View Poll Results: What is the primary reason behind your support for same-sex marriage?

Voters
170. You may not vote on this poll
  • Because I’m gay/lesbian

    3 1.76%
  • Because it’s an equal rights issue

    93 54.71%
  • Because gays/lesbians love each other too

    8 4.71%
  • Because I despise bigots/haters

    2 1.18%
  • Because I don’t want to be labeled a bigot

    1 0.59%
  • I’m opposed to gay marriage

    14 8.24%
  • I don’t care, either way

    17 10.00%
  • Other

    32 18.82%
Page 26 of 71 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 710

Thread: What is the primary reason behind your support for same-sex marriage? [W:539/549]

  1. #251
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    re: What is the primary reason behind your support for same-sex marriage? [W:539/549]

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Marriage is largely societal thing that is recognized in law, I don't believe that by default homosexuals and other sexualities have the right to legally define marriage in context of society and the law without their approval.
    They do the moment that society decided to make marriage NOT a "societal" thing alone but make it a legal thing. Once that happens, then it's subject to laws. Once it's subject to laws, that means it's subject to being held to constitutional standards. "Homosexuals" have no inherent right to, on their own, legally define what marriage is in the context of LAW...but then neither do heterosexuals or anyone else. The legal right is in society to create the laws through their elected officials and the legal right is in the courts to judge if laws adhere to constitutional standards.

    I would say it is within important state interest if when the issue is brought up to a vote that the majority of citizens of a state disprove of SSM (which is usually indirect since nearly all votes are to define marriage as one man one woman).
    So the "important state interest" that it's serving is....that people think it's a state interest? That's a rather hillariously bad argument. "People want it" or "People don't want it" is not a legitimate "important state interest". If it was, what you've essentially created is constitutionally allowed tyranny which is specifically something the constitution works to prevent against. By your own standard, if we managed to get 51% of people to say "**** women, they shouldn't be allowed to speak unless spoken to" then that should be constitutionally legal because a majority of people want it and thus its an important state interest.

  2. #252
    Sage
    Dragonfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    East Coast - USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:37 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,496

    re: What is the primary reason behind your support for same-sex marriage? [W:539/549]

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Yeah, your anecdotal statement that there are more kids that are open to SSM than adults in no way changes my statement that it does create an actual change.



    The fact you "don't weep for them" in no way negates the fact that it would cause a change.



    Your strawman, again, doesn't negate the fact that there would be cahnge. I never suggested "gay people" weren't "a part of society". I suggested that changing the legal meaning of marriage would impart a societal change as to what the public consiousness of "marriage" means. While you can't force societal acceptance of something, it would force society to LEGALLY accept something which DOES create a change.

    Simply because you think those changes are good or don't care that people may not like the changes doesn't mean they don't happen.
    Alright, I see what you're saying. For some there will be some changes. Mostly positive changes for those that see any at all.

    I'd bet that the vast majority won't feel or experience anything different at all.

    Sort of like allowing liquor and beer sales to happen on Sunday in places where it was previously against the law.
    Some love the idea. Some hate the idea based on religious grounds. Some recognize and experience change. Vast majority don't.

  3. #253
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    re: What is the primary reason behind your support for same-sex marriage? [W:539/549]

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Marriage as defined by the state is a right, I will agree.
    Correct.

    Additionally, people have a right that there will be equal protection under the law.

    Meaning that definition of marriage by the state must be applied in a way that adheres to the EPC clause born of the 14th

  4. #254
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    re: What is the primary reason behind your support for same-sex marriage? [W:539/549]

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Silly me, I thought that we were talking about changing state law, by SCOTUS fiat, based on a preference for SSM being recognized (added?) as a new "civil right".
    It would not be a "new" civil right. It would be applying one civil right (Equal Protection of the Law) towards Laws (marriage laws) that deny people another civil right (Marriage)

  5. #255
    Guru
    Verthaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    09-08-16 @ 02:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,044

    re: What is the primary reason behind your support for same-sex marriage? [W:539/549]

    I find it very eerie that the Anti-SSM crowd are using the same arguments and basically the same phrases used by those who opposed interracial marriages in the 60's.

    http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/...l_Marriage.pdf

    Do some of these seem rather familiar?

    “[If interracial couples have a right to marry], all our marriage acts forbidding
    intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are
    void.”
    (Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 40 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting
    from a prior court case))
    “The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against
    miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions
    against incest and incestuous marriages.”
    (Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 46 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting
    from a prior court case))
    “[T]he State's prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same
    footing
    as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or
    the prescription of minimum ages at which people may
    marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally
    incompetent.”
    (Source: Excerpted United States Supreme Court oral argument
    transcripts from Loving v. Virginia, from Peter Irons and Stephanie Guitton,
    eds., May it Please the Court (1993) at 282-283, quoting Virginia Assistant
    Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine, arguing for Virginia's ban on interracial
    Or how about some of these...
    “Civilized society has the power of self-preservation, and, marriage being the
    foundation of such society, most of the states in which the Negro forms an
    element of any note have enacted laws inhibiting intermarriage between the
    white and black races.”
    (Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 40 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from
    a prior court case))
    Interracial marriages would be a “calamity full of the saddest and
    gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us.”
    (Source: Tennessee Supreme Court, quoted in Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune, May
    19,1996)
    Or this...
    Allowing interracial marriages “necessarily involves the degradation” of
    conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than
    execration.”
    (Source: A U.S. representative from Georgia quoted in Eric Zorn, Chicago
    Tribune, May 19, 1996)
    And here's another...

    “It is contended that interracial marriage has adverse effects not only upon
    the parties thereto but upon their progeny . . . and that the progeny of a
    marriage between a Negro and a Caucasian suffer not only the stigma of such
    inferiority but the fear of rejection by members of both races.”
    (Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 26 and n.5 (summarizing the State's
    argument in favor of ban on interracial marriage))
    And yet another..
    Interracial marriage runs counter to God's plan:
    “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he
    placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his
    arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he
    separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
    (Source: Virginia trial judge upholding conviction of Mildred and Richard
    Loving for interracial marriage, quoted in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 3
    (1967))
    I'm willing to bet that future generations will look back at the Anti-SSM crowd the same way decent people today look back at the anti-interacial marriage crowd.
    With disgust.

  6. #256
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,953

    re: What is the primary reason behind your support for same-sex marriage? [W:539/549]

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    They do the moment that society decided to make marriage NOT a "societal" thing alone but make it a legal thing. Once that happens, then it's subject to laws. Once it's subject to laws, that means it's subject to being held to constitutional standards. "Homosexuals" have no inherent right to, on their own, legally define what marriage is in the context of LAW...but then neither do heterosexuals or anyone else. The legal right is in society to create the laws through their elected officials and the legal right is in the courts to judge if laws adhere to constitutional standards.
    In my opinion adhering to Constitutional standards does not require forcing all states to recognize same sex marriages. If anything it would be a violation of state's rights to force them to do so when many have amended their state constitutions to legally define marriage. It is within the legal right of states to define marriage as one man one woman just as the opposite is also true. Race is something protected within the Constitution, a state cannot ban interracial marriage. However, I do not believe that sexuality is a protected entity within the Constitution nor is it unlawful gender discrimination for a state to legally define marriage as one man one woman. As far as the law is concerned it is not a violation.

    So the "important state interest" that it's serving is....that people think it's a state interest? That's a rather hillariously bad argument. "People want it" or "People don't want it" is not a legitimate "important state interest". If it was, what you've essentially created is constitutionally allowed tyranny which is specifically something the constitution works to prevent against. By your own standard, if we managed to get 51% of people to say "**** women, they shouldn't be allowed to speak unless spoken to" then that should be constitutionally legal because a majority of people want it and thus its an important state interest.
    People voting on an issue goes along with the Democratic process. You may call defining marriage that does not include homosexual relationships as tyranny, but the fact remains that the populous may vote on issues within state authority under the umbrella of the Constitution. I think it would be tyranny for the government to mandate that all states recognize SSM regardless if their laws when there isn't a basis for it within the Constitution (in my legal opinion).

    My standard is not that if we get 51% to agree with something that it should be law. My standard is the Constitution and I believe that a state has the authority to put the issue of defining marriage for their state up to the people and if a majority approves, then that definition is what is legal. If 51% believed that women shouldn't be allowed to speak unless spoken too then that cannot legally happen as long as we have freedom of speech (since doing so violates that).
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  7. #257
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    re: What is the primary reason behind your support for same-sex marriage? [W:539/549]

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    In my opinion adhering to Constitutional standards does not require forcing all states to recognize same sex marriages. If anything it would be a violation of state's rights to force them to do so when many have amended their state constitutions to legally define marriage. It is within the legal right of states to define marriage as one man one woman just as the opposite is also true.
    The Constitution mandates that constitutional restrictions upon the Federal Government are equally applied to the States. A state has no more right to violate your ability to marry than it would to violate your ability to speech. Are you suggesting that if a state made a constitutional amendment in it's state constitution barring people from, let's say, speaking in a negative fashion about the Governor under penalty of law that it should be allowed to stand and would not be constitutionally problematic?

    People voting on an issue goes along with the Democratic process. You may call defining marriage that does not include homosexual relationships as tyranny,
    Nice spin. I call allowing people by simple majority to enforce the will of the majority over the minority despite constitutional protections is tyranny. The fact that it just happens to be in terms of marriage right now is irrelevant but tells us a TON about your own argument.

    but the fact remains that the populous may vote on issues within state authority under the umbrella of the Constitution.
    But the fact they cast their vote does not inherently mean the thing they've voting for is constitutional.

    I think it would be tyranny for the government to mandate that all states recognize SSM regardless if their laws when there isn't a basis for it within the Constitution (in my legal opinion).
    So what your argument is now melding into is that there isn't insufficient evidence to suggest that there is a voilation of the EPC in terms of either sexuality or gender....but that the notion of a civil right to marriage is non-existant?

    In which case then, what you're suggesting is that...hypothetically speaking...if a state was to go back to denying interracial marriage that on a constitutional level you'd be perfectly fine with that?

    My standard is not that if we get 51% to agree with something that it should be law. My standard is the Constitution and I believe that a state has the authority to put the issue of defining marriage for their state up to the people and if a majority approves, then that definition is what is legal. If 51% believed that women shouldn't be allowed to speak unless spoken too then that cannot legally happen as long as we have freedom of speech (since doing so violates that).

  8. #258
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,953

    re: What is the primary reason behind your support for same-sex marriage? [W:539/549]

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    The Constitution mandates that constitutional restrictions upon the Federal Government are equally applied to the States. A state has no more right to violate your ability to marry than it would to violate your ability to speech. Are you suggesting that if a state made a constitutional amendment in it's state constitution barring people from, let's say, speaking in a negative fashion about the Governor under penalty of law that it should be allowed to stand and would not be constitutionally problematic?
    No, that would be a violation of free speech (just as with your previous example where 51% of a state believes women shouldn't speak). I completely agree that the federal Constitution applies to states. What I don't believe is that banning SSM, or rather, defining marriage as one man one woman, is a violation of the Federal Constitution.
    Nice spin. I call allowing people by simple majority to enforce the will of the majority over the minority despite constitutional protections is tyranny. The fact that it just happens to be in terms of marriage right now is irrelevant but tells us a TON about your own argument.
    I think you have missed my argument. I am saying that homosexuals as a minority are not protected under the Constitution nor is any sexuality. States do have rights, what I said is that it would be tyranny to tell a state that has legally defined marriage as one man one woman (which in my view is not a violation of the Constitution) would be tyranny where the Federal government steps on the right of the states.
    But the fact they cast their vote does not inherently mean the thing they've voting for is constitutional.
    No it doesn't, but in my view it is Constitutional for a state to define marriage as one man one woman. They issue the license, it's within the realm of the Constitution, and there is nothing wrong with it.
    So what your argument is now melding into is that there isn't insufficient evidence to suggest that there is a voilation of the EPC in terms of either sexuality or gender....but that the notion of a civil right to marriage is non-existant?

    In which case then, what you're suggesting is that...hypothetically speaking...if a state was to go back to denying interracial marriage that on a constitutional level you'd be perfectly fine with that?
    The states have the authority to define marriage, they issue marriage certificates. The Federal government does not. I believe that DOMA is a violation of the Constitution and the rights of the states because it limits states that allow SSM. Federal marriage benefits in the workplace and other instances need to be given to legally married couples for that state, the federal government defining marriage and withholding those benefits violates the state's right to define the terms of marriage for that state. In this instance, DOMA is tyrannical. The opposite is also true, if the Federal government were to mandate that all states recognize SSM that would be tyrannical, it is overstepping it's boundaries and powers.

    As to your hypothetical argument which I have already addressed. If a state goes back to denying interracial marriage on the state Constitutional level that is illegal under the Federal Constitution because it violates rights based on race. The entire premise of my argument is that I do not believe that there is legal power within the Federal Constitution to mandate SSM nor do I believe that the Constitution, as written, states that defining one man one woman marriage at the state level is a violation of Constitutional rights. I believe that it is the right of the states to define marriage and issue the marriage certificates. A state may allow SSM, it may not allow SSM. The Federal government should not tell them what is or is not marriage and enforce such a thing because it violates state rights (hence, DOMA should be ruled unconstitutional). It is not a violation of the Federal Constitution of for a state to define one man one woman marriage or to define marriage as a union between two adults or even for a state to allow polygamy.
    Last edited by digsbe; 12-28-12 at 11:51 AM.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  9. #259
    Sage
    Dragonfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    East Coast - USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:37 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,496

    re: What is the primary reason behind your support for same-sex marriage? [W:539/549]

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    in my view it is Constitutional for a state to define marriage as one man one woman.
    Just to be clear - do you feel the same about marijuana laws, gun laws, voting laws, abortion laws, ......

  10. #260
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,953

    re: What is the primary reason behind your support for same-sex marriage? [W:539/549]

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonfly View Post
    Just to be clear - do you feel the same about marijuana laws, gun laws, voting laws, abortion laws, ......
    That depends entirely on the laws. I am very much pro-life, but with SCOTUS rules on abortion I think it's unconstitutional for a state to ban abortions and violate those rulings. Gun laws fall under the 2nd amendment which can be regulated but not violated. Each of these things are different though and would depend entirely on the laws passed and what the Federal Constitution says/SCOTUS rules.

    If we are going to say that defining one man one woman marriage is a violation of the Constitution because it essentially bans SSM then I believe a Constitutional amendment will be required to make such a legal claim.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

Page 26 of 71 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •