• 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!

Is Gay Marriage a Constitutional Right in the U.S.?

Is Gay Marriage a Constitutional Right in the U.S.?


  • Total voters
    64
Yeah, in your wet dreams.

In your wet dreams does the Duke wear a shirt? And how big is his gun?

Sorry, buddy, Raymond Burr for sure. The others are just rumors. (well, James Dean, not so much a rumor as a secret we all just go along with)
 

Yeah, read that page. It says "Familial status- Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing"

So, that's not family relation, and it only applies for housing and whether you have children or not.

Why do you think we keep bringing up incest? Do you think we're just stupid?

Honestly, it seems to me that the right keeps bringing up incest and pedophilia and all that because they're trying to paint homosexuality as being a slippery slope towards those totally unrelated things... It's like arguing "if we let the blacks into the schools, what's next? will we need to let the dogs in too?" No offense, and I'm sure you don't mean it this way, but it's just a way to hype of bigotry against gays.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, it seems to me that the right keeps bringing up incest and pedophilia and all that because they're trying to paint homosexuality as being a slippery slope towards those totally unrelated things... It's like arguing "if we let the blacks into the schools, what's next? will we need to let the dogs in too?" No offense, and I'm sure you don't mean it this way, but it's just a way to hype of bigotry against gays.

You'll change your mind the first time you see pro-gm support incest, poligamy, etc, in a DP thread.

Pro-gm has argued against me in support of those things, that's why I bring them up.

***
As a rule of thumb, unless it's clear that you're dealing with a raging lunatic, anytime you think someone is just bigoted that's a clear sign that you simply don't understand their argument.
 
Last edited:
You'll change your mind the first time you see pro-gm support incest, poligamy, etc, in a DP thread.

Pro-gm has argued against me in support of those things, that's why I bring them up.

Polygamy, yeah, I could see the Democrats supporting that. That may well be up next after sexual orientation. Basically, IMO, the government needs a compelling reason if they're going to tell people who they can marry and at least so far nobody has shown me any reason at all that the government should oppose polygamy.

As for incest, I do seem to recall somebody saying they're ok with incest... Let me search... Ah yes, here it is:

I would even support incest for this reason.

;)

As a rule of thumb, unless it's clear that you're dealing with a raging lunatic, anytime you think someone is just bigoted that's a clear sign that you simply don't understand their argument.

I totally disagree. I think all of us carry around at least some prejudices and I think that even those people who don't will sometimes take a position that is bigotry without realizing that's what they're doing.
 
As for incest, I do seem to recall somebody saying they're ok with incest... Let me search... Ah yes, here it is:

I don't appreciate you're quoting me out of context. It demonstrates your inability to debate intelligently.

I have never said that I would support incest for the sake of equality, and I challenge you to find a quote on mine to the contrary.

I totally disagree. I think all of us carry around at least some prejudices and I think that even those people who don't will sometimes take a position that is bigotry without realizing that's what they're doing.

Your post was directed to me and I am not "some people".

If you want to continue deliberately misrepresenting my argument and insisting that I must be a bigot then this conversation is over.
 
So a friend of mine posted this on Facebook:
Barack Obama Ignores The 14th Amendment When It Comes To Same-Sex Marriage Equality Across America

And it got me thinking. The 14th Amendment states:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

According to Loving v Virginia (Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), this means that marriage requirements cannot be based on race.

So does this mean, then, that the right to marriage cannot be restricted based on gender?

I am interested to see what people think of this.

If traditional marriage is not in the constitution then how can anyone with at least a ounce of common sense say that gay marriage is a Constitutional Right?
 
If traditional marriage is not in the constitution then how can anyone with at least a ounce of common sense say that gay marriage is a Constitutional Right?
Funny thing is that driving an automobile is not mentioned in the Constitution... but I dare say we would all agree that the government is prevented by the Constitution in discriminating against a certain race by preventing them from obtaining drivers licenses.
 
If traditional marriage is not in the constitution then how can anyone with at least a ounce of common sense say that gay marriage is a Constitutional Right?

I think it is the 10th amendment. And SCOTUS has ruled that that marriage is a right with the 10 th one can make the argument that marriage is a Constitutional right as well as the 14th.
 
Funny thing is that driving an automobile is not mentioned in the Constitution... but I dare say we would all agree that the government is prevented by the Constitution in discriminating against a certain race by preventing them from obtaining drivers licenses.

Not if we're talking about Asians, no.
 
I think it is the 10th amendment. And SCOTUS has ruled that that marriage is a right with the 10 th one can make the argument that marriage is a Constitutional right as well as the 14th.
What happens to this "right" if all the states repeal their marriage laws?
 
Funny thing is that driving an automobile is not mentioned in the Constitution... but I dare say we would all agree that the government is prevented by the Constitution in discriminating against a certain race by preventing them from obtaining drivers licenses.

Again if it is not listed in the US constitution then it is not a constitutional right.
 
Again if it is not listed in the US constitution then it is not a constitutional right.

Two questions.

1. Would you object if the government announced tomorrow that everyone of your particular skin color or racial descent was not allowed to drive an automobile?

2. Would your objection, should you object, be based in some part upon the Constitution?
 
Two questions.

1. Would you object if the government announced tomorrow that everyone of your particular skin color or racial descent was not allowed to drive an automobile?

Yes I would object. I am against racial discrimination regardless if is affirmative actions or something else that discriminates based on race for something else like marriage,driving, housing and etc.

2. Would your objection, should you object, be based in some part upon the Constitution?
No it wouldn't be based on the Constitution.
 
marriage should be abolished completely if two consenting adults whatever age that might be cannot get married. any other rule is not the way it should be.
 
What happens to this "right" if all the states repeal their marriage laws?

Nothing since it is a federal issue at this point. Full Faith and Credit Clause:

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause]Full Faith and Credit Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
What happens to this "right" if all the states repeal their marriage laws?

A lot of the difficulties with this subject was born out of usurpation of power by the State. Is marriage a "right", with what marriage currently is today; yes it is. What marriage is now is a state issued and recognized contract. Right to Contract is a basic right of the People, you are free to engage in contract. As such, the government has no right to tell you that you can't set your affairs to the degree you wish with someone whom is same sexed as you.

Now what happens to the "right" if marriage laws are repealed. The problem is we are talking about two different things. Marriage in and of itself is not a right, it was originally a religious ceremony. If you got rid of the marriage license, you can return it again to a fully religious event. But because the government has taken it, it has become valid to our rights, specifically in the case of marriage Right to Contract. You can't get rid of that right no matter what. You can remove the institution of marriage from it, but you cannot end Right to Contract, it is a fundamental right of all freemen.
 
Nothing since it is a federal issue at this point. Full Faith and Credit Clause:
There is no fedral law that creates the institution of marrige.

If all the state laws that create and recongnize the institution of marriage are repealed - therefby eliminating any FF&C argument - then how does the institution of marriage still exist? What happens to the "right"?
 
No it wouldn't be based on the Constitution.

Then what would be the basis of your objection? "Hey I don't like this!" doesn't really hold water in court.
 
Now what happens to the "right" if marriage laws are repealed. The problem is we are talking about two different things. Marriage in and of itself is not a right, it was originally a religious ceremony. If you got rid of the marriage license, you can return it again to a fully religious event. But because the government has taken it, it has become valid to our rights, specifically in the case of marriage Right to Contract. You can't get rid of that right no matter what. You can remove the institution of marriage from it, but you cannot end Right to Contract, it is a fundamental right of all freemen.
Are you arguing that state cannot repeal their marriage laws?
And/or that doing so woudl have no effect on the institution of marriage?
 
There is no fedral law that creates the institution of marrige.

If all the state laws that create and recongnize the institution of marriage are repealed - therefby eliminating any FF&C argument - then how does the institution of marriage still exist? What happens to the "right"?

Okay fine live in a fantasy world.
 
Back
Top Bottom