never work because it causes harmful genetic illnesses.

Same-sex couples won the debate because of Equal Protection, ultimately. How does equal protection transfer to polygamy? The two things don't even resemble each other.
 

Polygamy has never been legal in the United States. It was practiced by the LDS Church until 1890 in the Utah Territory. Utah didn't become a state until 1896. In 1873, Brigham Young's wife Ann Eliza Webb sued for divorce. She could not be granted a divorce because polygamous marriage was not recognized in the United States. This put the court in the tenuous position that they could recognize the marriage and then grant her a divorce or they could continue to not recognize plural marriage. In 1890 the profit of the LDS Church issued a decree denouncing plural marriage and Utah went on to become a state in 1896.

If you are going to debate please don't insult us by using Yahoo Answers for your credible source. It is not. You will not be able to show any source that shows polygamy to be legal in the US. Since you are claiming that it was legal in the US, you should be able to show that. Is there an old statute that you can quote? Maybe you can find the law where it became illegal. You won't be able to do so because plural marriage NEVER been recognized as a marriage in the US.
 
Beastiality fails the consent standard.

I'm aware of that, but I'm also aware that we don't extend the same privileges we grant fellow humans to animals. Case in point, we don't require a cow's consent to slaughter it for food.

Thus, we exploit animals for our well-being in so far as we spare them unnecessary suffering and cruelty. Which takes us back to the original argument. Since society can deploy vets to ensure animal welfare, it should regulate bestiality, unless you're a bigoted transspiecephobe who makes it his business to tell people who they can and can't love. Tell me maquiscat, are you a bigot?
 
Polygamy has never been legal in the United States. It was practiced by the LDS Church until 1890 in the Utah Territory. Utah didn't become a state until 1896. In 1873, Brigham Young's wife Ann Eliza Webb sued for divorce. She could not be granted a divorce because polygamous marriage was not recognized in the United States. This put the court in the tenuous position that they could recognize the marriage and then grant her a divorce or they could continue to not recognize plural marriage. In 1890 the profit of the LDS Church issued a decree denouncing plural marriage and Utah went on to become a state in 1896.

If you are going to debate please don't insult us by using Yahoo Answers for your credible source. It is not. You will not be able to show any source that shows polygamy to be legal in the US. Since you are claiming that it was legal in the US, you should be able to show that. Is there an old statute that you can quote? Maybe you can find the law where it became illegal. You won't be able to do so because plural marriage NEVER been recognized as a marriage in the US.

Here's the issue you have. Polygamy is not legally recognized in the US, but it is not illegal. You can personally marry in private ceremonies or rites as many people as will have you, but you can only legally claim one as your spouse on any legal forms.
 
I'm aware of that, but I'm also aware that we don't extend the same privileges we grant fellow humans to animals. Case in point, we don't require a cow's consent to slaughter it for food.

Thus, we exploit animals for our well-being in so far as we spare them unnecessary suffering and cruelty. Which takes us back to the original argument. Since society can deploy vets to ensure animal welfare, it should regulate bestiality, unless you're a bigoted transspiecephobe who makes it his business to tell people who they can and can't love. Tell me maquiscat, are you a bigot?
Your main argument is still invalid, because animals do not have the ability to legally consent. Adults however, do have the ability to legally consent.
 
Your main argument is still invalid, because animals do not have the ability to legally consent. Adults however, do have the ability to legally consent.

Not really, and you choosing to ignore it isn't a refutation either. Consent is the legal standard concerning human affairs. Our concern in animal affairs is our utility, not consent, provided we extend as much welfare to animals and proscribe cruelty. We allow anyone to slaughter an animal and rip its flesh apart when it serves a purpose and when it's not an act of cruelty. Explain to me why we can't extend the aforementioned to bestiality. Tell me what's wrong with someone sharing a beautiful thing like sex with his/her pet.
 
Gay marriage was legalized awhile back. In 50 years, there will probably be talks of recognizing civil unions between siblings and cousins and then in another 50 years, polygamy. Do you think any of the other types of marriage should be legalized other than gay marriage?

Cousins already can get married. In fact, back in the "good ol' days", that's how they kept property in the family.
 
Not really, and you choosing to ignore it isn't a refutation either. Consent is the legal standard concerning human affairs. Our concern in animal affairs is our utility, not consent, provided we extend as much welfare to animals and proscribe cruelty. We allow anyone to slaughter an animal and rip its flesh apart when it serves a purpose and when it's not an act of cruelty. Explain to me why we can't extend the aforementioned to bestiality. Tell me what's wrong with someone sharing a beautiful thing like sex with his/her pet.

Marriage makes someone another's legal family member. Only other humans can legally become another person's kin. If animals were allowed to be recognized as spouses, then they would also have to be allowed to be recognized as children.
 
Not really, and you choosing to ignore it isn't a refutation either.

Not ignoring it. It's still an invalid argument.

Consent is the legal standard concerning human affairs.

Which is the exact reason why bestiality isn't legal. As well as the current Animal Cruelty Laws in place.

Our concern in animal affairs is our utility, not consent, provided we extend as much welfare to animals and proscribe cruelty. We allow anyone to slaughter an animal and rip its flesh apart when it serves a purpose and when it's not an act of cruelty.

But I don't agree with that at all. I don't support slaughtering animals, nor do I support the factory farming industry.

Explain to me why we can't extend the aforementioned to bestiality.

Because once again, animals cannot legally consent.

Tell me what's wrong with someone sharing a beautiful thing like sex with his/her pet.

Once again, animals do not have the ability to legally consent.
 
Back
Top Bottom