• 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
as of right now, only SSM is a "constitutional right".

progressives had polygamy banned a long time ago.. and I don't see anyone making a fuss over stopping the government from violating that right.. no special flags, no movement, no polymarriage warriors on the prowl hunting down errant disbelievers..... so it will probably remain banned for the foreseeable future.
... cuz' government knows best how people should live their lives.
 
Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution directly. However the 9th Amendment admits that not all Rights are mentioned in the Constitution. Also previous SCOTUS rulings regarding marriage, which are many, all agree that Marriage is a Right.
 
Are blood tests not required for marriage anymore? I know they used to be.

Wait.. so you have to take a blood test to get married? People are actually ok with that?
 
Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution directly. However the 9th Amendment admits that not all Rights are mentioned in the Constitution. Also previous SCOTUS rulings regarding marriage, which are many, all agree that Marriage is a Right.

No point in keeping it as a public instrument anymore, though. It had been losing its societal value for quite some time and it was becoming difficult to justify the level of government support. But now that officially it is no longer the instrument to guaranty reproduction? It seems sort of like arguing that a right to eat means there must be free popcorn at the movies.
 
Of course. Looks like most states don't require it anymore, but from what I understand, it was primarily done to ward off future birth defects, if the parents weren't compatible.

Chart: State Marriage License and Blood Test Requirements | Nolo.com

Traditionally, it was to check for STDs. In those days, you were not supposed to have sex until you get married, so testing before marriage was supposedly equivalent to getting tested before you have sex with somebody without protection for the first time, which kind of makes sense. But, I think it also had some darker functions, like outing women for not being virgins before the guy signs on the dotted line or preventing somebody who cheats on their spouse and gets an STD from claiming that they must have had it all along.
 
No point in keeping it as a public instrument anymore, though. It had been losing its societal value for quite some time and it was becoming difficult to justify the level of government support. But now that officially it is no longer the instrument to guaranty reproduction? It seems sort of like arguing that a right to eat means there must be free popcorn at the movies.

It never was about some sort of "guarantee" at reproduction. What makes you think that it ever was? Even in historical times it was more about property than reproduction. Even today it is somewhat about property. Ex: inheritance rights. Marriage is also about other more important things, like love, companionship, and commitment. And you're willing to throw it away just because two guys or two girls want the same thing in a non-heterosexual way?
 
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.

Because of how rare polygamy is in the first place within the developed world, I'm not sure what we have to look at to determine whether or not they tend to be consensual. But given the countries that do have legal polygamy, you can understand my concerns that at least in these countries, not everyone in a polygamous union is living a happy married life and is treated with respect.

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.

See my response to maquiscat. If a polygamous union is fully consensual, I don't have a problem with legal recognition of it, but is there even a legitimate movement pushing for such a thing?
 
It never was about some sort of "guarantee" at reproduction. What makes you think that it ever was? Even in historical times it was more about property than reproduction. Even today it is somewhat about property. Ex: inheritance rights. Marriage is also about other more important things, like love, companionship, and commitment. And you're willing to throw it away just because two guys or two girls want the same thing in a non-heterosexual way?

Of course it was about guaranteeing stable reproduction of the group. At least in economic and sociological terms. That is why so many surviving societies use that instrument and not others. But we have created game rules that no longer warrant the subsidies and protection of that institution, especially now, that we are making a mock of it. Therefore is should be removed from government interference.
 
Of course it was about guaranteeing stable reproduction of the group. At least in economic and sociological terms. That is why so many surviving societies use that instrument and not others. But we have created game rules that no longer warrant the subsidies and protection of that institution, especially now, that we are making a mock of it. Therefore is should be removed from government interference.

You can say it was about reproduction all that you want. Doesn't mean that it is true. But hey, I'll play for awhile. Prove with a valid historical source that marriage between one man and one woman has the main role of reproduction. Good luck on that. ;) You're going to need it. :)

Edit: BTW how is SSM making a mockery of marriage? If anything wanting it as bad as they did shows that it was worth it to them to fight for it. Which means they hold it in high esteem. Perhaps more since they actually did have to fight for it and it wasn't just handed to them.
 
Incest has deleterious impact on potential offspring. Two gays marrying does not. hence the difference
I haven't done a lot of research on this, but it has always been my impression that incest doesn't really cause a lot of problems until after several generations of repeated instances. A "one off" incestual relationship is relatively unlikely to produce any harm.
 
right now the only problem with making polygamy legal is all the laws are written with the two person marriage in mind and as such do not address issues when the marriage contains more than two. Divorce, property and children issues are suddenly vastly more complicated and not covered under law. Thus such legal changes must be made prior to polygamy becoming legal.
That would have to be ironed out, but it could be and shouldn't be used as an excuse to not allow it.
 
I agree but marriage status is recognized by government and creates certain tax advantages. Now I oppose all and every estate or inheritance or death tax but a spouse takes stuff free of the death tax that a friend does not. so I suggest that the state recognition is necessary
I have long favored a pure flat tax, which would render the marriage tax issue moot.
 
This ruling finally grants equality for the last minority that has been legally discriminated against into the 21st century. Along with the overturning of DOMA, this ruling finally gives homosexuals equal rights to openly serve in the military, to marry and receive all the legal and financial benefits therein, to have their relationships treated with dignity. My only disappointment is that Roberts voted with the SCOTUS bigots, that I'd long since written off as ever voting to grant full equality under the law to homosexuals.

As for the rest of this poll, I vote "yes", consenting adults should have the right to marry each other regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or familial relationships (although genetic problems and the "ick" factor make this a fairly rare potential). Polygamy? If they are consenting adults and not brain-washed teenagers, of course. Who the hell are any of us to proclaim edicts about who somebody else has the right to love, and how they choose to create their family?
You mean we've finally reached a point where all issues have been solved and we can now relax and move on? Sweet!
 
You can say it was about reproduction all that you want. Doesn't mean that it is true. But hey, I'll play for awhile. Prove with a valid historical source that marriage between one man and one woman has the main role of reproduction. Good luck on that. ;) You're going to need it. :)

Edit: BTW how is SSM making a mockery of marriage? If anything wanting it as bad as they did shows that it was worth it to them to fight for it. Which means they hold it in high esteem. Perhaps more since they actually did have to fight for it and it wasn't just handed to them.

Odd that you don't look at the sociology of things, just because they are popular. But that is the way lots of folks think about politics and the very reason that so much is messed up. It really is quite simple. If you don't understand the structure of the problem, the effect is poorly understood.
 
Odd that you don't look at the sociology of things, just because they are popular. But that is the way lots of folks think about politics and the very reason that so much is messed up. It really is quite simple. If you don't understand the structure of the problem, the effect is poorly understood.

Then enlighten me if you can. ;)
 
Then enlighten me if you can. ;)

Ah, come on. That is like asking an economist to enlighten you as to how economics works. You do realize that you would have to be more interested than your seem to be. Otherwise you would have already looked into it, I would have thought.
 
Ah, come on. That is like asking an economist to enlighten you as to how economics works. You do realize that you would have to be more interested than your seem to be. Otherwise you would have already looked into it, I would have thought.

Who says I haven't? You see sociology requires that one look at multiple viewpoints in order to see how one thing may affect another in order to see how that might affect another and then combine it all in order to see a bigger picture, as such I'm asking for your view point. So please, enlighten me.
 
Neither.

A "Constitutional Right" indicates a right granted by the Constitution which would make it a "Civil Right". Marriage (an extension of the right to free association) is a natural right and should neither be infringed nor endorsed by the government.
And governments, for the past millennia have interfered and infringed .. For the past 1.999 millennia, I have thought this to be correct. The change reflects maturity - growing up, if you will ..many have yet to do this ..
 
Who says I haven't? You see sociology requires that one look at multiple viewpoints in order to see how one thing may affect another in order to see how that might affect another and then combine it all in order to see a bigger picture, as such I'm asking for your view point. So please, enlighten me.

Okay. Then I will write something, when I have a keyboard.
 
See my response to maquiscat. If a polygamous union is fully consensual, I don't have a problem with legal recognition of it, but is there even a legitimate movement pushing for such a thing?

Just as an aside, the more accurate term is "polyamorous" unless you you mean to refer only to situations where there is one guy and many women. "Polyamorous" includes polygamous, but also polyandrous (one woman, multiple men) and whatever other combinations. Presumably any change in the law would apply to all polyamorous relationships, not just polygamous ones.

Polyamorous relationships are certainly less common than same sex relationships, so the pressure to recognize them is proportionally less, but certainly people in those relationships are just as passionate about getting the right to marry. I think most liberals and libertarians who have spent much time thinking it through are supportive of giving them that right.
 
I voted for both but I should've voted for neither. Even if the correct answer is neither, that doesn't necessarily make Friday's SCOTUS ruling wrong. Some people say that traditional marriage laws violate the Equal Protection Clause. I disagree, even though I support SSM.
 
Marriage by itself means nothing and does nothing for anyone. Sex exists for procreation, but is many times done for pleasure. The pleasure exists so people actually involve themselves in the activity. If it didn't have any aspect about that was pleasurable then more than likely there wouldn't be enough children to maintain the species.
Somehow I don't think the animals are worry about pleasure, especially those that don't use intercourse for procreation. Many things about our bodies are multi purpose. Our mouths are used for both talking and eating and even breathing at times, among other uses. Likewise, sex, a function of our bodies, can be used for both procreation and pleasure. Both can happen at the same time or separately. There are homosexual individuals who engage in physical intercourse purely for the purpose of procreation, and receive no pleasure from the act. Procreation can only be done with certain components, and quite frankly, intercourse is no longer a required component. Sex for pleasure can be accomplished with any number of of bodily components, in a variety of combinations.
 
Back
Top Bottom