• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Priviledge of Marriage

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I admit, I don't know the US constitution like you guys. I'm not sure if marriage is a right or a priviledge in the US.

I am a straight male and I just want to know what makes me better that a gay male to gain the "priviledge" of marriage. Why I'm I more worthy of marriage than a gay man? What have I done to earn the priviledge to get married? - I haven't done anything to earn it, yet I have it.

There has been words banded about in this forum, child molesters, bigots, AIDS.

There are bad gays, there are good gays.
There are bad straights, there are good straights.
There are bad black people, there are good black people.
There are bad white people, there are good white people.. and so on.
The main point is we are all human beings, who are subjectable to right and wrong. The balance of morality hangs over us.

I don't know, I guess I was brought up to judge a person by his character rather than race, creed or sexual preference.

I'm a student, the government pays me to study at university, so im that sense I'm kind of like a leech to the tax papers lol, I don't pay taxes. But hey I'm 21, I can get married.
Then I see a homosexual person who contributes to society, he pays his taxes, he votes for the party of his choosing, he's a decent human being.

Yet he can't marry.

Why?
Because, he's different.
Different?
His sexual preference is in the minority of the people. Not the majority. Some people in the majority don't particularly like that minority.

Tell me, coz I want to know. Is my priveledge to get married because my sexual preference is in the majority? Is that how my priveledge is earned? Because I "fit in"?
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Fu_chick said:
Well, I don't know if I'd call it a privilege exactly....lol
I wouldn't call it a priviledge either FU, I think it is their right to be equal. Some people argue marriage isn't a right, but a privilege.
I'm just asking if marriage is a priviledge, how have I earned that priviledge.
 

Fu_chick

Member
Joined
May 13, 2005
Messages
182
Reaction score
0
Persoanlly, I think it is a right. The govenment has no place saying who can and cannot be married.
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I guess no anti-gay marriage person will answer my question. Maybe they feel guilty. :lol:
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
GarzaUK said:
I guess no anti-gay marriage person will answer my question. Maybe they feel guilty. :lol:
Gay marriage is seen as evil by most people who are anti-gay marriage. They quote the bible and say that it is unatural or quote the health risk. Beyond those things, they have no argument. A basis in a democracy is rule of the majority but not at the expense of the minority. Here we have a majority (straight people) dictating to those who are homosexual (minority) without any regard to their posistion. The truth is that there is a reason why all these state courts have found gay marriage constitutional, and it isnt because they are activist-its because they can't find a legal reason not to allow it.
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
GarzaUK said:
I admit, I don't know the US constitution like you guys. I'm not sure if marriage is a right or a priviledge in the US.

I am a straight male and I just want to know what makes me better that a gay male to gain the "priviledge" of marriage. Why I'm I more worthy of marriage than a gay man? What have I done to earn the priviledge to get married? - I haven't done anything to earn it, yet I have it.

There has been words banded about in this forum, child molesters, bigots, AIDS.

There are bad gays, there are good gays.
There are bad straights, there are good straights.
There are bad black people, there are good black people.
There are bad white people, there are good white people.. and so on.
The main point is we are all human beings, who are subjectable to right and wrong. The balance of morality hangs over us.

I don't know, I guess I was brought up to judge a person by his character rather than race, creed or sexual preference.

I'm a student, the government pays me to study at university, so im that sense I'm kind of like a leech to the tax papers lol, I don't pay taxes. But hey I'm 21, I can get married.
Then I see a homosexual person who contributes to society, he pays his taxes, he votes for the party of his choosing, he's a decent human being.

Yet he can't marry.

Why?
Because, he's different.
Different?
His sexual preference is in the minority of the people. Not the majority. Some people in the majority don't particularly like that minority.

Tell me, coz I want to know. Is my priveledge to get married because my sexual preference is in the majority? Is that how my priveledge is earned? Because I "fit in"?
there is some false logic in your post. An adult male is forbidden from marrying his adult sister. This is simply a restriction on marriage and has nothing to do with me or you feeling 'better' than them... would you support incest being formalised in marriage?
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
ShamMol said:
Gay marriage is seen as evil by most people who are anti-gay marriage. They quote the bible and say that it is unatural or quote the health risk. Beyond those things, they have no argument. A basis in a democracy is rule of the majority but not at the expense of the minority. Here we have a majority (straight people) dictating to those who are homosexual (minority) without any regard to their posistion. The truth is that there is a reason why all these state courts have found gay marriage constitutional, and it isnt because they are activist-its because they can't find a legal reason not to allow it.
Would you support the rights of an adult man to marry his adult sister?
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Montalban said:
there is some false logic in your post. An adult male is forbidden from marrying his adult sister. This is simply a restriction on marriage and has nothing to do with me or you feeling 'better' than them... would you support incest being formalised in marriage?
You raise a good and valid point, should we allow relations to marry? It actually was more common than most people think in the ancient days. Plus the question of incest arises in the creation story indeed if Adam and Eve were the first and only humans. The Greek and Roman gods were one big incest family, even Roman emperors "dabbled".

The main reason against incest is marriage is because the offspring they produce are not very healthy and have brain defunctions due to the close genetic makeup of his/her mother and father. It would inhumane to bring up a child in this way, and even some conservatives would opt for abortion in these cases. But this happens anyway regardless of marriage.

My opinion is if a father/daughter (age of consent)etc.. wants to get married and start a relationship it is personally none of my business regardless of how much it disgusts me.

They would have to prepared for the consequences however (in this world there always are), this includes being shunned from society.

However you have to ask yourself if incest marriages are not taking place. All it needs is one member of the couple to get a fake identity.
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
GarzaUK said:
You raise a good and valid point, should we allow relations to marry? It actually was more common than most people think in the ancient days. Plus the question of incest arises in the creation story indeed if Adam and Eve were the first and only humans. The Greek and Roman gods were one big incest family, even Roman emperors "dabbled".

The main reason against incest is marriage is because the offspring they produce are not very healthy and have brain defunctions due to the close genetic makeup of his/her mother and father. It would inhumane to bring up a child in this way, and even some conservatives would opt for abortion in these cases. But this happens anyway regardless of marriage.

My opinion is if a father/daughter (age of consent)etc.. wants to get married and start a relationship it is personally none of my business regardless of how much it disgusts me.

They would have to prepared for the consequences however (in this world there always are), this includes being shunned from society.

However you have to ask yourself if incest marriages are not taking place. All it needs is one member of the couple to get a fake identity.
In part I disagree: The main reason has nothing to do with genetics; because it is an age old taboo, despite the fact that there are certain historical occurences; some Roman emperors (notably Gaius aka Caligula and his sister Drusilla), and other monarchs (Egypt, Hawaii et al). The Jews banned it well before genetics was known.

Why does it disgust you?

Do you think a man should be allowed to marry an animal? (Or at least have sex wtih one?)
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Montalban said:
In part I disagree: The main reason has nothing to do with genetics; because it is an age old taboo, despite the fact that there are certain historical occurences; some Roman emperors (notably Gaius aka Caligula and his sister Drusilla), and other monarchs (Egypt, Hawaii et al). The Jews banned it well before genetics was known.
Ah Judaism, out of the 3 main religions of the west I respect Judaism the most. Of course I would never expect religions to accept the marriage of homosexuals or incest. And I would never demand that the marriage of homosexuals or incest must be done in a place of worship (unless the church allows it happen in their building.
Religious laws shouldn't be brought down on people. People are free to worship what religion they want and people are free not to worship a religion. I guess thats where the seperation of church and state come in.

Montalban said:
Why does it disgust you?
Well maybe not disgust, but I would frown upon incest. However regardless of my feelings on the matter, I feel I have no right to tell them how to make their decisions in life, especially regarding love and marriage. It takes all sorts to make up this society we live in.

Montalban said:
Do you think a man should be allowed to marry an animal? (Or at least have sex wtih one?)
Animals? No. Simply on the basis that animals are not intelligent to know what marriage or love is and they cannot consent to marriage.
Sex with animals? Kinda like abortion, incest, prostitution - it's going to happen whether it is legal or not.
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Two Consenting Adult HUMAN BEINGS that are homosexual don't have a chance of destroying gene pools.

Cledius and Mary Lou from Arkansas really do have that chance.
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
Gandhi>Bush said:
Two Consenting Adult HUMAN BEINGS that are homosexual don't have a chance of destroying gene pools.

Cledius and Mary Lou from Arkansas really do have that chance.
Are you saying that we should ban sexual unions only on the option of inbreeding? That's making an assumption that sex is totally about reproduction.

PS I love the pic of Homer. Except for the hair, he looks very much like me... I should sue.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Montalban said:
Would you support the rights of an adult man to marry his adult sister?
Let's see what I wrote again and see how that even comes close to responding to what i wrote.

Gay marriage is seen as evil by most people who are anti-gay marriage. They quote the bible and say that it is unatural or quote the health risk. Beyond those things, they have no argument. A basis in a democracy is rule of the majority but not at the expense of the minority. Here we have a majority (straight people) dictating to those who are homosexual (minority) without any regard to their posistion. The truth is that there is a reason why all these state courts have found gay marriage constitutional, and it isnt because they are activist-its because they can't find a legal reason not to allow it.
Frankly, it doesn't.

But, hell, why not, I will answer your question. I do support their right to marry on the condition that they change their location for their own protection from those who would severly disapprove in their town(I don't think this is same for those who are homosexual) and that they not be allowed to have children who will most likely be deformed. That is a pure health reason and safety reason. Now, you will now ask me the following-what about STDs and homosexuals? With the right education, with time that will lessen the risk, but it is a risk to any group, not just homosexuals who practice unsafe sex. The key to preventing that is through sexual education.
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
ShamMol said:
But, hell, why not, I will answer your question. I do support their right to marry on the condition that they change their location for their own protection from those who would severly disapprove in their town(I don't think this is same for those who are homosexual) and that they not be allowed to have children who will most likely be deformed. That is a pure health reason and safety reason. Now, you will now ask me the following-what about STDs and homosexuals? With the right education, with time that will lessen the risk, but it is a risk to any group, not just homosexuals who practice unsafe sex. The key to preventing that is through sexual education.
Time was when we had morality, now we've got 'health issues'. Soon all morals will be seen the same way (gazing into my crystal ball).
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,329
Reaction score
2,432
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Let us say it is a question of morals and the majority have no right to impose their moral values on the minority.

Does the minority have the right to impose their moral values(or lack of as some may claim) on the majority?
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
akyron said:
Let us say it is a question of morals and the majority have no right to impose their moral values on the minority.

Does the minority have the right to impose their moral values(or lack of as some may claim) on the majority?
How about this. If the majority's morality doesn't impede on the minority's, and the minority's morality doesn't impede on the majority's...then it's a moot point. Everyone can go their own way and shut the fudge up. :mrgreen:
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
akyron said:
Let us say it is a question of morals and the majority have no right to impose their moral values on the minority.

Does the minority have the right to impose their moral values(or lack of as some may claim) on the majority?
The essence of a democracy is right of the majority but not at the expense of the minority. Ensuring that the rights of the minority are not infringed upon isn't their dictating to you how you have to act.
 

Rev.

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
530
Reaction score
55
Location
New England
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
shuamort said:
How about this. If the majority's morality doesn't impede on the minority's, and the minority's morality doesn't impede on the majority's...then it's a moot point. Everyone can go their own way and shut the fudge up. :mrgreen:
And you know, Shaumort, there is so much about that I agree with...which is what makes me a liberal among my comrades
 
Joined
May 29, 2005
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Location
New Jersey,United States of America
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
marriage is somethings powerful in this country , the idea of it can bring people to end their lives, and others to want to live theirs, when it begins it can either be a good thing or a bad thing , and at its end it could be the best thing , or the most unimaginable thing . But when two people are not allowed to get married just because want to get married with someone from the same sex and they are told they can't , that is when action must be taken. When murderers and rapists can get married even though they have been convicted of crimes so terrible it makes the nation cringe in disgust , and when two people can be married for less than a week and one dies leaving everything to the other without any imput from the children , who in most cases are older or close to the age of the wife. Gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to be married , not a legal union , a marriage , at a church or wherever they would like, they deserve the right to be known as a married couple and be granted all the sime rights are straight people who are married.
 

Rev.

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
530
Reaction score
55
Location
New England
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
justiceisboughtnotblind said:
Gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to be married , not a legal union , a marriage , at a church or wherever they would like, they deserve the right to be known as a married couple and be granted all the sime rights are straight people who are married.
You can't dictate who churches can, should or must marry...that is unconstitutional.
 
Joined
May 29, 2005
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Location
New Jersey,United States of America
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'm sorry rev, my words spoke a little too boldly for my idea. I wasn't saying churches should be made to let gay and lesbian couples be married there, I just meant that in a loose way. You are right that would be unconstitutional, all i meant was that no senator, or supreme court justice , or president should have the right to put a restriction on the marriage of gays and lesbians i.e (legal union). I was only saying that they should be allowed to, if a church doesnt want to let them be married there it is perfectly legal because even though you don't need to be married in a church to be legally married , it is a big part of spirituality for some people. I'm sorry if you took what i said the wrong way i was only making a point that there shouldn't be a limitation on the marriage of gays and lesbians, a wedding at a church is solely the decision of the members of the church and any decision is theirs.
 
Top Bottom