• 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 should be a constitutional right in America

Gay marriage should be legal in America

  • Yes

    Votes: 43 69.4%
  • No

    Votes: 19 30.6%

  • Total voters
    62
Did you recently watch this?

chuckandlarry.jpg

No, it looked like a ****ty movie. But I assume it works with my idea?
 
Your analogy doesn't fit. This one does. You own a shark. I own a barracuda. We each have pools where our pets live. My barracuda can't come to the community pool, though, because it has a sign that says, "all SHARKS welcome". Suddenly, we realize that both sharks and barracuda's are fish. So, the community pool gets renamed "all FISH welcome". Now, your pool remains, sharks only. But the community pool is now for FISH.

That seems more accurate as an analogy for what already exists. Marriage (as it is now) is the fish, with government "civil unions" being the barracuda and religious unions being the shark.

If folks want something that represents more spiritual bonding, they are free to go to the place of worship of their choice. I want to separate the concepts.

But the government recognition part is clearly what makes it significant. If it weren't the case, lots of people would get married without givernment recognition. The religious part has latched on to that legal union, and is only part of it in that sense. It does not exist on its own. Again (as I've said a million times), if this weren't true, gays would be getting married now, just without government recognition.




Politically, no. It is similar to pro-life folks. They are willing to keep legal abortions that are the result of pregnancies caused by rape or incest, in order to prevent all other types of abortions. It's a political compromise that is more palatable to some pro-choicers. This is the same concept that I am applying here.

So it's a compromise? That makes even less sense to me; I'd imagine that people would be even less willing to separate the concepts of religious and legal unions than to just let gays marry. That is, it's much less likely to happen.

If you want a compromise, why not just let gays have a "civil union" and not call it marriage? If calling it marriage is so unimportant, than straight marriage can be called "marriage" and gay people with civil unions would just be gay people with the legal benefits of marriage. Most people support this already.

Dav, I'm not saying that there would be any structural difference. There wouldn't be. But for those who are religious, there IS a difference in the bond... at least in their perception, spiritually.

Maybe, but they don't seem to realize it; "marriage" to them seems to carry both a religious and legal meaning. Otherwise... etc.
 
Marriage is only considered a "religious union" because religions, like the government, have over time come to recognize something that already exists in a different plane - that of tradition/culture.

It is only relatively recently that there has been any difference between what is religious, what is legal, and what is traditional. I don't think the change has been good for society.
 
No, no, never, never. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
 
What's wrong with it? It's simple:

Marriage = man + woman + legal recognition

<fill in the space> = man + man / woman + woman + legal recognition

<fill in the space>? OK <marriage> done.
 
you are right in that Traditional Marriage is in the law now.

No, Marriage is the law now, currently defined in the traditional sense.

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.

However, our laws...including state laws...must adhere to the constitution. That means they must equally protect under the law. Marriage laws as they stand discriminate agaisnt both genders without a substantially shown important state interest to do such.

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.

Yes, as long as its constitutional. You can't have laws defined on a "social contract" that is unconstitutional.

Could a state have a social contract saying that only males are allowed to be gainfully employed simply because its voted as such by the citizens of that state?

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."

What other sexuality is there? Bisexual? They could go to either side depending on who they're coupled with. Asexual? Well, that highlights one of my issues with government sponsoring marriage at all.

Not to mention my argument is about gender, nor sexual preference.

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?

That's not my argument, as I've stated numerous times in this thread.

But even so, what "other sexualities"?

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?

Government contract or private enterprise contract?

If you're speaking of government contract, discriminating against individuals instead of groups doesn't reach a the same tier as gender under the EPC and would be questionable if its covered at all. Furthermore, I think you're arguing something that's generally an impossability...as a singular solitary individual is generally not going to be able to take care of an entire government contract that would normally require a corporation to pull off. Its not about just money, but man power, infastructure, etc.

Is it wrong to any contract to have any boundaries?

Nope, but its wrong to have government laws that have boundaries that are unconstitutional.

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.

As long as they adhere to other laws, such as the constitution.

So then why is it ok to redefine something that has been legal for centuries?

Because its unconstitutional, just like "redefining" that black people are actually people after centuries.

Sexuality is not the same as race. This is like comparing homosexuality to polygamy.

Actually its not. In one case you're arguing something that is arguably essentially "born" or more to the point something that for many isn't "chosen" to something that's not chosen. In the other one you're comparing something that's arguably not "chosen" to something that has no evidence showing what so ever that its anything other than a choice.

But then again, I am not arguing sexuality. I'm arguing gender. And Gender can definitely be compared to race when it comes to Equal Protection.
 
Civil Unions should be the legal process for all citizens.

Marriage should be a private matter without the government involved.
 
Civil Unions should be the legal process for all citizens.

Marriage should be a private matter without the government involved.

I absolutely agree. Furthermore, the 2 need not be connected. If you wish to have a legally recognized and binding relationship with someone with all of its attendent rights and responsibilities, a civil union fits the bill. It should be a simple matter of contract law. On the other hand, if you wish to have a traditional marriage, you should be able to do so without governmental interference in accordance with your own religious preference. There should be a simple means of allowing a marriage to also be registered as a civil union with the government if the couple so desires, but it should not be necessary. Problem solved.

Unfortunately, it is not as simple as it should be since marriage has become entangled with the tax code, etc. This never should have happened in the first place. Undoing it now may be politically impossible, and takes some aspects of the marriage relationship out of the states' control.
 
I absolutely agree. Furthermore, the 2 need not be connected. If you wish to have a legally recognized and binding relationship with someone with all of its attendent rights and responsibilities, a civil union fits the bill. It should be a simple matter of contract law. On the other hand, if you wish to have a traditional marriage, you should be able to do so without governmental interference in accordance with your own religious preference. There should be a simple means of allowing a marriage to also be registered as a civil union with the government if the couple so desires, but it should not be necessary. Problem solved.

Unfortunately, it is not as simple as it should be since marriage has become entangled with the tax code, etc. This never should have happened in the first place. Undoing it now may be politically impossible, and takes some aspects of the marriage relationship out of the states' control.
Oddly enough, I think I agree with all you just said.
 
Back
Top Bottom