• 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, is it right to stop it? (PART II)

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it? (PART II)

  • Total voters
    154
Kal'Stang said:
I love open polls. You can so easily tell when someone games the poll results.
Click to expand...

yep i NEVER make private polls so the spammers cant fool anybody
 
What is and is not marriage is really not something you look to a dictionary to define--you look to society. Since marriage is a human creation, it is impossible to possess some sort of unalienable right to have your particular living arrangement classified by your neighbors as marriage. This is one of those things that should truly be left up to the public to freely decide, and not have it imposed upon them by the state or the courts. When the majority wish it to include gays, it can include gays. When the majority wish it to include more than two people, it can include more than two people.

There is no moral justification that would allow the state to prohibit two men from living together and engaging in whatever sexual behavior they wish. But by the same token there is no moral justification for the state to define what constitutes a marriage.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Saying that two is the magical number of marriage partners is also discrimination against the strong personal desire of some folks. There are more places in the world that recognize polygamy than SSM.

Legal status of polygamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Definitions of unions/marriage from your source:

Polygamy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Polyandry - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Polygyny - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Click to expand...

Lol who cares. They're not bothering anyone.
 
Let's not leave pets and inanimate objects out.

15 of the World

Yes, there's taking it too far in the realm of sanity.
 
AGENT J said:
didnt i tell you some people who are against equality and want to infringe on the rights of others will simply ignore those facts
Click to expand...

Because they've already lost.
 
Fletch said:
1.)What is and is not marriage is really not something you look to a dictionary to define--you look to society.
2.) Since marriage is a human creation, it is impossible to possess some sort of unalienable right to have your particular living arrangement classified by your neighbors as marriage.
3.) This is one of those things that should truly be left up to the public to freely decide, and not have it imposed upon them by the state or the courts.
4.) When the majority wish it to include gays, it can include gays. When the majority wish it to include more than two people, it can include more than two people.
5.) There is no moral justification that would allow the state to prohibit two men from living together and engaging in whatever sexual behavior they wish.
6.) But by the same token there is no moral justification for the state to define what constitutes a marriage.
Click to expand...

1.) yes you can thats a fact and even more fact is what the marriages license says
2.) don't care about NEIGHBORS only the rights of people. there are neighbors that might not think others are married because a judge did it, of a singing elvis did it or a person of the wrong religion did it or because its their second marriage. None of that matters only rights and equality.
3.) no this is about rights
4.) glad we didnt do this with minority rights, or womens rights or interracial marriage. more than 75% of the country was against interracial marriage when it passed.
5.) correct not to mention morals really dont matter since those are subjective and opinion based
6.) not moral based but right based it does
 
Ockham said:
Let's not leave pets and inanimate objects out.

15 of the World

Yes, there's taking it too far in the realm of sanity.
Click to expand...

always cute when somebody tries to bring this completely inane, nonsensical, mental retarded failed straw man up like anybody educated and honest would buy it

hows this one go again?

"if we let women vote the next thing dogs will be voting"
" if we let whites marry blacks i might as well just be able to marry my horse too!"

yep this type of sever uneducated logic on this topic was funny and made no sense back then and that still holds true today.
 
Ari said:
Lol who cares. They're not bothering anyone.
Click to expand...

True. Contract law is not about who is bothering someone, it is about defining the terms of a legal agreement. If you want the law changed then take the necessary steps to do so, as it has been done in several states.
 
Slippery-Slope.jpg
Ockham said:
Let's not leave pets and inanimate objects out.

15 of the World

Yes, there's taking it too far in the realm of sanity.
Click to expand...
 
Ockham said:
You need to explain your foundation of "our history", because I don't know what you're referring to.

Now what? The answers still no. You guys are easy.... :cool:
Click to expand...
We write laws, often enough, because we think things are unfair. We've done it for a very long time.
 
Ockham said:
When there's a good enough reason... because someone doesn't think it's fair is not a good reason.
Click to expand...
What reason would you use? Please, we are very interested.
 
If this was a theocracy then the Bible and morals would be a valid argument. too bad there is this tiny thing called the first amendment.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) yes you can thats a fact and even more fact is what the marriages license says
2.) don't care about NEIGHBORS only the rights of people. there are neighbors that might not think others are married because a judge did it, of a singing elvis did it or a person of the wrong religion did it or because its their second marriage. None of that matters only rights and equality.
3.) no this is about rights
4.) glad we didnt do this with minority rights, or womens rights or interracial marriage. more than 75% of the country was against interracial marriage when it passed.
5.) correct not to mention morals really dont matter since those are subjective and opinion based
6.) not moral based but right based it does
Click to expand...
If you think marriage is a right, give me the basic fundamental innate right from which this supposed right to marriage is derived.
 
Fletch said:
If you think marriage is a right, give me the basic fundamental innate right from which this supposed right to marriage is derived.
Click to expand...
I think marriage is a contract. Equal Before The Law is the right part.
 
Fletch said:
If you think marriage is a right, give me the basic fundamental innate right from which this supposed right to marriage is derived.
Click to expand...

what i think doesn't matter, what you think doesn't matter
the fact is marriage is a right pointed out by 14 supreme court cases

Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
Click to expand...
 
AGENT J said:
what i think doesn't matter, what you think doesn't matter
the fact is marriage is a right pointed out by 14 supreme court cases
Click to expand...
I didn't ask you what the supreme court thought.
 
Fletch said:
I didn't ask you what the supreme court thought.
Click to expand...

well if you dont like the fact maybe write them a letter and tell them you disagree
 
AGENT J said:
what i think doesn't matter, what you think doesn't matter
the fact is marriage is a right pointed out by 14 supreme court cases
Click to expand...

Marriage is a right, homosexual marriage, polygamy, incest marriages, or other unions are not nor is it a right for people to demand or feel entitled to such things. Marriage as a right exists within the boundaries of how the states define the unions for themselves.
 
digsbe said:
Marriage is a right, homosexual marriage, polygamy, incest marriages, or other unions are not nor is it a right for people to demand or feel entitled to such things. Marriage as a right exists within the boundaries of how the states define the unions for themselves.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that you are against allowing same sex members the right to marry?
 
AGENT J said:
well if you dont like the fact maybe write them a letter and tell them you disagree
Click to expand...

And they will, thankfully, not give a **** about his opinion and stick to the facts about rights under the Constitution.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Are you saying that you are against allowing same sex members the right to marry?
Click to expand...

No, I support SSM at the state level but I respect that others disagree and I think it would be an atrocity to freedom to mandate SSM on a national level and deny people their right to vote on the issue.
 
digsbe said:
No, I support SSM at the state level but I respect that others disagree and I think it would be an atrocity to freedom to mandate SSM on a national level and deny people their right to vote on the issue.
Click to expand...

Cool, and really? Are we not a nation that equally respects individuals rights? Separate But Equal was not allowed on a State level. Slavery was not allowed on a State level. Discrimination is a national law... why not this?
 
digsbe said:
No, I support SSM at the state level but I respect that others disagree and I think it would be an atrocity to freedom to mandate SSM on a national level and deny people their right to vote on the issue.
Click to expand...

Oh I think the real atrocity is the notion rights should be left to the whims of a popular vote.
 
Bodhisattva said:
And they will, thankfully, not give a **** about his opinion and stick to the facts about rights under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

correcto mondo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom