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 Iím gay/lesbian

    3 1.76%
  • Because itís 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 donít want to be labeled a bigot

    1 0.59%
  • Iím opposed to gay marriage

    14 8.24%
  • I donít care, either way

    17 10.00%
  • Other

    32 18.82%
Page 28 of 71 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 710

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

  1. #271
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    07-08-14 @ 06:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,325

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Verthaine View Post
    Nothing about gay women.But don't let that stop you from spreading hatred.
    Don't let the other half of the gender equation keep you from obfuscating the issue.... wait.

  2. #272
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    The problem is the body with the power to interprit the Constitution, the SCOTUS, found that marriage IS a constitutionally protected right. Which means it's as protected from being violated by the states as Free Speech is.
    And it's not a violation of the Constitution for a state to define one man one woman marriage which indirectly bans SSM.
    And you're incorrect based on legal precedence as evidenced by the concurring opinion in Lawrence v. Texas or the ruling in Romer v. Evans. You can state that they SHOULDN'T be, but that's a different argument.

    Also, statements fail to address the other point of my post which was suggesting that the issue could be completely seperated from the notion of "homosexuals" at all and be looked at by gender.
    The act of sodomy laws and banning homosexual sex is unconstitutional. However, I do not believe that Constitutionally homosexuals as a group are protected to the same level as race, religion, and gender which are specific in the Constitution. I don't believe that issuing equal rights on the basis of sexuality is clearly outlined in the Constitution. If we want to extend equal rights on the basis of sexuality I believe that an amendment is needed. People can do as they please when it comes to sodomy/homosexuality with their own bodies, but because someone is homosexual does not grant them equal rights as is the fact that they are a member of a race or religion.
    Requiring that the States make their laws in accordance with the Constitutional requirements of Equal Protection is no more tyrannical than saying states must make their laws in accordance with the Constitutional requirement of free speech.
    It's not a violation of ECP to define one man one woman relationships as marriage unless of course the SCOTUS rules otherwise.
    I've never stated that opposition to those facts. They do have tha authority....but that definition MUST be constitutional in nature.
    I do believe that the definition is Constitutional in nature if a state defines marriage as between a man and woman and within a states right to do so.
    I'll be honest in stating I don't know a great deal about DOMA so can't speak to it in the specific sense.
    A landmark case in an appeals court in MA stated that DOMA was unconstitutional because it infringes upon a state's right to define marriage. Likewise, it also upholds a state's right to do so, this is a quote directly from the ruling.
    To conclude, many Americans believe that marriage is the
    union of a man and a woman, and most Americans live in states where
    that is the law today. One virtue of federalism is that it permits
    this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies
    as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex
    marriage.
    The ruling was largely made because DOMA violates MA's right to define marriage and include same sex relationships. It is unconstitutional on the grounds of states rights, not that it's unconstitutional to define marriage as between a man and woman. Here is a link to the pdf ruling: http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cas...uit-ruling.pdf
    Your argument makes no logical sense then. The Constitution no more clearly states that Race is protected then it states Sexual Orientation or Gender is protected. You are simply deeming that you'll adhere to judicial precedence in one case but ignore it in another. Which if that's the way you want to go...fine. But don't sit here and try to imply to me that your argument is based off the notion that Race is clearly a constitutionally protected class but sexual orientation isn't when they both are protected for the same reason...judicial precedence.


    So if I'm understanding you now....your argument is that Marriage is a constitutional civil right, and that there is a Constitutional requirement for Equal Protection of the Law, but that equal protection applies to Race but doesn't apply to homosexuals because........?
    My argument is that and always has been that defining one man one woman marriage is not a violation of the Constitution or the EPC. It does not apply to homosexuals because I don't believe under the Constitution that it clearly states that sexuality is protected to the level that a state cannot define marriages that exclude certain sexual relationships.
    It violates states rights no more than the Federal Government telling them what is or is not a marriage in the case of race since it's based on the exact same constitutional principle.

    Also, you've still not addressed the notion of Gender Inequality...which is what I stated I actually argue based off of, not sexual orientation discrimination. Under the law the man is able to do something a woman can not and vise versa. Stating "Well people voted that they want it that was" is not a legally viable "important state interest".
    There is legal sexual inequality in this country. Under the law men are forced to sign up with selective service, women are not. There are areas that men and woman cannot enter (restrooms are an example) and currently combat roles and military roles are not equal when it comes to men ad women in the military. I don't think it's outside the law to say that only females can be wives/brides or that only males can be husbands/grooms or to say that marriage is only between a man and woman. I would agree that it is a violation of the Constitution if the Equal Rights Amendment was ratified, but it failed to be ratified.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    No ones wishing to remove the right for a state to define marriage....they simply wish for the states definition to be Constitutional. Stating that barring same sex marriages is unconstitutional no more "removes the states right to define marriage" then stating the barring of interracial marriages removed it.

    It restricts it....but the Constitution is meant to RESTRICT the government from infringing upon peoples rights.
    As it is I again do not believe that the Constitution as written is violated by states that define one man one woman marriages. The SCOTUS may disagree and I'll accept that I was wrong, but in my opinion I think it would require a Constitutional amendment to make it so.
    Last edited by digsbe; 12-28-12 at 01:15 PM.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  3. #273
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooble View Post
    Sure it does. The following paragraph on this link will be of most interest to you:

    Since 2000, the largest increase in syphilis cases has been among men who have sex with men (MSM). In 2010, MSM accounted for two-thirds of syphilis cases (67%), up from just 4% in 2000 (1). This is of particular concern, since MSM are also most heavily affected by HIV, and syphilis infection can facilitate HIV transmission (1).

    CDC NPIN ? STDs - Today
    so discouraging monogamous stable relationships via gay marriage bans is the correct course of action ?
    Last edited by winston53660; 12-28-12 at 12:56 PM.

  4. #274
    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]

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooble View Post
    No, it isn't. You simply changed the dance to the racebaiter two step. Sorry, pal. I don't play your kind of racial games. Unlike you, I actually know how to separate skin tone from behavior.
    Yes it is,and that's a matter for future generations to decide.I didn't accuse you of being a racist,I accuse you of being a bigot using the same arguments as bigots before you have.
    Nice try and spectacular fail on your part.
    Bigots aren't necessarily racists.You are the one who can't seem to make that distinction.

  5. #275
    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]

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooble View Post
    Don't let the other half of the gender equation keep you from obfuscating the issue.... wait.
    Ahh,so you have no problem with gay women,it's gay men you have a problem with.

  6. #276
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:25 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,351
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooble View Post
    Sure it does. The following paragraph on this link will be of most interest to you:

    Since 2000, the largest increase in syphilis cases has been among men who have sex with men (MSM). In 2010, MSM accounted for two-thirds of syphilis cases (67%), up from just 4% in 2000 (1). This is of particular concern, since MSM are also most heavily affected by HIV, and syphilis infection can facilitate HIV transmission (1).

    CDC NPIN ? STDs - Today
    Being gay is not a risk factor for HIV. Sorry. Certain activities are risk factors, not states of being.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  7. #277
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,831

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    It doesn't change a persons marriage but it absolutely can affect the rest of society. If the government begins recognizing same-sex marriage, or specifically "gay marriage", then essentially this means that all forms of private enterprise that provide additional benefits, categories, services, etc for "married" couples will be forced under the law to acknowledge and accept those types of same sex or gay marriages in those instances OR remove those instances from their enterprise. It also creates an inherent cultural change within society in terms of the notion of what marriage is, impacting for example, the teachings ones child will recieve regarding the practice.

    Now you may say "Well, Too ****ing bad...Gay People deserve rights too and if those bigots don't like it, tough ****" and you're more than in your rights to say it...but it wouldn't change the fact that it would still be something tangably affecting them.

    Their own "marriage" being changed inherently is a silly argument, but suggesting it will have an effect on them in general or in terms of the notion of "marriage" is absolutely true.
    well i agree thats why i didnt say society
    yes society is "effected" in ways but thats just life, equal rights does that. When blacks and women were granted equal rights society was effected.

    as far as what people believe or are taught thats up to them, IE people still feel and teach women and minorities are lesser

    Many things "effect" society in some way

    nobody will be forced to "accept" anything though in personal terms
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  8. #278
    Sage
    Dragonfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    East Coast - USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:43 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,564

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonfly View Post
    So I'm curious. What are your thoughts on the honest input you've gotten so far?

    Are you glad you started the thread?

    What are your thoughts on the poll responses?

    Why did you start this thread? Were you hoping for more confirmation regarding your own thoughts and beliefs? Are you disappointed with the
    passionate responses and the number of responses in support of SSM?

    Did you expect something different in terms of the responses?
    Still waiting for your answers on this.....

  9. #279
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

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

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    And it's not a violation of the Constitution for a state to define one man one woman marriage which indirectly bans SSM.
    And I disagree with this. Ultimately, it's what's going to get determined in court. We have judicial precedence that the EPC applies to sexual orientation and to gender. We have judicial precedence that marriage is a civil right. We have constitutional amendments stating that States are subject to the restrictions of the constitution.

    The act of sodomy laws and banning homosexual sex is unconstitutional.
    They're unconstiuttional BECAUSE homosexuality is protected under teh EPC.

    However, I do not believe that Constitutionally homosexuals as a group are protected to the same level as race, religion, and gender which are specific in the Constitution.
    This is correct, they are protected at a lower level than those things. That doesn't mean they're not protected, it just means that the state has a lower burden to justify their discrimination....but they still need to meet that burden and "Because people want it" doesn't meet it.

    I don't believe that issuing equal rights on the basis of sexuality is clearly outlined in the Constitution.
    It's as "clearly outlined" as any of the other things you listed. Why is an amendment needed to do it for sexuality but not for Race or Gender?

    It's not a violation of ECP to define one man one woman relationships as marriage unless of course the SCOTUS rules otherwise.
    And I'm arguing that they should rule otherwise because there has been no demonstrated IMPORTANT state interest that is substantially served by denying them based on gender. Can you offer one?

    The ruling was largely made because DOMA violates MA's right to define marriage and include same sex relationships. It is unconstitutional on the grounds of states rights, not that it's unconstitutional to define marriage as between a man and woman. Here is a link to the pdf ruling: http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cas...uit-ruling.pdf
    And I can see where they come to that conclussion, in part because that was the argument and directoin put forth to the court and because it was not challenging based on the notion that there was an EPC violation.

    My argument is that and always has been that defining one man one woman marriage is not a violation of the Constitution or the EPC. It does not apply to homosexuals because I don't believe under the Constitution that it clearly states that sexuality is protected to the level that a state cannot define marriages that exclude certain sexual relationships.
    And this continues to be my confusion and my assertion that your argument is illogical because the constitution doesn't "Clearly state" that race and gender can't be discriminated against either and yet you ROUTINELY point to those as being legitimate. Those have been defined in the same manner sexual orientation has bee ndefined as applying to the EPC....through judicial preccedence.

    There is legal sexual inequality in this country.
    Correect. That legal sexual inequality in this country meets the required standard under the EPC. I invite you again....provide an important State Interest (Let me pull out a common one, "raising a family", that is an example of a state interest. "People wanting it" is not a state interest) that you believe is substantially served by discriminating against gender in marriage.

    As it is I again do not believe that the Constitution as written is violated by states that define one man one woman marriages. The SCOTUS may disagree and I'll accept that I was wrong, but in my opinion I think it would require a Constitutional amendment to make it so.
    That's fine. Accept the fact then that you're picking and choosing which pieces of judicial precedence you wish to accept and making up things to justify it to yourself such as stating what the constitution "Clearly" states.

  10. #280
    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]

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooble View Post
    I'm opposed to same-sex marriage for the simple fact that I believe it is contrary to God's will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dooble View Post
    I agree that homosexual marriage is an abomination in the sight of God.
    “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))



    Quote Originally Posted by Dooble View Post
    Yet same-sex couples don't share identical body functions that straight people have, therefore, they should not be allowed to legally wed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dooble View Post
    Not before I suggest that you read the post I was responding to. His logic was flawed. There is zero proof that same-sex couples can love each other the EXACT same way heterosexual couples love each other. There's simply no way this is possible, as one major reason is that same-sex couples cannot create life together -- that is a bond they will never understand, and is a primary reason for marriage, in the first place.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dooble View Post
    Back to the original argument that I refuted. Homosexuals can't possibly share the EXACT same love with each other that Heterosexuals share.
    “The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always*
    productive of deplorable results. *The purity of the public morals, the moral*
    and physical development of both races, and the highest advancement of*
    civilization . . . all require that [the races] should be kept distinctly separate,*
    and that connections and alliances so unnatural should be prohibited by*
    positive law and subject to no evasion.”
    * *(Source: Dissenting California Supreme Court Justice objecting to that*
    Court's decision striking * * * * * down a state law ban on interracial marriage in*
    Perez_v. Lippold, 198 P.2d 17, 41 (1948), (Shenk, J. dissenting))



    Quote Originally Posted by Dooble View Post
    It doesn't matter how many times you discussed it here, lol. You can discuss a billion times and that still won't make it any less wrong. If homosexuals actually had the right to marry, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. They would be good to go in all 50 states. As it stands, they aren't even close.*


    Now, if you were to say that it is inevitable that the SC will cave-in to radical pressure, I would be more inclined to agree with you. But as it stands, you're wrong.... as usual.
    “[S]uch laws [banning interracial marriage] have been in effect in this
    country since before our national independence and in this state since our first
    legislative session. They have never been declared unconstitutional by
    any court in the land although frequently they have been under attack. It is
    difficult to see why such laws, valid when enacted and constitutionally
    enforceable in this state for nearly one hundred years and elsewhere for a
    much longer period of time, are now unconstitutional under the same
    constitution.”
    (Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 35 (Shenk, J. dissenting))


    Quote Originally Posted by Dooble View Post
    Intersting that you compared alcohol consumption to homosexuality/same-sex marriage. Both can be destructive to the person physically, and most certainly destructive to the person spiritually.
    "Persons wishing to enter into interracial marriages come from the “dregs of
    society.”
    (Source: Advocates in favor of California's ban on interracial marriage,
    quoted in Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 25)


    Quote Originally Posted by Dooble View Post
    Since 2000, the largest increase in syphilis cases has been among men who have sex with men (MSM). In 2010, MSM accounted for two-thirds of syphilis cases (67%), up from just 4% in 2000 (1). This is of particular concern, since MSM are also most heavily affected by HIV, and syphilis infection can facilitate HIV transmission (1).

    CDC NPIN ? STDs - Today
    "Racial intermarriage should not be allowed because of the physical inferiority
    and higher incidence of certain diseases among certain races, such as
    sickle-cell anemia among African Americans."
    (Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 23-24 and n.5 (summarizing the
    State's argument in favor of ban on interracial marriage))


    Like I said in post #255,very eerily similar.

Page 28 of 71 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... 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
  •