• 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
Let's just get to the point here. Homosexuality, especially amongst men, is repulsive. The majority of the population does not want to accept it as normal, legitimate behavior. The government is supposed to be an engine of the peoples' will. If it operates as designed, then gay marriage will not be passed for quite some time. Prop 8 could not even be defeated in the most liberal state in the union.

Stop trying to act as if the majority of the population should be forced to accept this agenda. That is the most unconstitutional thing imaginable.

Let's see...first you use the logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum (it is irrelevant as to what the majority want to accept in defining what is normal, legitimate behavior). Then along with this, you make value judgments to attempt to prove your position. Your values are valueless in debate.

So tell us. Do you actually have a valid argument or do you just plan on spewing irrelevancies?
 
If you aren't gay, how would allowing gay people to marry effect you? "Redefining a millenias-old institution" is just a catchy sounding phrase with no substantive impact. Just because you think something is gross personally isn't a reason to make it illegal. To justify your stance you would need to provide a tangible negative impact that is larger than the tangible positive impact that allowing tens of millions people the legal protections offered by marriage.
It's about the precedent it sets. A man ****ing a dog doesn't effect me either, but I don't I don't believe it should be granted legitimacy under law.
 
It's about the precedent it sets. A man ****ing a dog doesn't effect me either, but I don't I don't believe it should be granted legitimacy under law.

Slippery slope arguments are pretty much always weak. No one is suggesting bestiality be made legal, only gay marriage. Since gay marriage and bestiality are entirely unrelated, there is no reason to link them.
 
It's about the precedent it sets. A man ****ing a dog doesn't effect me either, but I don't I don't believe it should be granted legitimacy under law.

Non-sensical argument. Demonstrate how a dog can give consent.
 
(it is irrelevant as to what the majority want to accept in defining what is normal, legitimate behavior).

Doesn't the majority define what is a normal behavior, vs. "outsiders" who reject the norms?

That being said, the argument that consenting adults can do whatever they want with their genitals should be enough to grant the right of marriage to gay people. They should even have the right to adopt childs.
 
Let's just get to the point here. Homosexuality, especially amongst men, is repulsive. The majority of the population does not want to accept it as normal, legitimate behavior. The government is supposed to be an engine of the peoples' will. If it operates as designed, then gay marriage will not be passed for quite some time. Prop 8 could not even be defeated in the most liberal state in the union.

Stop trying to act as if the majority of the population should be forced to accept this agenda. That is the most unconstitutional thing imaginable.

You think homosexuality is repulsive? Gee, and why should we care?

Please supply reputable numbers to back up your claim that "the majority of the population does not want to accept it as normal, legitimate behavior." If you can't do that, then feel free to move on to another thread.
 
You think homosexuality is repulsive? Gee, and why should we care?

Please supply reputable numbers to back up your claim that "the majority of the population does not want to accept it as normal, legitimate behavior." If you can't do that, then feel free to move on to another thread.
Haha, are you serious? You couldn't even defeat Prop 8 in the most liberal state in the union. Give me a break.
 
is that your stock argument? this forum will eat you alive. :popcorn2:
No, but if we're talking about what the majority of the nation supports, I would say that's a damn good litmus test. I mean, we're not exactly talking about the bible belt here.
 
No, but if we're talking about what the majority of the nation supports, I would say that's a damn good litmus test. I mean, we're not exactly talking about the bible belt here.

what if the majority supported gay marriage and gay sex? Would it be less repulsive to you?
 
And a law legalizing gay marriage would be OK then?
If that law comes up for vote, and the people vote in favor of it, of course. I didn't fight for the will of the people not to be heard. I will continue to disagree with it, however.
 
If that law comes up for vote, and the people vote in favor of it, of course. I didn't fight for the will of the people not to be heard. I will continue to disagree with it, however.

good!



.
 
Haha, are you serious? You couldn't even defeat Prop 8 in the most liberal state in the union. Give me a break.

Just as a side note... CA is not the most liberal state in the union. We've voted for Republican presidents about half of the time and Democrats about half of the time. We have a Republican governor. More people in CA voted for McCain than in any other state.
 
How about a compromise then? We allow the people who are gay to marry people of the same gender, but we let the people who are straight marry people who are of the opposite gender. That way nobody needs to be involved in anything they find repulsive. Win-win!

How about a better compromise?

While you're studying the Fourteenth Amendment we'll let the people marry whomever they want.
 
The Loving ruling doesn't apply to gay marriage. Not because it's race vs Sexual orientation but because prior to Loving it was illegal for bi racial couples to marry. By illegal I mean, YOU WOULD BE ARRESTED AND JAILED. That is simply not the case now. I know of no state or federal statute that would jail a couple for being "married". Today's argument is about what benefits a couple will receive once they are "married". While I understand the debate about the Equal Protection clause because it does specifically state "privileges", the government defines the criteria to provide support to groups all the time. So how is this any different?
Full faith and credit clause doesn't apply because states are allowed to have their own laws.
 
The Loving ruling doesn't apply to gay marriage. Not because it's race vs Sexual orientation but because prior to Loving it was illegal for bi racial couples to marry. By illegal I mean, YOU WOULD BE ARRESTED AND JAILED.

No. The decision in Loving v Virginia did not rest on whether people were being jailed or not, nor would it be legal now to simply refuse to issue marriage contracts to inter racial couples. They ruled that to deny people the right to marry who they wanted because of race was a violation of equal protection and due process. The conclusion of the decision:

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

If they find either that sexual orientation is a protected class like race or they find that this is a case of gender discrimination, and they find that there is no overwhelming state interest in prohibiting gay marriage, then Loving aplies.
 
No. The decision in Loving v Virginia did not rest on whether people were being jailed or not, nor would it be legal now to simply refuse to issue marriage contracts to inter racial couples. They ruled that to deny people the right to marry who they wanted because of race was a violation of equal protection and due process. The conclusion of the decision:

If they find either that sexual orientation is a protected class like race or they find that this is a case of gender discrimination, and they find that there is no overwhelming state interest in prohibiting gay marriage, then Loving aplies.

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

If no one is being jailed for an action, they are not being deprived of their liberty.
 
And a law legalizing gay marriage would be OK then?

On the federal level?

No, the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to regulate marriage.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause, however, adamantly requires that Kansas give equal standing to all marriages performed in every other state, regardless of what toys nature gave the loving couple to play with.
 
Last edited:
Just as a side note... CA is not the most liberal state in the union. We've voted for Republican presidents about half of the time and Democrats about half of the time. We have a Republican governor.

We have a RINO governor, a Kennedy.

More people in CA voted for McCain than in any other state.

There's more people in CA than any other state, so your statement lacks meaning.
 
Full faith and credit clause doesn't apply because states are allowed to have their own laws.

Full Faith and Credit Clause:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. "


A marriage is a public act, just like a driver's license is.
 
Full Faith and Credit Clause:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. "

A marriage is a public act, just like a driver's license is.
That must mean my OH CCW is valid in MA and CT and HI.
 
If no one is being jailed for an action, they are not being deprived of their liberty.

Not, that's not right. They go into it in more detail in the whole decision at that URL, but the section I quoted says explicitly what liberty they are referring to: "The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
 
Back
Top Bottom