• 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 Fails to get on California Ballot

Didn't California all ready strike down gay marriage? Homosexual unions aren't marriage not should they be recognized as such. They already struck this down, and it seems they are trying to have it voted on in each election until it passes.
 
No, it doesn't. Feel free to post it.

Don't you hate when a post all of a sudden requires much more energy than you wanted to give it? It'd be so sweet if I could just post the studies and you would agree. But that won't happen. You'll claim they aren't valid, won't you?

Thats all theory and no fact behind it.

Blaming Christianity is a very weak argument unless you want to conclude all people who "come out" are Christians. :roll:

And what facts do you have to support your claim that people change their preference from exclusively homo to exclusively hetero?

A funny joke but thats all it is and you know it.

And I said White to Black not Black to White specifically to avoid that ridiculous notion.

Pretty much! I wouldn't really want to disprove it anyway, since my entire point is that people can't change the way you are.

But it was a little funny.

Pedophiles are attracted to children. Should we grant them marriage privileges as well?

The attracted to argument is not a basis for designing new law when you can't even prove its not a choice.

Well that's silly. Children can't enter into contracts!
 
hmmmm, except that we live in a society ruled by a representative government. what that government does, WE are doing; and what the government supports, WE are supporting. now everyone's not going to come to an agreement (IE; you might personally not support the war in Iraq even as your taxes go to 'actually' support it) about what we want to do, which is why we vote. What i am pointing out is that the American people have the right to choose not to support the institution of homosexual marriage via their government.

We live in a federal republic, created partially to protect the rights of the minorities from the views of the majority. As you saw from that graph that was posted, the majority of people didn't approve of interacial marriage until fairly recently. Does that mean it shouldn't have been allowed until the 90s?
 
No, it doesn't. Feel free to post it.

This has been done ad naeuseum. You claim it's not proof, we point out that you are right, but it is evidence to suggest a possibility, and then we get in long drawn out arguments that get silly. There is evidence of a genetic link, and stronger evidence that orientation id formed at least very early, possibly as far back as conception.



Thats all theory and no fact behind it.

Blaming Christianity is a very weak argument unless you want to conclude all people who "come out" are Christians. :roll:

And we have had this argument more than once. You still confuse orientation with acts. A gay person can end up in long term heterosexual relationships(and vice versa). A gay person realizing they are gay late in life, or a gay person realizing that they are strait does not indicate a change of orientation, but a realization of orientation.

Pedophiles are attracted to children. Should we grant them marriage privileges as well?

The attracted to argument is not a basis for designing new law when you can't even prove its not a choice.

And the traditional appeal to emotion. We are talking about gay people, not pedophiles. You forgot to mention bestiality and polygamy to complete the trifecta, but I suspect you are saving those.
 
There is no basis in genetics or any boilogical evidence to support your claim.

There are people who have gone from being heterosexual to homosexual and vise versa.

Haven't seen one person go from white to black.


And the sexual biological reaction to stimulus always results in the same outcome. The body prepares for procreation, a purely heterosexual act and the only way to pass genetic material from one generation to another naturally. Homosexuality has no basis in either genetics or biological sexual reaction which is why you cannot equate it to either race or heterosexuality as being equal.

I've seen plenty of people go from being Christian to atheist. And atheist to Christian. One Christian denomination to another. Heck we even have Jews for Jesus. We protect someone's right to switch religions anytime they feel like it, and there is certainly no doubt that religion is a choice. So how come it is always argued that a person's sexuality is not protected as a civil right because it is a choice, unlike race, yet religion is specifically listed as being protected and it is most definitely a choice? In fact, according to your argument, it should be legal to make limits on marrying outside a person's religion then? As long as the majority wants it, why not? I'm sure there are communities where there would be a lot of support for such a measure.
 
I've always thought this to be a state matter. If California doesn't want it, then that's that. The people have spoken.

When SFPD start going into houses and beating innocent gays, I'll get involved.
 
I've always thought this to be a state matter. If California doesn't want it, then that's that. The people have spoken.

When SFPD start going into houses and beating innocent gays, I'll get involved.

There's one big problem with this statement. Reading it, it makes one assume that if interracial marriage were simply just not legal, and interracial couples were allowed to live together as they pleased, without being legally recognized as married, then that would be all right with you. The simple fact is that just because homosexuals haven't been persecuted as much as blacks were, doesn't mean that they don't deserve the same federal recognition of their marriage.

Truthfully, I don't care if the first step was just getting federal recognition of civil unions (although I still see that as separate but equal), but our government does not even give a reason for supporting all heterosexual marriages the states endorse, but not supporting any homosexual marriages, despite the 14th Amendment.

As I posted earlier, would it be okay for a state to make a law and/or state constitutional amendment that restricts marriage to those of the same religion? Interfaith marriages would not technically be protected by freedom of religion since there are many religions that don't even approve of such marriages.
 
Bottom line argument seems to be:

Bigotry and discrimination are perfectly fine so long as the majority thinks it's OK.

Got it.
 
No. If it's not a law, and it's not in the Constitution, then there's nothing there. God isn't going to come down and force people to hand out gay marriages.

It's a recognized civil right because it's there, yes. It only got there with a 2/3 vote in Congress. Otherwise, you couldn't even claim that gay marriage is a legally protected right.

Laws have consequences, but they do not determine what is right and wrong. For example, Blacks didn't lack the right to be free when the Constitution allowed slavery, the right simply was not recognized. So it still comes down to whether something is logically a right or not, not whether it's in the Constitution or not.

You don't have a choice. Especially in this case, when it's not a "right" being denied but rather a word being defined.

You obviously don't care whether it's in the Constitution or not, so let's say for a sec that the 14th Amendment doesn't exist. If states must recognize gay marriages, who's going to force them to? Nobody can. You can't rely on the Magical Rights Fairy to enforce rights.

This is only because our society culturally believes in utilizing democratic processes. Kings were able to legitimately rule by fiat in the eyes of the people when people believed in divine right. Someday democratic republics may also be replaced with a better alternative.

That kind of argument could be aimed at any alternative lifestyle. Think I could find one you wouldn't approve of even if they aren't forcing you?

Only if that alternative lifestyle harms somebody against their consent.

And why is that exactly? It's not like you get to chose either one.

It may be more useful to compare sexual orientation to religious affiliation. Religious affiliation certainly is a choice to a greater extent than sexual orientation, even conservatives can acknowledge that, yet we do not expect people to tolerate different legal treatment based upon religious affiliation.

Pedophiles are attracted to children. Should we grant them marriage privileges as well?

Young children cannot consent to a contract, so the comparison is invalid.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
As I posted earlier, would it be okay for a state to make a law and/or state constitutional amendment that restricts marriage to those of the same religion? Interfaith marriages would not technically be protected by freedom of religion since there are many religions that don't even approve of such marriages.

I'd rather not see a state "make a law and/or state constitutional amendment" about anything. However, personally, I'd rather just see it all get passed and people finally shutting the f*ck up about it already. Having two dudes next door pound each other up the butt isn't half as annoying as people whining and clamoring and talking until they're blue in the face about letting two dudes next door pound each other up the butt.
 
Laws have consequences, but they do not determine what is right and wrong. For example, Blacks didn't lack the right to be free when the Constitution allowed slavery, the right simply was not recognized. So it still comes down to whether something is logically a right or not, not whether it's in the Constitution or not.
That settles it then -- marriage is not a right.
 
That settles it then -- marriage is not a right.

Not inherently. But because of the fact that marriage is a legal contract, and because people have the right to be treated equally under the law unless there is a compelling reason not to (e.g. people who hurt others), gays do have the right to marriage.
 
Bottom line argument seems to be:

Bigotry and discrimination are perfectly fine so long as the majority thinks it's OK.

Got it.

Let's "pretend" for a moment that gay marriage is not enforced by the Constitution.

The Constitution being the only thing that can trump the democratic process (even though, in a way, it's subject to the democratic process), what else is there to trump democracy? (Hint: nothing.)

And there's some strawmen in your posts, too. Not making gay marriage legal is not bigotry, it's traditionalism. Not handing out gay marriages is fine only if you think it is; it's legal if a majority wants that to be the case.

Laws have consequences, but they do not determine what is right and wrong. For example, Blacks didn't lack the right to be free when the Constitution allowed slavery, the right simply was not recognized. So it still comes down to whether something is logically a right or not, not whether it's in the Constitution or not.

Except this has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has to do with legal or illegal. I agree that allowing gay marriage would be the right thing to do. I disagree that there's some way to do it that circumvents the will of the people.


This is only because our society culturally believes in utilizing democratic processes. Kings were able to legitimately rule by fiat in the eyes of the people when people believed in divine right. Someday democracy, too, may be replaced with a better alternative.

Well okay, maybe, but that doesn't change the fact that as things stand, the will of the people matters, which was my point.
 
Let's "pretend" for a moment that gay marriage is not enforced by the Constitution.

The Constitution being the only thing that can trump the democratic process (even though, in a way, it's subject to the democratic process), what else is there to trump democracy? (Hint: nothing.)

And there's some strawmen in your posts, too. Not making gay marriage legal is not bigotry, it's traditionalism. Not handing out gay marriages is fine only if you think it is; it's legal if a majority wants that to be the case.

Every step away from civil liberties toward popular madate is a step from republicanism to populism.

The only right the majority was supposed to have in this country is the ability to decide who our civil administrators will be. They aren't supposed to have any real authority over the law, which is no real sense can be contingent on the will of the people.
 
Last edited:
Let's "pretend" for a moment that gay marriage is not enforced by the Constitution.

The Constitution being the only thing that can trump the democratic process (even though, in a way, it's subject to the democratic process), what else is there to trump democracy? (Hint: nothing.)

Oh, agreed. Just like it used to be perfectly allowable to discriminate against blacks under the Constitution.

The fact that discrimination and bigotry are allowed by law doesn't mean it's not still bigotry and discrimination.

Except this has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has to do with legal or illegal. I agree that allowing gay marriage would be the right thing to do. I disagree that there's some way to do it that circumvents the will of the people.

But, as you know, the laws are written to protect the minority from (as the founders put it) "the tyranny of the majority." Sometimes doing the right thing means going against the majority views.

There's no honor or bravery in cowing down to the majority.
 
It may be more useful to compare sexual orientation to religious affiliation. Religious affiliation certainly is a choice to a greater extent than sexual orientation, even conservatives can acknowledge that, yet we do not expect people to tolerate different legal treatment based upon religious affiliation.

I saw someone did that. It made me a little jealous I didn't post it first! :mrgreen:
 
Every step away from civil liberties toward popular madate is a step from republicanism to populism.

The only right the majority was supposed to have in this country is the ability to decide who our civil administraters will be. They aren't supposed to have any real authority over the law, which is no real sense can be contingent on the will of the people.

Erm, you realize this is a thread about gay marriage right? Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and until recently it wasn't even considered that it might be otherwise. So not suddenly changing that is not a step away from republicanism, since we started there to begin with. Especially since if gay marriage is made legal democratically, it will be through elected representatives, i.e. republicanism.

Your post is irrelevant anyways. The public votes on its government; its government votes on its laws. The will of the people matters there.

Oh, agreed. Just like it used to be perfectly allowable to discriminate against blacks under the Constitution.

The fact that discrimination and bigotry are allowed by law doesn't mean it's not still bigotry and discrimination.

Again, not wanting gay marriage is not bigotry. And again, I have been specifically talking about how gay marriage is to be made legal, not whether it's right or wrong. Some seem to think that even without the Constitution, there is a way to do it without the majority accepting it.

But, as you know, the laws are written to protect the minority from (as the founders put it) "the tyranny of the majority." Sometimes doing the right thing means going against the majority views.

There's no honor or bravery in cowing down to the majority.

Again you miss the point, which is that before, you and others (or at least others) seemed to want gay marriage to be made legal without any form of democracy being involved. I keep trying to point out that this is impossible
 
Erm, you realize this is a thread about gay marriage right? Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and until recently it wasn't even considered that it might be otherwise. So not suddenly changing that is not a step away from republicanism, since we started there to begin with. Especially since if gay marriage is made legal democratically, it will be through elected representatives, i.e. republicanism.

Your post is irrelevant anyways. The public votes on its government; its government votes on its laws. The will of the people matters there.

Democratic protocol and procedure is incidental to republicanism. Have been, both in theory and practice, since Aristotle.

Republics can be oligarchies, rule of the few and wealthy, even despotic governments (rule of one). The only essential quality of a republic is that it invests legitimacy and power into principle (aka, a Constitution) rather than in the decisions of an entity (a king, corporate executives, or an assembly of citizens).

That is, medieval nations are not republics because their kings and nobles abide by High Justice, a variety of justice where any rules and protocol are provisional and optional; things like "innocence before guilt" and "due process" and "private property" exist at the discretion of the decision-making of a single person (they can either not exist at all, or be suspended at the convenience of the judges and executors) -- in good cases, their compassionate, reasoned judgment of what is best for the people of their country, in bad cases, at his whims and tantrums.

Most of the democracies of Ancient Greece were not republics either, because they have a very limited sense of civil rights and liberties; the only freedoms allowed, and duties prescribed, are those agreed upon by the collective at any given point in time. That is, no real freedom and no definite duties, no genuine principle or law. Hence, when several generals failed to achieve optimal results on the battlefield, the Athenians decided to deprive them of due process and summarily executed them.

Ancient Rome was a republic, which employed democracy minimally. The people were allowed to run in/vote for some public offices, but the higher offices were restricted to the Patricians (aka, the noble born), which was oligarchy (rule of the few). However, this was because it was believed (argued) that Patricians had the character and skill necessary to administrate a free society with property rights; it was beleived that because Patricians were outnumbered by commoners and had a lot of property and freedom to lose, that they would be eager to put their advanced education and resources to defend the principles that Roman society was founded on. So, Ancient Rome combined democratic and oligarchic functions.

And the Founding Fathers (who used Ancient Rome was a model) founded their government on law and principle; this is what makes the United States of America a republic. They reasoned democratic functions were more useful and necessary than the Romans believed, but they also felt a tyranny of the majority would pose a danger to their cherished principles. So, they designed the government to frustrate majorities, while not depriving them totally of power.

Unfortunately, it isn't perfect.

Bottom line is, the will of the people is not valuable in and of itself (for that matter, I don't think it even exists).
 
Last edited:
Again, not wanting gay marriage is not bigotry.

Please explain why. Seriously, ever explanation against it I have seen is basically "I want them to be second class citizens not able to get the same rights I have." I mean, that's the very definition of bigotry, really.

Oh sure, bigots can convince themselves that there is some reason for their discrimination -- they always can -- but when you boil it all down, it's basically "I don't like it."

Again you miss the point, which is that before, you and others (or at least others) seemed to want gay marriage to be made legal without any form of democracy being involved. I keep trying to point out that this is impossible

Our courts are appointed or elected by us, so when a court decides something, that is as much a part of our democracy as anything else. We the people don't vote personally on every single law and regulation, after all.

But even then, even the founding fathers did not want the people deciding everything, worrying about "mob rule" and "the tyranny of the majority." Having the courts protect a minority viewpoint from being trampled by the majority is about as pro-American as you can get.
 
Please explain why. Seriously, ever explanation against it I have seen is basically "I want them to be second class citizens not able to get the same rights I have." I mean, that's the very definition of bigotry, really.

Oh sure, bigots can convince themselves that there is some reason for their discrimination -- they always can -- but when you boil it all down, it's basically "I don't like it."

So was every person in history who ever lived, before a few decades ago, a bigot?

It's not bigotry, it's caution towards fundamentally changing something in an area where it has remained the same for thousands of years. People are afraid of the implications of such seemingly arbitrary power over tradition. Please don't call my family bigots, because they're not, and lost and lots and lots of anti-gay marriage people are not the least bit homophobic.

Our courts are appointed or elected by us, so when a court decides something, that is as much a part of our democracy as anything else. We the people don't vote personally on every single law and regulation, after all.

Yes... but the court's job is to interpret the law and the Constitution. If the right to gay marriage is in neither (which is what I believe to be the case) then they are irrelevant to this.

But even then, even the founding fathers did not want the people deciding everything, worrying about "mob rule" and "the tyranny of the majority." Having the courts protect a minority viewpoint from being trampled by the majority is about as pro-American as you can get.

The courts do not protect a minority viewpoint, the laws and Constitution which the courts interpret do.
Also, the founding fathers were not for gay marriage. Until recently, nobody was.
 
There is no basis in genetics or any boilogical evidence to support your claim.

There are people who have gone from being heterosexual to homosexual and vise versa.

Haven't seen one person go from white to black.


And the sexual biological reaction to stimulus always results in the same outcome. The body prepares for procreation, a purely heterosexual act and the only way to pass genetic material from one generation to another naturally. Homosexuality has no basis in either genetics or biological sexual reaction which is why you cannot equate it to either race or heterosexuality as being equal.


Yes....I can put on purple contact lens to "change" the color of my eyes.
But does that really mean my eyes are in actuality purple?
 
Marriage has always been between a man and a woman...

Well...not exactly. There have been many laws that have prevented "a man and a woman" from getting married (e.g., laws against inter-racial marriage).

There have been other times when marriage has been between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman....etc. etc. etc.


Dav said:
Again, not wanting gay marriage is not bigotry.

Perhaps...but arrogantly believing that you have the right to foist that view on the private lives of two consenting individuals....IS



[/QUOTE]
 
So was every person in history who ever lived, before a few decades ago, a bigot?

It's not bigotry, it's caution towards fundamentally changing something in an area where it has remained the same for thousands of years. People are afraid of the implications of such seemingly arbitrary power over tradition. Please don't call my family bigots, because they're not, and lost and lots and lots of anti-gay marriage people are not the least bit homophobic.



Yes... but the court's job is to interpret the law and the Constitution. If the right to gay marriage is in neither (which is what I believe to be the case) then they are irrelevant to this.



The courts do not protect a minority viewpoint, the laws and Constitution which the courts interpret do.
Also, the founding fathers were not for gay marriage. Until recently, nobody was.

It is also the court's job to determine if a benefit that is given to one group of citizens, such as the benefits that come with marriage, are being applied equally to every citizen. In the case of marriage, this is the problem. The Government, any part of it, has failed to actually specifically state why it offers the benefits it does to heterosexual couples, when it endorses marriages.
 
There are some things to remember about this whole debate, some of which people on both sides may take issue with.

First, those of us in favor of gay marriage are the ones seeking a change to the laws. That means it is up to us to not just present a case of why it is good, but we need to make compelling. While I agree, gay marriage should be legal for fairness and nondiscrimination reasons, for those we have not convinced, this is not compelling. So while I think mentioning those is correct, Spending our time and energy debating those points will not win outside of a courtroom. Until all the appeals are done on gay marriage court fights, we won't know how that works out, and arguing it won't change the outcome.

So we have to find compelling reasons. First compelling reason to my mind is that more and more, gays are raising children. A married home is a more stable environment for children than a nonmarried home. You cannot stop gay people from raising kids, and it is happening more and more. When I was a kid, being gay meant almost certainly losing a child custody battle. This is no longer true, and I know two separate gay people in my apartment complex who are gays with custody of their children. The couple being married gives those kids a more stable environment.

Next compelling argument is to my mind that it is going to happen eventually, so it's time to stop fighting it. When I was a kid, gays almost entirely hid their gayness. Now, most fully admit it and are mostly accepted. The younger generation does not even really understand what all the fuss is about.

Next compelling reason is that civil unions are more and more being recognized, and becoming more and more like marriage. If civil unions are just marriages under a different name, then it is silly to have two different categories for the same thing.

In the end, this may very well be decided by the courts before most states have allowed it. If the courts do not rule in favor of gay marriage, it only slows things down. Gay marriage is going to happen. At this point it is inevitable. I predict 20 years from now the concept of gays as anything other than people who sleep with some one you wouldn't is going to be unknown outside of some old people. Those old people will be listened to in the same vein as the old people now who bitch about how "we didn't need cell phones and computers in my day".
 
Back
Top Bottom