• 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

Gay marriage; where do you fall?

  • I support gay marriage as a Federal mandated "right"

    Votes: 19 52.8%
  • I support GM on a state to state basis IF decided by the citizens or passed by its Legislature

    Votes: 12 33.3%
  • I support State Courts dictating to the legistlature that gay marriage is a right

    Votes: 7 19.4%
  • I believe a Constitutional Amendment should be passed baning gay marriage

    Votes: 2 5.6%
  • I do not believe Gay Marriage should ever be a right

    Votes: 6 16.7%

  • Total voters
    36
  • Poll closed .
I think it's impractical to have any type of marriage that is recognized in some states but not others. Just creates slop and mess. I don't believe that disallowing gay marriage is a civil rights issue as gays and lesbians have the same limits on who they can marry as any other folks do. That said, I think they should be allowed to marry for no other reason then, "what the hell do I care..." There are tons of gay and lesbian couples that live as lifelong partners and there are tons of hetero couples who crap all over the sanctity of marriage. I don't see how recognizing gay marriage will in any way damage marriage and I view marriage as couples coming together to live out their lives in a monogamous setting and can't think of one good reason why any state should not accept any couples desire to be legally recognized as such a couple on the basis of but "they're gaaaaay."
 
Last edited:
Damn minorly, tricky situations that don't fit into neat geometrical political models. These must need to be solved by centralised, uniform interference!

How would YOU suggest they are solved? On what basis?
 
Zimmer, why not an option for the government to get out of marriage entirely?

Well... just isn't something likely to happen. The others could or should.

.
 
Let the states decide. If a state does recognize it, that union should be recognized by all other states.

I still think the best solution is to get government out of marriage, period.
 
They don't always have to be "solved". Just in case no one told you libs, perfection is far from always possible in politics and to constantly struggle for it can be quite dangerous.

Perfection may be impossible, but a resolution to lawsuits is always possible. So I'll rephrase the question:

Who would YOU propose deals with each of the situations I listed, if not the federal government? They all either involve the federal government directly, or affect the jurisdiction of more than one state which therefore involves the federal government indirectly.

The feds can't just abdicate responsibility on this. Only the feds have the authority to do anything about those examples I listed, as explicitly stated in Article III Section 2 of the Constitution:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
 
Last edited:
Easy answer for me. It's up to the states, and not the Federal government's business.

you mean its up to supreme courts, they'll strike down the ban like always.
 
Last edited:
This poll doesn't include the important "Marriage should not be a legal entity to begin with, for anyone" option.
 
This poll doesn't include the important "Marriage should not be a legal entity to begin with, for anyone" option.

Only because that's a ridiculous option to begin with.
 
Only because that's a ridiculous option to begin with.

My ass it is. Name one reason marriage should be a government institution.
 
Perfection may be impossible, but a resolution to lawsuits is always possible. So I'll rephrase the question:

Who would YOU propose deals with each of the situations I listed, if not the federal government? They all either involve the federal government directly, or affect the jurisdiction of more than one state which therefore involves the federal government indirectly.

The feds can't just abdicate responsibility on this. Only the feds have the authority to do anything about those examples I listed, as explicitly stated in Article III Section 2 of the Constitution:
All I was saying is not all ambiquities need to be solved if that means we need to bring in some centralised authority. I'm not particularly interested in the ins and outs of the cases but simply in stating that one has to weigh up the problems with the costs of the centralised solution and should not be afriad of minor distortions to geometrical models of politics.
 
All I was saying is not all ambiquities need to be solved if that means we need to bring in some centralised authority. I'm not particularly interested in the ins and outs of the cases but simply in stating that one has to weigh up the problems with the costs of the centralised solution and should not be afriad of minor distortions to geometrical models of politics.

Saying you aren't afraid of minor distortions is all well and good, but sooner or later people will start filing lawsuits for the reasons in that list (and other ambiguous situations that aren't on the list). When that happens, what are the federal courts going to do? Tell the plaintiffs/prosecutors and defendants to figure it out on their own? That seems highly unlikely. They're going to eventually rule that states must recognize marriages in other states, which will effectively legalize gay marriage nationwide.
 
Saying you aren't afraid of minor distortions is all well and good, but sooner or later people will start filing lawsuits for the reasons in that list (and other ambiguous situations that aren't on the list). When that happens, what are the federal courts going to do? Tell the plaintiffs/prosecutors and defendants to figure it out on their own? That seems highly unlikely. They're going to eventually rule that states must recognize marriages in other states, which will effectively legalize gay marriage nationwide.

Of course they are. The federal judiciary in the US has hardly been the most conservative, anti-activist body in recent decades has it.

All I'm saying is minor and even some moderate distortions to geometrical politics are fine, even good sometimes, despite the creed what the creed of universalist, centralist liberalism demands these days.

England must leave the EU now!
 
My ass it is. Name one reason marriage should be a government institution.

Because marriage tends to produce stronger communities, more disposable wealth which helps the economy and a more stable populace, all of which are things which the government, as representatives of the people, ought to be supporting.
 
Because marriage tends to produce stronger communities, more disposable wealth which helps the economy and a more stable populace, all of which are things which the government, as representatives of the people, ought to be supporting.

All excellent points, particularly those about community and stability. Although marriage is perhaps the the rather perfect residue of decent, strong kinship and community bonds.

You should remember though that to my recollection Unrein is a completely atomistic individualist or egoist, ie no such thing as society, kind of a guy(except strangely on economics.). So he's probably not too impressed by talk of community and stable social bonds.:roll:
 
Last edited:
Because marriage tends to produce stronger communities,

But why should the government be involved?

more disposable wealth which helps the economy and a more stable populace,

You don't see the problem that creates?

all of which are things which the government, as representatives of the people, ought to be supporting.

Supporting is different than incentivising. Using government benefits to entice people into marriage does nothing but pollute the idea. People who love each other and have intent to commit to one another will do it whether there is a steak and the end of a string being dangled in front of them or not.

Now what you are doing is motivating couples who aren't committed at heart but want benefits, so they rush into marriage needlessly just to find out they hate each other. People who have a sincere commitment will 'marry' and settle down with or without benefits, the only marriage that government benefits could possible produce are toxic ones. Higher divorce rates and fatherless children.

Also, not to mention, this system is unfair toward single people. Not everyone can find love, they shouldn't be forced to pay a slightly higher tax burden over it. The married couple is already receiving inherent economic benefits by moving in with one another and sharing commodities, they don't need extra tax breaks over it.

And this leaves us with one last thing. Physical rights. Any person should be allowed to write a contract with another person directing their will, visitation rights and adoption of children, whether they are married or just close friends. People should be allowed to initiate those rights between one another regardless of their marital status.
 
You should remember though that to my recollection Unrein is a completely atomistic individualist or egoist, ie no such thing as society, kind of a guy(except strangely on economics.).

I'am neither saying society doesn't exist, nor that it isn't important. I'am saying that government directed social engineering or people's personal lives and relationships pollutes society, it doesn't abet it.

And the economy is not the same thing. The placement of material goods and direction of production is not the same thing as personal freedom to one's own body and relationship to other people.
 
I'am neither saying society doesn't exist, nor that it isn't important. I'am saying that government directed social engineering or people's personal lives and relationships pollutes society, it doesn't abet it.
Your points came out to the same thing.

And the economy is not the same thing. The placement of material goods and direction of production is not the same thing as personal freedom to one's own body and relationship to other people.
This is where you make no sense, property and the economy are very important in the lives of individuals, as important to society as the right for homosexuals to marry.
 
I am sad at these poll results! It seems as if some folks still have backwards thinking that Gay Marriage should never be a right. What is wrong with people:(
 
This is where you make no sense, property and the economy are very important in the lives of individuals, as important to society as the right for homosexuals to marry.

I'am not saying the right for gays to marry isn't important, I am saying using the government to engineer personal social interaction will never help, it will only damage.
 
I'am not saying the right for gays to marry isn't important, I am saying using the government to engineer personal social interaction will never help, it will only damage.

Gov't is one of many important social associations and relationships, to neglect its place is as bad as too overstate it. Gov't certainly has a role in supporting a healthy society and healthy social associations.

The reason it requires this light to moderate place is maintaining social stability and authority is because in this day and age there are strict limits to authority of those groups and leaders of social associations. The parent's authority is very circumscribed, as is the that of the kinship group and its pater familias or even mater familias, as is the local community and its leaders, the priests, the employers, the guild/union leaders etc. With the authority of these greatly reduced the state needs to pick up the slack a little.
 
Last edited:
Gov't is one of many important social associations and relationships, to neglect its place is as bad as too overstate it. Gov't certainly has a role in supporting a healthy society and healthy social associations.

It's role is to represent society, to protect people from violation, and in my opinion to help structure and provide the economic functions, but not to engineer people's personal lives. There are only very limited exception I take to that, all with compliance of reasoning, and marriage is far from making that list.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom