• 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!

Maryland Gay Marriage Bill sent back to cmte. Shelved for this year at least.

Thats a real stretch. By that logic...."Conservatives" would be for eliminating marriage all together....and I don't hear many advocating that.

Eliminating marriage = no government. We advocate small government, not no government, and yes I would like ruffly half of all marriages to not occur in the first place as they just end in divorce.
 
Well, the first thing you need to get right is that the government isn't the approving agency for a private contract.

The government is the issuing authority and a signing party on a public license.

You aren't taking a private agreement to a public notary, you're asking the government for special privileges.

A couple of several items any couple looses when they get married are the right to contract, as you can't have more than one spouse, and the right to freely associate, as adultery is grounds to sue for damages.

If you're not married, then legally you can do whatever the hell you want. Marriage places a whole host of restrictions on you.

That sounds like an advocation for changing rules regarding marriages rather than denying marriage to a specific group. Plus, since those people in marriages are opting for such things as the chance of being sued for adultery or agreeing to enter into only one of such contract at a time, then it is in fact the choice of those people.
 
That sounds like an advocation for changing rules regarding marriages rather than denying marriage to a specific group. Plus, since those people in marriages are opting for such things as the chance of being sued for adultery or agreeing to enter into only one of such contract at a time, then it is in fact the choice of those people.

I'm not challenging that it's their choice, I'm pointing out that it's an expansion of government, even if the expansion is wanted.
 
I'm not challenging that it's their choice, I'm pointing out that it's an expansion of government, even if the expansion is wanted.

Actually, you originally said that it was an expansion of government regulation, but that wouldn't be true because there is no increase in rules that the government is making. The rules are already in place. There will potentially be more people under those rules regarding marriage (although I have heard some arguments against this from the anti-SSM side), but there is no real increase in the actual regulations themselves. It would be like more people being allowed to open up small businesses. There would certainly be more small business licenses issued, but this would not mean that there would now be an actual increase in the regulation of small businesses.
 
Actually, you originally said that it was an expansion of government regulation, but that wouldn't be true because there is no increase in rules that the government is making. The rules are already in place. There will potentially be more people under those rules regarding marriage (although I have heard some arguments against this from the anti-SSM side), but there is no real increase in the actual regulations themselves. It would be like more people being allowed to open up small businesses. There would certainly be more small business licenses issued, but this would not mean that there would now be an actual increase in the regulation of small businesses.

Actually, what I originally said was:
In the pursuit of small government, one is required to oppose SSM, as SSM is the expansion of government; unconstitutionally so when children are not present.

While I agree that increasing the number of regulations is expansion, so is increasing the number of people under the existing rule's influence expansion.

So, you're invited to change your argument and claim that SSM is a reduction in government as all it would do is erase a disqualifying coupling. If you do, however, you will need to show why other disqualifiers shouldn't also be erased for the same reason; that is, what distinguishes SSM from everything else on the list.
 
Actually, what I originally said was:


While I agree that increasing the number of regulations is expansion, so is increasing the number of people under the existing rule's influence expansion.

So, you're invited to change your argument and claim that SSM is a reduction in government as all it would do is erase a disqualifying coupling. If you do, however, you will need to show why other disqualifiers shouldn't also be erased for the same reason; that is, what distinguishes SSM from everything else on the list.

Actually I have said all along that we should look at the various things that do disqualify people from being married and determine we don't allow them. As long as they still ensure the main point of why the government would want to encourage/be involved in marriage at all, which is stability, then I don't really have much of an issue with them.

I have said that the current marriage will not work for polygamists. It just can't. But with some minor adjustments, we could make a separate set of marriage laws for those seeking multiple marriages. It would be the responsibility of those who are seeking polygamy to argue their side and provide reasonable solutions to the problems that people bring up concerning their marriages.

And it is not needed, for the most part, and has a couple of issues that need to be addressed if it is given to blood relatives, such as siblings or children/parent relationships, whether the relationship is sexual or not. The issues would be different for whether the relationship is sexual or strictly platonic. If it is sexual, then you are increasing the risk of certain learning disorders and genetic defects, but more importantly, it must be asked when the relationship started to form. Many of such relationships formed prior to at least one of the two participants being of consenting age and involves authoritative influence. If the relationship is simply for convenience, then you reach the issue that the marriage is really not doing a lot to promote stability, since it is likely that the couple will not stay together their lifetime. You also have the issue that it is wrong to invade the privacy of the couple but there is no way to ensure otherwise that the relationship is strictly platonic. A better arrangement for platonic family relationships that want more protection would be to offer some other contract. I would not advocate calling it marriage since the word "marriage" does imply intimacy, but wouldn't really care one way or another. I really don't see a big outcry for siblings or parent/child marriages being legal, so I say we wait til we have such a group who is able to reasonably argue their side and what they want.

The gay marriage advocates have already given their side, including arguments and implementation that is completely reasonable in how to implement SSM. It is up to the advocates of those other groups to present their own arguments. No one says that SSM should come just because it is the fair thing to do. There are plenty of reasons to allow SSM. There are no reasonable arguments, when it is compared to the exact way that OSM is currently available, to deny SSM.
 
Actually I have said all along that we should look at the various things that do disqualify people from being married and determine we don't allow them. As long as they still ensure the main point of why the government would want to encourage/be involved in marriage at all, which is stability, then I don't really have much of an issue with them.

I have said that the current marriage will not work for polygamists. It just can't. But with some minor adjustments, we could make a separate set of marriage laws for those seeking multiple marriages. It would be the responsibility of those who are seeking polygamy to argue their side and provide reasonable solutions to the problems that people bring up concerning their marriages.

And it is not needed, for the most part, and has a couple of issues that need to be addressed if it is given to blood relatives, such as siblings or children/parent relationships, whether the relationship is sexual or not. The issues would be different for whether the relationship is sexual or strictly platonic. If it is sexual, then you are increasing the risk of certain learning disorders and genetic defects, but more importantly, it must be asked when the relationship started to form. Many of such relationships formed prior to at least one of the two participants being of consenting age and involves authoritative influence. If the relationship is simply for convenience, then you reach the issue that the marriage is really not doing a lot to promote stability, since it is likely that the couple will not stay together their lifetime. You also have the issue that it is wrong to invade the privacy of the couple but there is no way to ensure otherwise that the relationship is strictly platonic. A better arrangement for platonic family relationships that want more protection would be to offer some other contract. I would not advocate calling it marriage since the word "marriage" does imply intimacy, but wouldn't really care one way or another. I really don't see a big outcry for siblings or parent/child marriages being legal, so I say we wait til we have such a group who is able to reasonably argue their side and what they want.

The gay marriage advocates have already given their side, including arguments and implementation that is completely reasonable in how to implement SSM. It is up to the advocates of those other groups to present their own arguments. No one says that SSM should come just because it is the fair thing to do. There are plenty of reasons to allow SSM. There are no reasonable arguments, when it is compared to the exact way that OSM is currently available, to deny SSM.

If you've never heard pro-SSM cry discrimination then you have no exposure to the topic.

The problem with SSM is that there are no arguments unique to it. Every reason to allow SSM can be applied to other unions which those very advocates oppose, thus nullifying their own position.

When a group invokes the 14th, and wishes for other groups to be left out, just as pro-SSM does, then they need to distinguish themselves from those other groups.
 
I'm not challenging that it's their choice, I'm pointing out that it's an expansion of government, even if the expansion is wanted.

You are, perhaps, the only person who I think I have ever heard that has tried to argue that government limiting rights to certain groups is actually LESS government.

I have to hand it to you for your creativity.
 
You are, perhaps, the only person who I think I have ever heard that has tried to argue that government limiting rights to certain groups is actually LESS government.

I have to hand it to you for your creativity.

The right to marry the same sex doesn't exist for gays to point to another group and say "they can do it why can't we".
 
The right to marry the same sex doesn't exist for gays to point to another group and say "they can do it why can't we".

what exactly is the point that you are attempting to make here?
 
The right to marry the same sex doesn't exist for gays to point to another group and say "they can do it why can't we".

Incorrect. Men can marry women but women can't marry women. Women can marry men but men can't marry men. Each gender group has a right that the other does not.

As such, why should I not be able to make the most important decision of my life and form a legally recognized relationship with the person I love just because I'm the same sex as that individual? And why am I entitled to marry someone I do not love and am not committed to just because they are of the opposite sex? That is gender discrimination no matter how you look at it. As a man, I am not entitled to a right that every woman has, and that right is to form a legally recognized commitment to the man I love. Furthermore, your position places the sex of two individuals getting married as more important than the love or commitment they have for one another.
 
Last edited:
The government can't limit a right which doesn't exist.

But they can limit rights that do, correct? So when it is determined that the right to ssm to protected under the equal protection clause (which is where we are headed whether you like it or not)....you would then support the government staying out of it, right?
 
Incorrect. Men can marry women but women can't marry women. Women can marry men but men can't marry men. Each gender group has a right that the other does not.

As such, why should I not be able to make the most important decision of my life and form a legally recognized relationship with the person I love just because I'm the same sex as that individual? And why am I entitled to marry someone I do not love and am not committed to just because they are of the opposite sex? That is gender discrimination no matter how you look at it. As a man, I am not entitled to a right that every woman has, and that right is to form a legally recognized commitment to the man I love. Furthermore, your position places the sex of two individuals getting married as more important than the love or commitment they have for one another.

Very well said!
 
Incorrect. Men can marry women but women can't marry women. Women can marry men but men can't marry men. Each gender group has a right that the other does not.

Everyone has the right to marry the opposite sex, while no one has the right to marry the same sex. I think you framed that correctly.

As such, why should I not be able to make the most important decision of my life and form a legally recognized relationship with the person I love just because I'm the same sex as that individual?

Because you are the same sex of that individual.

And why am I entitled to marry someone I do not love and am not committed to just because they are of the opposite sex?

If you don't love them, then when you recite your vows in the solemnization process you are committing fraud on the other person and they can sue you accordingly.

That is gender discrimination no matter how you look at it. As a man, I am not entitled to a right that every woman has, and that right is to form a legally recognized commitment to the man I love.

Right, it's gender discrimination, and that's ok. Perfectly acceptable. Anti-incest is familial discrimination, anti-polygamy is marital-status/religious discrimination. So what? So you're being discriminated against....who cares.
 
Everyone has the right to marry the opposite sex, while no one has the right to marry the same sex. I think you framed that correctly.

And where does this "right to marry the opposite sex" come from?
 
But they can limit rights that do, correct? So when it is determined that the right to ssm to protected under the equal protection clause (which is where we are headed whether you like it or not)....you would then support the government staying out of it, right?

I don't see how the state could stay out of it.

The whole point of getting a legal marriage is to receive special privileges and right from the state. When you get married you're making your personal life the state's business.
 
Because you are the same sex of that individual.

Gender discrimination. It is a denial to my Constitutional right to equal protection under the law. As you may or may not be aware, individual Constitutional rights are supreme in our land.

If you don't love them, then when you recite your vows in the solemnization process you are committing fraud on the other person and they can sue you accordingly.

That is a lie.

Right, it's gender discrimination, and that's ok. Perfectly acceptable. Anti-incest is familial discrimination, anti-polygamy is marital-status/religious discrimination. So what? So you're being discriminated against....who cares.

Incorrect. Unlike family or polygamy, sex is a protected class. The federal government must show an important state interest in denying me a right that it grants the other sex.
 
Last edited:
Gender discrimination. It is a denial to my Constitutional right to equal protection under the law. As you may or may not be aware, individual Constitutional rights are supreme in our land.



That is a lie.



Incorrect. Unlike family or polygamy, sex is a protected class. The federal government must show an important state interest in denying me a right that it grants the other sex.

it's not gender discrimination. that said, any rights we enjoy were endowed by us, for us. under the constitution, we can easily allow ssm, as you mentioned, the equal protection clause.
 
Incorrect. Unlike family or polygamy, sex is a protected class. The federal government must show an important state interest in denying me a right that it grants the other sex.

You have the same right as that other sex.

That other sex noes not have "the right to marry a man".

That other sex has "the right to marry the opposite sex", just as you do also.
 
But they can limit rights that do, correct? So when it is determined that the right to ssm to protected under the equal protection clause (which is where we are headed whether you like it or not)....you would then support the government staying out of it, right?

SSM is not necessarily an automatic under equal protection. The states have the right to restrict applicability of law.
 
So, only gays will get the right to marry the same-sex?
 
You have the same right as that other sex.

That other sex noes not have "the right to marry a man".

That other sex has "the right to marry the opposite sex", just as you do also.

Your argument is circular.

You argue that I have the same right as the opposite sex because we are both denied the same right. In effect, we are both denied the right to marry our person of choice should that person be the same sex. To justify it, you argue that since we are denied the same right, we are treated equally.

The government has no right to limit who I choose to form a life long commitment in the form of a marital contract on the basis of sex. As such, the government saying that I can marry someone only as long as I choose someone of the opposite sex, is the government infringing on my liberty.

And just so it is clear, I'm not arguing that I have a right to marry the same sex, I'm arguing that I have a right to marry the person I choose and the government has no basis to deny me that right on the basis of my sex.
 
Last edited:
Your argument is circular.

You argue that I have the same right as the opposite sex because we are both denied the same right. In effect, we are both denied the right to marry our person of choice should that person be the same sex. To justify it, you argue that since we are denied the same right, we are treated equally.

The government has no right to limit who I choose to form a life long commitment in the form of a marital contract on the basis of sex. As such, the government saying that I can marry someone only as long as I choose someone of the opposite sex, is the government infringing on my liberty.

And just so it is clear, I'm not arguing that I have a right to marry the same sex, I'm arguing that I have a right to marry the person I choose and the government has no basis to deny me that right on the basis of my sex.

Clearly you have no such unlimited right to marry just whomever you want as there are many restrictions on whom you can marry. In order to challenge any of these restrictions, you need to evidence a right which is being infringed upon. Only then does the government need to prove anything. Since you can not establish your right to marry the same sex, the government has free reign to limit it at will.

Now if you wanted to take gays, transgendered or G.I.D. and say their right to be free from discrimination based on disability or mental defect is being infringed upon, then maybe I could get on board with that.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom