View Poll Results: Gay marriage should be legal in America

Voters
140. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    49 35.00%
  • No

    91 65.00%
Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 167

Thread: Gay marriage should be a constitutional right in America

  1. #111
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,952

    Re: Gay marriage should be a constitutional right in America

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Your talking about a definition.

    "Marriage" is in the law, "Traditional Marriage" is now. One can't change the definition of traditional marriage unless one forges a new tradition. However, our laws are LAWS, not traditions, and are subject to rules that simple traditions are not.
    you are right in that Traditional Marriage is in the law now. For many state's they have legally defined marriage within the traditional definition. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, no where in the Constitution does it say that all sexual orientations must be allowed to have an inclusive definition within the marriage covenant for all states. State's issue the marriage license, and they have the right to define what relationships fit that license. Our laws are based on the will of the people. It's tradition to hold murder as immoral, to hold theft as immoral, and to hold disorderly conducts as immoral. Those traditions are also laws.
    You present define "Marriage" as being the same as "traditional marriage" which is defined as "between a man and a woman".

    That's great.

    That doesn't mean that is any kind of legal defense.
    The legal defense is that state's issue marriage licenses. Many states have formerly defined what marriage is in that states. A few have included homosexual unions as acceptable marital relationships. Others have restricted the definition only between one man and one woman. The legal defense is that a state and the citizens of that state have every right as a society, to define a social contract that is recognized by the law.
    If I define "Side A" of my resturant as "The White side of the resturant" and "Side B" of my resturant as "The black side of the resturant" I can't go "What? You can't ask me to allow black people into side A! That'd force me to change the definition of what Side A is!"
    So then why is it ok to say "this side of the restaurant (marriage) is for gay couples and straight couples. Now, all you other sexualities aren't even allowed inside." If the basis for argument is that it's wrong to disallow homosexual unions from marriage because it's unlawful define marriage as an exclusive thing for one sexuality, then why can't other sexualities along side homosexuality have the right to that contract? Defining spaces in a restaurant and setting the terms for a contract are very different. Suppose there is a contract set in place that gives financial benefits to corporations. Is it wrong for that contract to limit the contract only to corporations and not to individuals? The individuals have money too, they just aren't the same as a corporation. So is it wrong for to make contracts that only allow corporations or other entities? Is it wrong to any contract to have any boundaries? It isn't wrong for a state to define marriage, especially when the state's give out the licenses. They have every right to set the terms, conditions, and boundaries on the contract.
    Having to change the definition of something is not a worth while legal defense.

    Simply because something WAS defined in one way does not mean that is any kind of legal or constitutional standing to violate constitutional protections.
    So then why is it ok to redefine something that has been legal for centuries? Why, within the years America has existed, have there not been any legal gay marriages up until this point in history? It's because society defines marriage, and society has traditionally held religious values.
    The definition of "equality" as it applied to Black people at one time was "Seperate but equal". That definition was changed because it was unconstitutional.
    Sexuality is not the same as race. This is like comparing homosexuality to polygamy.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  2. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Gay marriage should be a constitutional right in America

    Quote Originally Posted by BDBoop View Post
    All in favor, all opposed. I'm not putting any other options. Don't vote if you can't choose one or the other.
    I think I like the way things are headed: there is no gay marriage. There is only marriage and everyone has equal access to it.

  3. #113
    Dangerous Spinmaster
    RightOfCenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Last Seen
    04-14-12 @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,736

    Re: Gay marriage should be a constitutional right in America

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    you are right in that Traditional Marriage is in the law now. For many state's they have legally defined marriage within the traditional definition. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, no where in the Constitution does it say that all sexual orientations must be allowed to have an inclusive definition within the marriage covenant for all states. State's issue the marriage license, and they have the right to define what relationships fit that license. Our laws are based on the will of the people. It's tradition to hold murder as immoral, to hold theft as immoral, and to hold disorderly conducts as immoral. Those traditions are also laws.
    No where in the Constitution did it say that a black woman can marry a white man, but that was changed in Loving v Virginia. These traditional views change. State's do not have authority to discriminate against a minority without compelling state interest as has been shown to you time and time again in this thread, and I'm sure many others.

    The legal defense is that state's issue marriage licenses. Many states have formerly defined what marriage is in that states. A few have included homosexual unions as acceptable marital relationships. Others have restricted the definition only between one man and one woman. The legal defense is that a state and the citizens of that state have every right as a society, to define a social contract that is recognized by the law.
    You mean like miscegenation laws in the South?

    So then why is it ok to say "this side of the restaurant (marriage) is for gay couples and straight couples. Now, all you other sexualities aren't even allowed inside." If the basis for argument is that it's wrong to disallow homosexual unions from marriage because it's unlawful define marriage as an exclusive thing for one sexuality, then why can't other sexualities along side homosexuality have the right to that contract?
    What other sexualities are you talking about? If you're trying to link homosexual marriage to pedophilia or bestiality please let us know.

    Defining spaces in a restaurant and setting the terms for a contract are very different. Suppose there is a contract set in place that gives financial benefits to corporations. Is it wrong for that contract to limit the contract only to corporations and not to individuals? The individuals have money too, they just aren't the same as a corporation. So is it wrong for to make contracts that only allow corporations or other entities? Is it wrong to any contract to have any boundaries? It isn't wrong for a state to define marriage, especially when the state's give out the licenses. They have every right to set the terms, conditions, and boundaries on the contract.
    I'd like to see a contract that only allows corporations to sign it.

    So then why is it ok to redefine something that has been legal for centuries?
    Yeah, like only landowners having the right to vote. Or that non-whites aren't allowed to vote. Completely traditional in their time. Not anymore.
    Quote Originally Posted by SWM
    I never thought infanticide could be so delicious.

  4. #114
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Gay marriage should be a constitutional right in America

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    What's ironic ?


    Marriage is between a man and a woman... the union of two homosexuals is not marriage. Seems simple to understand.
    The irony is that, in response to a statement of:
    Quote Originally Posted by RightOfCenter View Post
    Separate but equal, right?
    You said:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    No, just use a different word.
    Which, if you were not aware, is an excellent example of *drum roll please* "Separate but equal".

    You are saying that gay marriage is fine if you call it something else - as in, a separate institution, equal in legal standing to the current hetro marriage institution.

    The irony…
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  5. #115
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Gay marriage should be a constitutional right in America

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Which, if you were not aware, is an excellent example of *drum roll please* "Separate but equal".

    You are saying that gay marriage is fine if you call it something else - as in, a separate institution, equal in legal standing to the current hetro marriage institution.

    The irony…
    So a word makes it separate, not the privileges that come with the ability for homosexuals to legally be together. Then I guess I'm for separate ... the way I see it if homosexuals just want to marry they wouldn't give a **** what it's called as long as they get the legal protections, decisions, etc... but you're arguing that's not enough. Homosexuals want to be exactly like heterosexuals.. but they're not the same are they. No. So their union should be called something else. You call that "separate but equal" okay. Call it flupurpledismosa for all I care. Use a different name.
    Ironic? if you say so.

    If homosexuals want to get "married" using that term... they need to find someone of the opposite sex.
    Last edited by Ockham; 08-06-10 at 08:06 PM.
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  6. #116
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Gay marriage should be a constitutional right in America

    No, no need to amend the Constitution to include what it already protects under the Fourteenth Amendment.

  7. #117
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,359

    Re: Gay marriage should be a constitutional right in America

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    So a word makes it separate, not the privileges that come with the ability for homosexuals to legally be together. Then I guess I'm for separate ... the way I see it if homosexuals just want to marry they wouldn't give a **** what it's called as long as they get the legal protections, decisions, etc... but you're arguing that's not enough. Homosexuals want to be exactly like heterosexuals.. but they're not the same are they. No. So their union should be called something else. You call that "separate but equal" okay. Call it flupurpledismosa for all I care. Use a different name.
    Ironic? if you say so.

    If homosexuals want to get "married" using that term... they need to find someone of the opposite sex.
    Yes. Lets say you have marriage, for only heterosexuals, then you have civil unions only for gays. Thats a separate but equal institution. There two different things, with equal rights, it's not that hard to understand.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  8. #118
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Gay marriage should be a constitutional right in America

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    So a word makes it separate, not the privileges that come with the ability for homosexuals to legally be together. Then I guess I'm for separate ... the way I see it if homosexuals just want to marry they wouldn't give a **** what it's called as long as they get the legal protections, decisions, etc... but you're arguing that's not enough. Homosexuals want to be exactly like heterosexuals.. but they're not the same are they. No. So their union should be called something else. You call that "separate but equal" okay. Call it flupurpledismosa for all I care. Use a different name.
    Ironic? if you say so.

    If homosexuals want to get "married" using that term... they need to find someone of the opposite sex.
    Yes, giving them the identical privileges yet calling the institution by a different term is “separate but equal”. In fact, that’s almost the definition of the phrase.

    Thus, your response to a “so, you mean “separate but equal”” statement was, indeed, highly ironic.

    -------

    Two homosexuals can easily get married anywhere and anytime. Just not in the legal sense.

    That is the reason for the discussion - they wish the same legal recognition of their married status as heterosexual couples.

    Personally, I want the term marriage eliminated from legal usage, and replaced with "civil union" or some such.

    As it's a legal union of two people who, coincidentally, are also married in the religious sense (or personal), and it's none of the gov's business who does or does not get married...except as it positively or negatively effects the country.

    As many have said, two married/joined/whatever people is the ideal child-rearing framework.
    It's also the most stable relationship, and the "only two people" restrictions on legal marriage is a recognition of that.

    The purposes of a legal marriage contract are multiple.

    Legal reasons, such as power of attorney, etc.

    Financial reasons, such as lower overall taxes for the combined persons (I think, in most areas). This serves to promote marriage, and thus, stability.

    Many more, that I’m too lazy to list atm.

    But you get the idea.

    ------

    So, two persons in a stable social (hopefully) and financial (also hopefully) relationship is the goal.

    That those two persons are both the same sex has not been proven as a negative at this time. So the Gov has no reason to prevent them from joining themselves legally – as opposed to multiple persons, which I believe is far less stable and positive a child-rearing environment.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  9. #119
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Gay marriage should be a constitutional right in America

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Partly agree --- it's not Constitution and never should be... same sex "marriage" no. It's not a marriage, call it something else --- civil union, same sex union... get creative. But it's not marriage, but should have the same priveledges as a heterosexual marriage in the eyes of the law. Then I could agree to it and support it.
    Legally, if it is not called "marriage" then it is not marriage. Changing the name makes it a separate institution and "separate yet equal" does not exist.

    I do not support the creation of any legal entity that would serve as a lesser form of marriage.

  10. #120
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Gay marriage should be a constitutional right in America

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    Legally, if it is not called "marriage" then it is not marriage. Changing the name makes it a separate institution and "separate yet equal" does not exist.

    I do not support the creation of any legal entity that would serve as a lesser form of marriage.
    Why?

    Perhaps I'm not seeing potential problems...

    But it seems to me that creating a legal institution that compliments and supports marriage while not actually being such would not cause much issue.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... 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
  •