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 29 of 71 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 710

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

  1. #281
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,983

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    Agreed, ultimately the SCOTUS will decide.
    They're unconstiuttional BECAUSE homosexuality is protected under teh EPC.
    The act of homosexual sex is, forcing states to recognize homosexual unions as a legal marriage is not in my opinion.
    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 believe that the states right to define and issue marriage licenses is above the right of homosexuals to have their sexuality recognized as a legal marriage with marriage terminology.
    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?
    We had racial inequality until an amendment was added. Under the current Constitution I just don't see it legally protecting homosexual marriages and forcing that upon the states that issue licenses/certificates and that they adopt such a definition.
    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?
    I personally think that there isn't a pressing logical issue that prevents SSM. But I also believe that it is within the due process of the law for a state to define marriage as one man one woman.
    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.
    The fact still remains that the ruling was based on the fact that MA has a right to define marriage and the federal government does not have the authority to limit that. It may not have been tried on the grounds of the EPC, but it was tried on the grounds of state rights and on those grounds it is completely legal for a state to define marriage.
    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.
    The constitution clearly discusses racial equality with Amendment 15. The Constitution clearly discusses sex/gender in Amendment 19. There is no Amendment extending rights on the basis of sexuality. One may argue that sexuality can tie into gender, but as far as it being clearly mentioned it isn't there. Unlike race and gender, sexuality is not clearly mentioned which is what I'm getting at. You may be arguing SSM as a Federal Constitutional right based on gender, but to state that it is in violation due to sexuality (homosexuality in specific) I just don't think it's there.
    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.
    It's not unconstitutional to define marriage as one man one woman. An interest does not need to be stated in amendments to state Constitutions doing such. What important state interests are there in outlawing polygamy, incest, making bestiality illegal or other such things? It is within due process of the law for people in a state to define the terms for marriage that exclude polygamy and homosexuality. Regardless, important state interest is subjective to individual beliefs. I support SSM at the state level, I see no logical reason to ban it so I can't produce an important state interest from my own beliefs. However, I also think it's overstepping federal powers under the current Constitution to void a states right to define marriage as one man one woman and fully respect the right of states to do so or to legalize SSM and polygamy.
    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.
    Incorrect. I believe rulings on DOMA and the upheld belief that states may define marriage as one man one woman overpowers rulings striking down sodomy laws. By clearly stating something, the Constitution directly has amendments for race and gender, not sexuality. As I've said, the Constitution has causes directly and clearly discussing racial and gender rights, there aren't ones for sexuality. You may be arguing based on gender, and I disagree that it is a violation of rights based on gender to say that a man can be a wife/bride or that a woman can be a husband/groom or to force all marriage definitions to state that a union is between two consenting adults regardless of sex. I don't think the legal definition of marriage that we have held in this country up until a few states changed that years ago is unconstitutional and unlawfully discriminating against gender rights. The judicial fact is that the Federal government does not have the authority to tell a state how to define marriage and the current definitions are lawful until overturned by the SCOTUS if that indeed happens. I personally think for that to happen that an amendment should be added to the constitution that repeals a states right to define marriages and clarifies that it is gender discrimination or discrimination based on sexuality for a state to do as such and the fact that that has been upheld in nearly all states (with the exception of California where SSM had been previously allowed).
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  2. #282
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

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

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    The constitution clearly discusses racial equality with Amendment 15.
    Only in regards to voting.

    The Constitution clearly discusses sex/gender in Amendment 19.
    Again, only in terms of voting.

    There's a reason why Brown v. Board of Education utilized the 14th and not the 15th...becuase it had nothing to do with voting. The fact that the 15th was present and pointed out race is irrelevant to the notion that the 14th applies to race. The 15th is singularly about voting rights.


    It's not unconstitutional to define marriage as one man one woman.
    . . . .sigh

    I'm not denying it's currently found to be constitution. I'm asking you WHY you believe that's correct.

    What important state interests are there in outlawing polygamy, incest, making bestiality illegal or other such things?
    I'm going insane here because it's becoming clear you have no clue what you're talking about and that's why there's a disconnect.

    Polygamy can not be argued from the notion of Gender discrimination. If you feel it could be, please present your argument as to how. It can't be argued based on Race either. It would have to be very narrowly tailored to be argued on Religion, and it wouldn't stand up to well since there's no clear discrimination against someone because of their religion. As such, at best, it'd qualify as needing rational basis scrutiny...the lowest level of scrutiny...and as such doesn't need to have a "Important" state interest but rather a legitimate state interest.

    The state has a legitimate interest in maintaining an equitable tax code, as well as being reasonable in terms of public spending in terms of the contract aspects that would need to be dealt with in such situations. Allowing for polygamous marriage creates a plethora of significantly new and unique tax issues due to the potential stringing together of multiple households through contractual marriage and thus creating a swiss cheese setup of tax connections. For example, one man marries two wives. One of those wives marries a second man who he himself has three wives, one of which is also married to the wife that shares both husbands. How is the tax code worked up for those individuals? How would things be settled with regards to divorce, custody rights, power of attorny, etc. Does husband one, husband two, or the wife have precedence.

    Beastiality, if you're talking about it in the sense of Marriage since that's the only way that it'd really be relevant to this discussion, has a similar issue with acting that it requires "important" state interest and again is another thing that is questionable as to whether or not it even register for the "rational basis" level of things. But lets assume it does. The state has a legitimate state interest in terms of the legitimacy of contracts and allowing for an entity that does not have the ability to actually consent to be able to enter into a binding legal contract is problematic for that legitimate state interest.

    In terms of incestuous marriage, I'm actually one who doesn't believe that should be inherently illegal from a constitutional stand point.

    There, for two seperate ones you've provided me I've given you, off the cuff, clear and reasoned examples of a State Interest that the government has in denying them the ability to marry and an indication of how it's needed in relation to the particular discrimination. Something you've yet to provide in this entire conversation in terms of gender.

  3. #283
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,516

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

    I support gay marriage for one reason and one reason only...

    Equal protection under the law. So as soon as the "hate" laws go away, we can move forward.

    Marriage is marriage and assault is assault. Having special laws for some but not all is tearing this country asunder. It needs to stop.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  4. #284
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    I support gay marriage for one reason and one reason only...

    Equal protection under the law. So as soon as the "hate" laws go away, we can move forward.

    Marriage is marriage and assault is assault. Having special laws for some but not all is tearing this country asunder. It needs to stop.
    Agree here. While I can understand the notion of judging something more sternly on a case by case basis, based on Judges discretion, within the STANDARD degrees of punishment for a crime when the action is done specifically due to the persons race or gender or other such thing I am completely and utterly against the notion that there should be an additional Law and criminal charge on the books specifically for such cases.

  5. #285
    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 winston53660 View Post
    so discouraging monogamous stable relationships via gay marriage bans is the correct course of action ?
    Only if you suport illegal marriages such as same-sex marriage, which I don't, so, no.

  6. #286
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Equal protection under the law. So as soon as the "hate" laws go away, we can move forward.
    Moving ForwardTM doesn't help when you're facing the wrong direction.

  7. #287
    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
    Only if you suport illegal marriages such as same-sex marriage, which I don't, so, no.
    So you don't support SSM because it isn't legal?

    Would you feel the same if interracial marriages weren't legal?


    “[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))

  8. #288
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Verthaine View Post
    “[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))
    [tangent]
    I love this citation because it references the country existing before the Constitution, in fact even before we declared independence. This plays to other threads where folks ask "is this a Christian nation", invalidating arguments relying on the Constitution. The yes/no answer to that question is not based on the law, but the culture of the people. The country existed before our constitution, our country will exist after the current constitution is gon.
    [/tangent]

  9. #289
    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
    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.
    No, it isn't. You just had to use the issue of race to try and make a point. You were probably fishing for a potential racist. Bigotry has nothing to do with it. I support both the laws of the land as well the laws of God. You ignore both, and yet you still have the coconuts to point your finger at me. I'm not the bigot here, and I'm certainly not the hypocrite, either.

  10. #290
    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
    Only if you suport illegal marriages such as same-sex marriage, which I don't, so, no.
    Gay marriage in and of its self is not illegal. Gays get married every day all across this country in every single State. What ,unfortunately, is "illegal" is in to many States it is illegal for the State to recognize gay marriage

Page 29 of 71 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... 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
  •