• 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!

SSM (Same-sex marriage) is wrong because?

Same-sex marriage is wrong because

  • It isn't, and should be available to all gay couples

    Votes: 65 78.3%

  • Being gay is wrong, so they can't get married

    Votes: 1 1.2%

  • The sanctity of marriage. No, I wasn't laughing. I was coughing. *cough* ... see?

    Votes: 2 2.4%

  • It will set a bad example for Christian youth

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I don't honestly have a good reason, but I still say no

    Votes: 1 1.2%

  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 14 16.9%
  • Total voters
    83
CriticalThought said:
I can't make a much more clear argument that this...

Marriage is a law.

Text of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It should be pretty clear that same sex marriage bans deny me a right that every woman has, and that is the right to marry a man. Before any state can impose such a law on me, and discriminate solely on the basis of my sex, it must give me due process of law.

And that means that those bans, which discriminate against me on the basis of my sex must meet the second level of scrutiny and serve some important state interest. To date, nobody has provided a reasonable state interest that is served by denying me equal protection of marriage.
Click to expand...

Women do not have the right to marry men. Men do not have the right to marry women.

Everyone, even gays, have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex who is also otherwise qualified.

The fact that gays generally don't want to exorcize that right is immaterial.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Women do not have the right to marry men. Men do not have the right to marry women.

Everyone, even gays, have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex who is also otherwise qualified.

The fact that gays generally don't want to exorcize that right is immaterial.
Click to expand...

Which is what places it in a higher scrutiny level under the Equal Protection clause in the first place.

If law makers came at it from the other side and just said that marriage was limited to heterosexuals only, I doubt many would argue that this wasn't unjust discrimination and unconstitutional. I find that to be really ironic actually.
 
Jerry said:
Women do not have the right to marry men. Men do not have the right to marry women.

Everyone, even gays, have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex who is also otherwise qualified.

The fact that gays generally don't want to exorcize that right is immaterial.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it is equal discrimination. A law stating that you are only allowed to marry your own race would be equal discrimination and would be equally as unconstitutional.
 
theplaydrive said:
To be fair, gay pride is less about thinking sexuality is important and more about responding to societal attempts to make gay people feel ashamed of their sexuality. It's the same with black pride and all other kinds of social "pride". It's just a response to the attempt to shame. I don't think most gay people think their sexuality is any more important than most straight people do.
Click to expand...

And, yet, CT compared it to a religion. /shrug
 
CriticalThought said:
It doesn't matter if it is equal discrimination. A law stating that you are only allowed to marry your own race would be equal discrimination and would be equally as unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Not according to Loving.

The reasons given for supporting IRM failed, not the concept of equal protection. If you're argument were true, then any and every restriction on marriage would be unconstitutional. As that's where your argument necessarily goes, 'anyone marrying anyone' is the logical consequence.

There are arguments which win the SSM debate, but yours is not one of them.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I agree, and this is why "pride" events are more socially acceptable among marginalized minorities vs. the majority.

Although to be fair, sexuality is a pretty big theme at gay pride events so X isn't completely off base.
Click to expand...

That's fine, be as proud as you wanna be. Just people don't tend to hold "pride" events in things they don't take pride in, in this case, being gay. BTW knowing your views on national pride, do you view gay pride the same way.
 
X Factor said:
And, yet, CT compared it to a religion. /shrug
Click to expand...

More of your poor reading comprehension. Go back and read it. I was talking about a small minority of gay people. Not most gay people.
 
Zyphlin said:
Federally they are noir allowed to have it recognized by the state
Click to expand...

You missed my point, Zyphlin. There is no law out there that precludes gay people from getting married.
 
Jerry said:
Not according to Loving.

The reasons given for supporting IRM failed, not the concept of equal protection. If you're argument were true, then any and every restriction on marriage would be unconstitutional. As that's where your argument necessarily goes, 'anyone marrying anyone' is the logical consequence.

There are arguments which win the SSM debate, but yours is not one of them.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Sex is a protected class. "Anyone marrying anyone" would not apply since "anyone" is not a protected class.

If you are going to try to comment on Constitutional law, then you should probably review the levels of scrutiny.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm

1. STRICT SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest.):
A. Suspect Classifications:
1. Race
2. National Origin
3. Religion (either under EP or Establishment Clause analysis)
4. Alienage (unless the classification falls within a recognized "political community" exception, in which case only rational basis scrutiny will be applied).
B. Classifications Burdening Fundamental Rights
1. Denial or Dilution of the Vote
2. Interstate Migration
3. Access to the Courts
4. Other Rights Recognized as Fundamental
2. MIDDLE-TIER SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.):
Quasi-Suspect Classifications:
1. Gender
2. Illegitimacy
3. MINIMUM (OR RATIONAL BASIS) SCRUTINY (The govenment need only show that the challenged classification is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
More of your poor reading comprehension. Go back and read it. I was talking about a small minority of gay people. Not most gay people.
Click to expand...

You go back and show me where you made that distinction.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I said this yesterday, I see no good reason, in principle, why polygamy should be illegal.

same goes for incest marriage if they choose not to have kids. still waitin' on an answer on why I shouldn't be able to marry my imaginary hot sister.
Click to expand...

Because siblings marrying really is icky.
 
Zyphlin said:
Except it can't unless on attempts to broadly speak about it in an attempt to hide the specifics.

There's no gender discrimination in not allowing polygamy. There is with marriage
Click to expand...

Just because the discrimination is not the same, doesn't mean that laws against polygamy aren't also discriminatory. Please, people compare types of discrimination all the time, even if they're not exactly the same.
 
X Factor said:
Just because the discrimination is not the same, doesn't mean that laws against polygamy aren't also discriminatory. Please, people compare types of discrimination all the time, even if they're not exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Exactly which level of scrutiny would polygamy fall under?
 
X Factor said:
Because siblings marrying really is icky.
Click to expand...

I think it is more about the facts that are known for when most incestuous relationships begin, which would be before legal age of consent.

Again though, arguments comparing incest marriage to same sex marriage do not take into account all the pros and cons considered for both. If they did, people could easily see that they are two different things when also compared to opposite sex marriage.
 
X Factor said:
No, but I will admit to missing something because I'm reading too fast in order to catch up.
Click to expand...

Well read it again.

CriticalThought said:
I don't think the gays who based their entire lifestyle on their sexuality are all that different than the Christians who based their entire lifestyle on their religion.
Click to expand...
 
Jerry said:
Not according to Loving.

The reasons given for supporting IRM failed, not the concept of equal protection.
Click to expand...

They failed to reach the necessary level to justify the discrimination under equal protection.
 
X Factor said:
You missed my point, Zyphlin. There is no law out there that precludes gay people from getting married.
Click to expand...

To that I absolutely agree.

There is however a law out there that precludes a woman from getting married to a woman or a man from getting married to a man.
 
X Factor said:
Just because the discrimination is not the same, doesn't mean that laws against polygamy aren't also discriminatory. Please, people compare types of discrimination all the time, even if they're not exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Actually, whether or not the discrimination is the same is irrelevant. And I've stated in this thread it is discrimination not allowing polygamy.

What matters is the levels of scrutiny required to allow the government to discriminate, and what level polygamy would fall under. It would fall under the lowest teir, which is lower than where Gender falls.

You can compare the discrimination against polygamists to the discrimination in regards to same sex marriage. What you can't do is suggest that the level of scrutiny on the part of the government is comparable in both.

Because one requires stricter scrutiny than the other, the same argument and same level of discrimination between both of them could result in one being constitutional and the other not being constitutional.
 
roguenuke said:
mac, missed the part about the sex on the beach, which is why it wasn't addressed. I am actually okay with people having sex on the beach as well. Doesn't really hurt me at all. Granted, I can at least see why some people might not want to allow their children to see such acts, since we have some available research to suggest that children are affected negatively by viewing some adult acts. This is most likely one of the biggest reasons that it is illegal most places. If someone wishes to challenge those laws, I say "go for it".
Click to expand...
I don't want to see such acts. I also don't want to have to see naked fat men eating in a restaurant. Good grief, are you suggesting that simple decency laws will be next on the chopping block if SSM is made legal because the "harm" or lack of it is the same (as is the arguments in favor of such laws in many cases)?
 
Jerry said:
Meh, so is 'family relation', and siblings are born that way also. Incest ftw?
Click to expand...

Family relations is a protected classes higher than the lowest level of scrutiny? Is that what you're saying?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom