Debate Topic: Gay Marriage

You're avoiding my point... hint: I'm trying to get you to say *why*.

Is it just not cool to agree with me? Is that it?

I don't think I understand... advanteged? Well... I don't think that it's really needed for them... if that's what you mean

Nah, I can be easy going... but if you were trying to cause trouble, then I'd be upset

I think that might have been what he meant. I also think someone's patronizing me >_> (but I can't say that it's not funny, because... well... it is!)

No, because there hasn't been a country who's had it legalized for long enough. The point is that if gay marriage is amended to be legal, then it will be just as "constitutional" to allow polygamy, etc. So if it doesn't happen to some of the countries soon (within the next 30 years), I'll be suprised, because they could only too easily.

1989? That's only 16 years. I think they still have another 20 or so, before we'll start to see suites about all of this. So sure it might not, but it will definitely be possible, which leads me to believe..

Well... that's a nice little statement, but I don't see any support for it (from him).

And what were the results?

Anyway, church's who believe in the Bible are hypocritical by allowing same-sex marriage, although there are some radical Christians who don't believe in the Bible... wait... I guess it never said they were Christians anyhow...

And I'd need to know the background behind this study. Because it HAS been going on for so long, I have serious doubts about it. Such a long study would probably have some heavy biases... if I could get a link, that would be enough.

Listen buddy, I'm studying statistics. It's part of my job to know these kind of things

Now keep in mind that these aren't households with gay people residing in, but established gay "family" numbers. And from those there's only

I believe this is from a census.

Now, I'm going to give you a link with a lot more statistics. NOTE: this is a propaganda paper, but DOES include important facts/statistics.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_12.html

You can take what you like out of that.

Well, it's a part of that, but the tax benefit is the biggest reason and here's why: civil unions.

Depending on the state they live in they can 99% of the same benefits:

Most of these benefits are normally included for most civil unions. In fact (apart from the first one), these are normally included. The ones that tend to vary most are the insurance and social security factors, but if it were to be redefined on a national level, there'd be no problem there.

So you see? I'm not as much of a bigot as you think, I AM pro-civil unions

As for that link on Sexual Intercourse... I can't find one, but from the phrase "sexual intercourse" I think they mean "sexual intercourse" not "anal and oral sex" (eck)

But I guess my point's officially been challenged

But that really isn't the dictionary, traditionalistic definiton of sexual intercourse... could that *really* hold up?

I'm assuming you're too conservative to be pro-gay marriage, but I couldn't say...

Eh, but I don't agree with your reasons for being against it. I don't believe it would lead to all kinds of weird marriages (besides I'm in favor of non-contractual polygamy) or that the tax benefit is really the main controversy point.

Like I said, I'm against marriage in itself, so why would I want for it to grow even more consolidated? I do not believe "true love" (assuming such a thing exists) to necessarily last forever, as implied by the marriage oaths, nor that any love's longevity can be evaluated by anyone with sufficient accuracy. At most, I'd understand marriage as a binding which automatically kicks in when there's children to raise (and that is no longer binding when they are old enough)
Anything else is just a way to jeopardize a romantic relationship and possibly mess up a number of lives.

Well, a couple's gonna need money for a house and other things, regardless of what people it is composed of. But what I meant to ask is, are there that many gay couples waiting to get married, enough that this would make a really significant difference concerning the overall tax situation? (Unless you think that allowing them to marry will make the total number of homosexuals skyrocket)


Well then, new siggy!

That wasn't my only point...

Well... if civil union benefits aren't good enough for them, this is usually the major difference. Well, that and you can't call a civil union "marriage".

That's a good question that I actually didn't think about...

Time to google!

Maybe there could be straight marriage and gay marriage, with different benefits?

Maybe there could be straight marriage and gay marriage, with different benefits?

There are those of us who care for the sanctity of marriage. Us religious and/or traditionalistic nuts, which is the biggest reason for opposition against it.

Besides, civil unions legally bind them... well, "together". So I'm just for giving them similar benefits via civil unions... but they're always SO unhappy when I say that.

Was that directed at me, BTW? Because pretty much, yes, I am just argueing certain points because it's cool not to agree with someone (at least in terms of debating an issue, and so long as no one gets personal or offended) Ask Duke, I argue points all the time because they zig where someone else is zagging

Yes, the 25 year was a typo - I ment 15 As for Spendale and what's his name, they had concluded that it was having positive effects. The comment from him that I provided earlier was a comment about the book, which is where the findings are - he was going for a sale, I would imagine.

I'll try and find a link with some more information on the issue, if you're interested.

Still, the slippery slope arguement is a very nay-sayer doomsday arguement that has a nebulous 'maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow' clause which makes it impossible to accurately judge. When will we have the necesary results? What if they never come in to play? Also, Denmark does not operate under the same legal constitution as the US, so it would be interesting to see how they worded the whole gay marriage thing and how there laws are worded in general to see if the same 'constitutional rights' to multiple wives and child sex even apply.

Also, what about things like being able to marry a 13 year old in the US? You didn't comment on that.

But anal intercourse is recognised as a form of sexual intercourse, so it would be interesting to see exactly how sexual intercourse is defined in this instance.

But what is the sanctity of marrige, in the final analysis? It's a fairly nebulous and culturally specific idea anyway that has changed constantly throughout history. Mary, mother of Jesus, was probably about 13 when she was bethrothed - that was the usual age when a girl was married off in those days. Many cultures have practised polygamy, for many different reasons over the years. Arranged marriages are practised quite frequently in other cultures, and used to be practised in western ones. Many early Western socities tolerated, even celebrated, same-sex unions. It was only after the civil war that African-Americans were allowed to marry in all areas of the U.S. It was only after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1967 that mixed race couples could marry anywhere in the U.S. Marriage has been a very dynamic concept since it was first created.

I'm not trying to bag you or marriage, I'm just interested in exactly what you believe constitutes the sanctity of marriage and why those particular aspects of marriage are the ones that need to be protected?

Actually, this was what my view boiled down to - remember the last time we were discussing this? Civil unions with similar benefits. And who exactly are 'they'? No offence, but it sounds like you're lumping all homosexuals into the generalisation basket there (unless you just mean people who support gay marriage in general).

And it's all well and good to say that 'civil unions give them most of these rights already', but what about the recognition of gay civil unions? How many states in the US recognise same-sex civil unions?

I know you ment that as a joke (at least I think you did), but I don't think anyone here actually thinks of you as a bigot.

Woops... sorry, I forgot to quote Duke. It wasn't directed at you. Although I agree with your responce. I mean, if someone enters a debate on my side, but makes a faulty point, I'll debate that point.

Please

Then all I'd be able to say is: "I was wrong."

It's not my biggest point, but it's an obvious possibility.

I thought that the youngest was 14 and ONLY with parental conscent... 16 I believe is the youngest you can get married without parental conscent in a couple of states, but usually it's 18 or older to get married.

I disagree with it, but I believe in keeping the right to allow a 14-year old to get married, because: what if she gets pregnant? I believe that a family structure should be avaliable to her for support.

Is it?

Right. Even my church practiced polygamy at one point. But it was for very specific reasoning, because there were *SO* many women in our church with so little men. We no longer have that problem today.

Mary, being married at 13 would have been normal for the time because they lived for a much shorter period of time.

So marriage should change from time to time depending on society, but BECAUSE of how society is today, it's more beneficial to society as an adult mother, father and kids.

500 years from now, that may or may not apply.

Simple: it's been proven to be beneficial for society. I have a book on it... maybe I'll type some of it up a little later for you (if you'd like).

Yes, actually I do mean people who support gay marriage in general. They talk about how it's "sexist" and "discriminatory".

I don't know about you, but as far as I know, gay people don't have different genders than you and me.

But then there's the arguement of "you're specifying the gender of the people involved in this 'contract'" (which is a crude form of reffering to marriage). If we'd signed the U.N.'s latest crap on "human rights", then they'd have a point. But so would Angelina Jolie when she didn't get the part of Frodo.

I think Utah banned it , because quite simply: there's maybe 3 gay people in the entire state (j/k).

But seriously, I think everywhere but Utah, and even Utah may. I'll look it up for you.

You see: gay marriage was banned in Oregon. Oregon=most liberal state in the U.S., well how did it pass then? It didn't discriminate against homosexuals, still kept civil unions, etc.

Yet conservative Texas didn't ban it... why? The amendment was written to discriminate against gays.

You get the idea.

I wouldn't count on it.

This post has been edited by 2awesome4apossum on Dec 5 2005, 03:30 AM

Finally the truth is exposed: Possum is a Gerudo (or one of their descendants).


Anyway, what's this about Jolie and Frodo??

...she's a whore.

Anyway, in context... it was just an analogy. I chose Frodo because he's a well known character, and Jolie because she's a well known whore.

Ah, but I take it she didn't actually ask for that part. That seemed way too absurd.