• 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!

Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

A SSM ban is not gender/sex discrimination because each sex can do what the other can do. Neither sex has any special privilege the other sex lacks. The right is to marry someone of the opposit sex. It was never a right of a man to marry a woman with the right of a woman to marry a man. Its a right of everyone to marry someone of the opposit sex, of the age of magirity, who is of sound mind. Neither sex ever had any right to marry the same sex primeraly because homosexuality itself is a birth defect to begin with.

If a SSM ban is discrimination then it's discrimination against an uncontrollable medical condition, and Public Accomidation should step in and let gays 'marry' just like a post-op transexual woman is now a 'man'. I'm a very big supporter of Pubic Accomidation and support gays marrying because it helps them cope with their condition and become more functional and productive members of society. God knows many gay couples can do better than I did at marriage.

Failed logic. The sexes are not being treated the same by the law. Each cannot do something based on their gender. A woman cannot marry a woman because she is a woman. Sex discrimination. It does not matter that she can do something else that a man cannot do. The fact that she can't do something that a man can do, that is irrelevant to the other part. The same for a man.
 
That's not gender discrimination. One gender has to enjoy some priviledge or suffer some burdon which the other gender does not, in order to be gender discrimination.

Since you oppose any givernment involvement at all in the first place, I invite you to ignore the entire topic.

And they do. One gender can marry a member of a certain gender while the other can't. It doesn't matter if they are able to marry someone of the other gender. That is simply extra. As someone has pointed out, it is race discrimination when one race can do something the another race or other races can't, even if each race is able to do something that each other race cannot. The fact that each is restricted in some way is irrelevant to whether it is discrimination that they are each prevented for doing something the other race or the other gender can do based on those characteristics.
 
That case was discrimination because some races enjoyed a privilege which others did not; some races suffered a burdon which other races did not. The rule did not apply to all. A black couldn't marry a white, but an asian could marry a white. A white couldnt marry a black, but a white could marry a pacific islander. Thats unballanced.

A SSM ban applies to all sexes wheras the interacial-marriage ban did not apply to races.

Wrong. Not all interracial marriage bans worked that way. And that is not why they were struck down, because they were unbalanced. The SCOTUS ruled that it was because of racial discrimination, not an imbalance. No race was denied the ability to enter into a marriage, they simply had restrictions on who they could marry based on relative race.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." - SCOTUS Loving v VA

Substitute sex or gender in there everywhere you see race.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the gender classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious gender discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of certain gender resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
 
Neither gender is excluded form entering a marriage, thus its not gender discrimination.

No races were excluded from entering into a marriage when race was used as a restricting factor in marriage. So according to this logic, interracial marriage bans were not race discrimination.
 
All 3 people have the same right: to marry someone of the opposit sex. All 3 people have the same burdon: can't marry the oppoait sex.

That it would be good and proper for us to create a new right to marry the same sex does not mean such a right exists now, or ever did.

What you highlight here is yhat yhis is truly about sexual preferences, not gender, but you lie and argue gender because a few years ago SCOTUS declined to hear a key case because preference isnt a protected class.

The right exists to not be discriminated against based on your sex/gender. It does not matter if that sex/gender "enjoys" a right the other sex/gender does not have. If the law said that only women can get a license to be a doctor and only men can practice law in US courtrooms, that would still be gender discrimination, even if both are allowed to do something that the other is unable to do. Both are also being prevented from doing something that the other gender can do only because of their gender.
 
The gays win, America loses.

When everyone has more rights, more freedoms, as they gain when marriage restrictions based on sex/gender are struck down, every citizen wins because they all have more recognized rights. It does not matter if you do not want to utilize that right.
 
When everyone has more rights, more freedoms, as they gain when marriage restrictions based on sex/gender are struck down, every citizen wins because they all have more recognized rights. It does not matter if you do not want to utilize that right.
Its not about rights, its about gutting what America is.
 
America is about rights and freedom. That is what America is.

Um, no. America is about economic and military superiority. We have before and will again take all your rights and toss them away if need be to maintain that superiority.
 
Yes, and a SSM ban is not discrimination.

Yes it is. One gender can do something the other cannot. That is gender discrimination. As I said before, if a law was made that only women could become doctors and only men could become lawyers, that would be gender discrimination the same way this is. One gender can do something the other cannot do, even though both have a similar restriction placed on them.
 
The gays win, America loses.

What did you lose? Name one specific, tangible change to your life.

Its not about rights, its about gutting what America is.

Gutting the idea that moral disapproval of others is, by itself, enough reason to restrict individual liberty? I'm ok with gutting your authoritarian version of America.
 
Dignity of our nation.

Our nation's dignity improves when we allow for more individual freedom. I'm sorry that you perceive individual freedom to be so undignified.
 
Dignity of our nation.

Dignity is subjective. I say it is improved when we all have more rights. Just because you don't agree, doesn't make you correct. You are free to believe this, just as others believe it is wrong that we ever allowed interracial couples to marry or ever allowed divorce, and that these decisions lowered our national "dignity".
 
Dignity is subjective. I say it is improved when we all have more rights. Just because you don't agree, doesn't make you correct. You are free to believe this, just as others believe it is wrong that we ever allowed interracial couples to marry or ever allowed divorce, and that these decisions lowered our national "dignity".

What was really undignified was letting those filthy Irish vote. *shakes head* Where is this nation going?
 
What was really undignified was letting those filthy Irish vote. *shakes head* Where is this nation going?

I've been watching "Copper" on Netflix over the last week, and this sort of reminded me of that.
 
The gays win, America loses.

your not America and im not gay and I will never marry another guy and gay marriage is still a win
 
Um, no. America is about economic and military superiority. We have before and will again take all your rights and toss them away if need be to maintain that superiority.

who is this we you should be imprisoned or executed for that kind of crap
 
Dignity of our nation.

That isn't tangible nor is it absolute. Dignity is purely subjective.

The answer is SSM doesn't affect YOUR marriage in any way. If SSM was legalized across the U.S. would you then divorce your wife in protest? I doubt you would.
 
That isn't tangible nor is it absolute. Dignity is purely subjective.

The answer is SSM doesn't affect YOUR marriage in any way. If SSM was legalized across the U.S. would you then divorce your wife in protest? I doubt you would.
That makes no sense.
 
Back
Top Bottom