• 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!

the right to marry whoever

which are Constitutional rights?

  • Total voters
    51
Marriage is not a Constitutional right. Equal treatment under the law is. So if states want to get out of the marriage recognition business I have no problem with that. But if they ARE going to officially recognize marriages then they have to treat everyone equally.
 
LadyMoonlight said:
I assume that ANY CONSENTING ADULTS also include brother and sister, mother and son, father and daughter - as long as they are consenting adults, right?
Click to expand...
Yeah. Your point?
 
Redress said:
The correct answer is neither. Marriage as an institution is a right. To deny a right, states have to have a good reason, and SCOTUS found they did not in the case of SSM. I am not familiar enough with polygamy to really comment on whether the states have a good reason to deny it.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you are wrong. Loving v. Virginia recognized marriage as a fundamental right (in the context of inter-racial marriage). The SCOTUS today reaffirmed that right in the context of gay marriage.
 
Cryptic said:
You are missing the core issue.

Sure, consenting adults can do whatever they want behind closed doors. Marriage, however, as a societal definition. No state (society) is obligated to affirm that relationship "X" constitutes a marriage. "X" can be gay marriage, polygamy, or even heterosexual marriage.



No, marriage is a courtesy that society as a whole uses to define some relationships. Affirmation by a society that particular relationship (gay, hetersosexual, polygamous, "poly amourous") meets the societal definition of "marriage" is not a right.

Rather, it is just another example of people thinking that:
- I like social policy "X"
-Ergo, people have a right to the benefits of social policy "X".
Click to expand...

That's only part of the equation. SSM remains highly unpopular in certain places, yet it's a legal right there. In addition, SCOTUS could've made this ruling back in 2004 (like the iowa supreme court), in spite of any lack of 'affirmation'. The whole point of equal protection is that it not be at the mercy of a mob
 
There's nothing inherently wrong with polygamy, as long as it's consensual. The nature of polygamous relationships suggest that many times, they are not consensual for everyone involved. Regardless, it doesn't matter because no one is pushing for polygamous unions and they only reason we're discussing this at all is because the right-wing likes to point at gay marriage as a slippery slope towards polygamy as a scare tactic.
 
Luftwaffe said:
And yet that thing is kicking like a mule.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you get that from. I saw a post on the concept earlier but the Obergefell decision specifically cited the 14the Amendment "Due Process" clause, not the 9th.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
There's nothing inherently wrong with polygamy, as long as it's consensual. The nature of polygamous relationships suggest that many times, they are not consensual for everyone involved. Regardless, it doesn't matter because no one is pushing for polygamous unions and they only reason we're discussing this at all is because the right-wing likes to point at gay marriage as a slippery slope towards polygamy as a scare tactic.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm surprised that they haven't brought up marrying your dog yet. It's already been said that we should be able to marry a tree, now. :roll:
 
Both are constitutional rights.

Free US adult men and women are suppose to be allowed to have their marriages legally recognized. It is not supposed to be up to the government who and why consenting US adults marry.

Eventually polygamy will be legal. I'm not a betting man but I'd say polygamy is legal in 20-30 years.
 
Superfly said:
I don't care what any consenting adult does with another consenting adult, or adults. It's not my business to peek into their marriage, or their bedroom, and I'd expect the same courtesy from them.
Click to expand...
Hold on now... are they female and hot? ;)
 
Redress said:
The correct answer is neither. Marriage as an institution is a right. To deny a right, states have to have a good reason, and SCOTUS found they did not in the case of SSM. I am not familiar enough with polygamy to really comment on whether the states have a good reason to deny it.
Click to expand...

I think this is a sound argument. I cannot think of a rational argument to deny SSM.
 
LadyMoonlight said:
I assume that ANY CONSENTING ADULTS also include brother and sister, mother and son, father and daughter - as long as they are consenting adults, right?
Click to expand...

Incest has deleterious impact on potential offspring. Two gays marrying does not. hence the difference
 
I'm okay with legalizing polygamy. I personally have no interest, but who am I to say you can only have one spouse?
 
TurtleDude said:
Incest has deleterious impact on potential offspring. Two gays marrying does not. hence the difference
Click to expand...

True, but they are still consenting adults. Did they only legalize gay marriage because of the offspring?

Limiting marriage because of the potential of the health of the offspring is a slipper slope. What's to stop them from prohibiting the marriage of a 45 year old woman who may get pregnant and deliver a Down's baby?
 
tres borrachos said:
True, but they are still consenting adults. Did they only legalize gay marriage because of the offspring?

Limiting marriage because of the potential of the health of the offspring is a slipper slope. What's to stop them from prohibiting the marriage of a 45 year old woman who may get pregnant and deliver a Down's baby?
Click to expand...

can you actually tell us a valid reason for a state to ban gay marriage

why a pair of consenting adults that features one dying of say ALS cannot have the other member of the relationship treated the same by probate courts etc?

or if a lesbian couple has children through artificial insemination and the mother becomes incompetent, disabled or dies, her spouse doesn't have the same parental rights that I would have if my wife suffered the same fate?
 
TurtleDude said:
can you actually tell us a valid reason for a state to ban gay marriage

why a pair of consenting adults that features one dying of say ALS cannot have the other member of the relationship treated the same by probate courts etc?

or if a lesbian couple has children through artificial insemination and the mother becomes incompetent, disabled or dies, her spouse doesn't have the same parental rights that I would have if my wife suffered the same fate?
Click to expand...

Tell "us"? I'm not an opponent of gay marriage, turtle. I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, or who "us" is. Nor do I have any idea what any of your post meant for that matter, as it had zero to do with what I posted.
 
Who cares about the constitution? Why would I desire to limit myself to an old piece of paper? Sure, it might guide me in very helpful ways, but the constitution did not float down from heaven or anything.

So, with that said, the phrase "homosexual marriage" is an oxymoron. Marriage is an intimate union between two people. There is no potential for that kind of union between same sex couples. It's literally impossible.

Yet I empathize with homosexual couples that get caught in inheritance wars, don't get joint income tax, etc. It's not as if heterosexual couples are better than anyone else. There is no reason to benefit some couples and not others. Heterosexual couples are not better than homosexual couples. But one can have a real union and the other can't.
 
Phys251 said:
Seventy-three percent of Millennials and climbing support gay marriage rights.

Marriage discrimination is done. :) It will go the way of "whites only" water fountains, legal exemptions for marital rape, and slavery: To the garbage heap of history where it belongs.

LOVE WINS!
Click to expand...

I agree! <3
 
SocialDemocrat said:
The nature of polygamous relationships suggest that many times, they are not consensual for everyone involved.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, the nature of polygamous relationships suggest no such thing. The nature of certain religious beliefs that also believe in polygyny suggest not everyone is consenting, or at least doing so under duress. Now the face of polygamy, as portrayed by the media, might make the suggestion, but that is due to bias and limited coverage.
 
TurtleDude said:
Incest has deleterious impact on potential offspring. Two gays marrying does not. hence the difference
Click to expand...

Also incorrect, or at best partially correct. Your argument fails when looking at same sex incest couplings as well as when one or both of the pair are sterile. Additionally, the risk of a first generation consanguineous pairing is not much higher than a standard couple, and lower than a couple who both have a genetic history of a given condition. Finally, incest laws do not limit themselves to blood relations. To use my usual Brady Bunch example, there would have been no issues with Greg and Marcia marrying or having sex. Yet many states have laws that would prevent such a pairing, even if they were already adults when their parents married.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
There's nothing inherently wrong with polygamy, as long as it's consensual. The nature of polygamous relationships suggest that many times, they are not consensual for everyone involved. Regardless, it doesn't matter because no one is pushing for polygamous unions and they only reason we're discussing this at all is because the right-wing likes to point at gay marriage as a slippery slope towards polygamy as a scare tactic.
Click to expand...

Polyamorous relationships, at least in modern times, are no less likely to be consensual. Maybe even the opposite- people who are in them tend to go to great lengths to seek them out. I don't see any problem with the law recognizing polyamorous relationships. Who does it hurt? If consenting adults make a choice about their personal lives that doesn't hurt anybody else, I don't really see what business anybody has outlawing it.
 
maquiscat said:
Also incorrect, or at best partially correct. Your argument fails when looking at same sex incest couplings as well as when one or both of the pair are sterile. Additionally, the risk of a first generation consanguineous pairing is not much higher than a standard couple, and lower than a couple who both have a genetic history of a given condition. Finally, incest laws do not limit themselves to blood relations. To use my usual Brady Bunch example, there would have been no issues with Greg and Marcia marrying or having sex. Yet many states have laws that would prevent such a pairing, even if they were already adults when their parents married.
Click to expand...

you're pruning a leaf while missing the entire forest
 
Radical said:
So, with that said, the phrase "homosexual marriage" is an oxymoron. Marriage is an intimate union between two people. There is no potential for that kind of union between same sex couples. It's literally impossible.
Click to expand...

You must have a very strange definition of "intimate union", for it not to apply to same sex couples. Please do enlighten the rest of us as to your unique take on this phrase.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom