• 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!

How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

On a scale of one to ten, how much does it matter?


  • Total voters
    56
Whether you support or oppose it, how angry would you be if your federal/state government rejected your position?

I don't think that governments ought to get out of the marriage business, for two reasons: a) I don't think it should be involved in it, and b) I think it's the only compromise that both proponents and opponents might accept, aside from the civil union/marriage distinction (which in my experience many anti-SSM folks seem cool with but many that are pro-SSM seem opposed). People should just call themselves married if they feel like it.

I believe that SSM is a grave sin, but I oppose any attempt to criminalize it because people have to right to choose self-destruction; I don't see why opponents care about it. I also don't really understand why so many pro-SSM folks think it's such an important issue; correct me if I'm wrong, but civil unions with all the benefits of marriage are available in many jurisdictions, and as far as I know, most homosexuals seem uninterested in marriage (I saw some stats a while ago about limited numbers of SSMs in Massachusetts, but I can't find it now).

Tuppence for your thoughts?

Gov'ts are very much in the contract definition/enforcement business, in fact, it is necessary. Many laws specifically contain provisions allow for "special" treatment of married people, the biggest "rights" driving point (and somewhat valid) behind SSM. If two people "live together" they may be compelled to testify against each other in court, yet a spouse can not be so ordered. Tax breaks/penalties are based on the marraige contract, as well as taxation of assest transfers. To say that gov't should "ignore" a marrriage contract would defeat its purpose totally.
 
Last edited:
Homosexuality was looked down upon when the constitution was written. Doesnt mean that not allowing SSM is ok.

Then amend the constitution and "fix" it. Using activist judges to say it is "kind of like" slavery or mixed race marriage, or any other nonsense ignores the simple fact that the 14th amendment specifically addresses slavery/race and NOT SSM/homosexuality. To make SSM federal, makes marriage federal, the exact argument behind making the federal DOMA unconstitutional.
 
Physical ability is only half the problem.

Romantic interests brake up fire teams. This is the exact same reason why there is resistance in letting gays serve openly in those roles.

Not "fair" using reality and logic. Shame on you! ;-)
 
SSM is something only %2 of the population would even consider. Of those, few will even attempt, and of those few who attempt, half will divorce. It's argued that this will not affect me either way, good or bad.

So, it's not important to me. My domestic issue is the 2nd Amendment.

It depends on HOW the SSM issue is handled, that may affect you. If a court can "infer" a constitutional right to SSM then why not polygamy? If states can issue "CCW permits", then why not "go to church permits", "speaking permits", "have an attorney present during plice questioning permits" or "voting permits" - woops the 24th amendment to the constitution was deemed necessary to prevent "voting permits", yet voting literacy tests got a SCOTUS pass for the need from any amendment. If our constitution is treated as a suggestion, rather than taken literally then SSM is a BIG BIG issue indeed. Legal SCOTUS precedents have nearly as much power as a constitutional amendment, perhaps even more, since it may take an amendment to reverse them (remember Roe vs. Wade).
 
Last edited:
I do. If the state doesnt recognize someones marriage then they dont get the benefits/rights that go along with marriage.

I've been married for 27 years...still waiting on those benefits. most of what I've seen has been "responsibilities". ;)
 
It's very important to me, and I think it should be to everybody, when one groups freedom is denied, then all of our freedoms can be denied.

Agreed. SSM as a specific topic is not necessarily the most important issue (though it certainly is for gays who wish to marry), but its treatment is certainly indicative of how a person or group will treat civil liberties in general. An organization that is staunchly against SSM likely won't be for protecting any kind of religious liberty besides their own, for example. It's all part of a bigger ball of wax.
 
I've been married for 27 years...still waiting on those benefits. most of what I've seen has been "responsibilities". ;)

Your wife will get benefits after you're dead. Sleep with one eye open! ;-)
 
Your wife will get benefits after your dead. Sleep with one eye open! ;-)

yeah, she is always reminding me that I am worth more dead than I am alive.
 
Agreed. SSM as a specific topic is not necessarily the most important issue (though it certainly is for gays who wish to marry), but its treatment is certainly indicative of how a person or group will treat civil liberties in general. An organization that is staunchly against SSM likely won't be for protecting any kind of religious liberty besides their own, for example. It's all part of a bigger ball of wax.

BS. Why was the ERA needed? Why is polygamy not on par with SSM? It is not ALL "rights", like "states rights" that the SSM crew want it is only THEIR rights, and without all that hassle of a constitutional amendment. Trashing the constitution or "bending" it to fit an agenda is taking the rights of ALL for the convenience of a few. Our nine robed umpires are to interpret the rules AS WRITTEN not to make them "as they should have been". Nobody had a problem with states having SSM laws, UNTIL many said NO, now it is SUE for a SSM "right" which is now used to TRUMP a state granted marriage privilege. SSM is not a constitutional right, nor is marraige.
 
Last edited:
it's difficult to think of an issue less important.
 
The reason it wasn't addressed directly in the constitution is because they had no conception of homosexuality as we currently understand it, so what they thought is totally irrelevant here. Things have changed since the 1700s in many areas, and this one of them. Our federal government has become so worthless that an amendment is never going to happen, so I'd rather have those "activist judges" doing the right thing, whether under the purview of the 14th or something else. Defending equal rights on basis of sexuality is not a huge leap in logic from doing so on basis of race. The constitution is **** if it can't guarantee equality for all. That's why things like the 14th were added. In any case, stop trying to hide your hate behind that document. It doesn't affect your rights in the least if SSM is legal, and you're seriously deluded if you think so.

You're also engaging in revisionism by saying no one cared before or we ALL oppose polygamy. It's simply not true, and I could point out no one cared about SSM until they saw an opportunity to take political advantage. That's right, fundamentalists and Republicans made it an issue, not gay rights advocates. This has been on state ballots for a decade and DOMA for 2 decades, and only now is it *really* becoming an issue federally. The only thing that's changed is those voices are no longer shut out quite so much, as public opinion has shifted.
 
The reason it wasn't addressed directly in the constitution is because they had no conception of homosexuality as we currently understand it

False. The reason it wasn’t addressed is the constitution only was designed to spell out the very limited powers granted to the federal government. The only area this is not true is the bill of rights, which were really just an afterthought to make those distrusting of the new pact more comfortable moving away from the articles of confederation.
 
I'd like SSM to be legal everywhere and I want DOMA repealed, but it's one of the least important issues. It's a hot button issue that draws attention away from the big issues.
 
The reason it wasn't addressed directly in the constitution is because they had no conception of homosexuality as we currently understand it, so what they thought is totally irrelevant here. Things have changed since the 1700s in many areas, and this one of them. Our federal government has become so worthless that an amendment is never going to happen, so I'd rather have those "activist judges" doing the right thing, whether under the purview of the 14th or something else. Defending equal rights on basis of sexuality is not a huge leap in logic from doing so on basis of race. The constitution is **** if it can't guarantee equality for all. That's why things like the 14th were added. In any case, stop trying to hide your hate behind that document. It doesn't affect your rights in the least if SSM is legal, and you're seriously deluded if you think so.

You're also engaging in revisionism by saying no one cared before or we ALL oppose polygamy. It's simply not true, and I could point out no one cared about SSM until they saw an opportunity to take political advantage. That's right, fundamentalists and Republicans made it an issue, not gay rights advocates. This has been on state ballots for a decade and DOMA for 2 decades, and only now is it *really* becoming an issue federally. The only thing that's changed is those voices are no longer shut out quite so much, as public opinion has shifted.

You are taking both sides of the issue, it seems. First you say it is NOT in the constitution, yet should be. Then you say it should be an amendment like the 14th for barring racial discrimination, but poo poo that by saying it could never pass. Then you say the constitution be darned let the "activist judges" end run the need for amendment by saying it is "like" another amendment. You then sum it all up by stating public opinion supports the very thing you say can't pass as an amendment. Now which is it - publically popular or impossible to do?

Meanwhile, back in reality, marraige is a STATE function, and that is WHY the courts said that DOMA (a federal attempt to STOP SSM) is a no go, NOT because SSM is a constitutional right, but because DOMA violates the constitution, by taking federal powers NOT granted to the federal gov't by the constitution.
 
Last edited:
I am a conservative, but I feel that if gay people want to get married, then let them. I don't care.
 
Personally, I think it is a misnomer and misapplication of "marriage", and am mildly opposed to it.


Politically I am largely indifferent and believe we have far more important issues. It is one of the last things I'd consider in a candidate in deciding whether or not to vote for him. I consider economic issues and respect for the Constitution and Bill of Rights far more important in a candidate... I am unlikely to even bother to find out what his views on SSM are.
 
Whether you support or oppose it, how angry would you be if your federal/state government rejected your position?

I don't think that governments ought to get out of the marriage business, for two reasons: a) I don't think it should be involved in it, and b) I think it's the only compromise that both proponents and opponents might accept, aside from the civil union/marriage distinction (which in my experience many anti-SSM folks seem cool with but many that are pro-SSM seem opposed). People should just call themselves married if they feel like it.

I believe that SSM is a grave sin, but I oppose any attempt to criminalize it because people have to right to choose self-destruction; I don't see why opponents care about it. I also don't really understand why so many pro-SSM folks think it's such an important issue; correct me if I'm wrong, but civil unions with all the benefits of marriage are available in many jurisdictions, and as far as I know, most homosexuals seem uninterested in marriage (I saw some stats a while ago about limited numbers of SSMs in Massachusetts, but I can't find it now).

Tuppence for your thoughts?

1.)"how angry would you be if your federal/state government rejected your position?"
Im pro equal rights, and Id be pretty upset for my country to deny those rights whether Im against the lifestyle or not is meaningless.

2.) "correct me if I'm wrong, but civil unions with all the benefits of marriage are available in many jurisdictions"
yes you are wrong, equal but different is never the same and civil unions have already been beat in court under circumstances where marriages would not have been. IE property rights. Civil unions are not even close to the same in court. Its a total cop out.

3.) "as far as I know, most homosexuals seem uninterested in marriage"


well "as far as I know" you are wrong again, of course I cant speak for the entire gay population but to the many I know all but one is interested in marriage. Some more so than others of course but no more or less than heterosexuals. ANd the ones that are on the fence about it are on the fence based on it not being legal or a hassle or discrimination they may face or not being publicly out yet. It has nothing to do with being gay for them.


now to answer your main question, how important is it to me? VERY important, its a shame that gays do not have equal rights and they are discriminated against but its not the most important. There are other issues it would depend on what Im comparing it to but it is pretty terrible that in 2012 this country still has this type of discrimination in it and some citizens still do not have equal rights, it's sad.
 
I'd put it about a five. I think it's important, but I have no real personal stake in it. I don't have any close friends or family that are gay.
 
Politically I am largely indifferent and believe we have far more important issues. It is one of the last things I'd consider in a candidate in deciding whether or not to vote for him. I consider economic issues and respect for the Constitution and Bill of Rights far more important in a candidate... I am unlikely to even bother to find out what his views on SSM are.

The two are one in the same.
 
Personally, I think it is a misnomer and misapplication of "marriage", and am mildly opposed to it.


Politically I am largely indifferent and believe we have far more important issues. It is one of the last things I'd consider in a candidate in deciding whether or not to vote for him. I consider economic issues and respect for the Constitution and Bill of Rights far more important in a candidate... I am unlikely to even bother to find out what his views on SSM are.

hmmm

I agree there are more important issues if directly compared
I agree that its not a TOP issue for me when deciding who to vote for
I am for equal gay rights BECAUSE I respect the constitution and bill of rights

and while I may not always look for a candidates stand on equal gay rights, if they say they are against equal rights and want to put things in place to stop them they will not get my vote because they obviously have no clue what this country is about and they are a huge hypocrite.
 
The government already largely opposes my position, and according to recent votes, so does the electorate. I'll continue to do what I've always done: speak out in support of gay marriage when the issue is presented. Eventually, the pendulum will swing the right way and this will be a notation in the history books, just like interracial marriage and recognizing the right of AAs and women to vote. It's a crying shame it'll be a rough, hate-filled, angry road to get there, but societal advancement never comes easy.

The rights that you EQUATE the SSM to (racial equality and women's vote) are ONLY now rights due to constitutional amendment so that would be required for SSM/homosexuality to attain that status as a constitutional right as well. I do not oppose SSM, but do oppose pretending that slavery, racial or gender discrimination did not need constitutional protection, or that the nine robed umpires may now simply "skip that little constitutional amendment detail" and "do the right thing". Marriage, and by extension SSM, is a state issue and should stay that way, if SSM is not popular, and we know that is true in at least 31 states, that have voted it down, then it is a dead issue, for now, since no constitutional amendment for it is likey to pass. Some now seem to want SSM so much as to ignore the law, the constitution or the will of the people and see the current SCOTUS "make up" as a possible way to 'git-r-done', but that does not make it right to ignore or "bend" the constitution (nor did Roe vs. Wade).
 
The two are one in the same.



Obviously I disagree. I don't think SSM is a Federal issue at all, but a matter for the individual States... 9th and 10th Amendments.
 
Physical ability is only half the problem.

Romantic interests brake up fire teams. This is the exact same reason why there is resistance in letting gays serve openly in those roles.

Those in the military should be able to separate their job from their love life. And isnt there some rule against dating others in your company or something?
 
Then amend the constitution and "fix" it. Using activist judges to say it is "kind of like" slavery or mixed race marriage, or any other nonsense ignores the simple fact that the 14th amendment specifically addresses slavery/race and NOT SSM/homosexuality. To make SSM federal, makes marriage federal, the exact argument behind making the federal DOMA unconstitutional.

Not allowing SSM is like not allowing interracial marriage. And we shouldnt need to amend the constitution to allow SSM.
 
I've been married for 27 years...still waiting on those benefits. most of what I've seen has been "responsibilities". ;)

You got them as soon as you got legally married. If you havent needed them yet thats on you.

Edit: Just noticed you were making a joke lol.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom