• 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!

Should same-sex marriage be allowed?

Should it be allowed?

  • I'm a right leaning yes

    Votes: 3 13.0%
  • I'm a right leaning no

    Votes: 4 17.4%
  • I'm a left leaning yes

    Votes: 14 60.9%
  • I'm a left leaning no

    Votes: 2 8.7%

  • Total voters
    23
I cannot vote either because I have no particular lean. With that said...SSM should have been allowed long ago so they could have the same perks heteros have. Long over due. However, with that said, I don't think the SCOTUS should have the right to vote it in to law. It should be each states decision, voted on by people of that state.

They didn't "vote it into law". They correctly recognized that prohibiting gays from marrying violates the constitution. Constitutionally protected rights are not up to a popular vote. The right of gays to marry is no more subject to a vote than is your right to speak freely or to have a fair trial.

Take government out of marriage and let people get on with their lives.

And resolve privacy, inheritance, divorce, and custody... how?

No. Not at all. The court decision actually opened a can of worms.

No, it didn't. It didn't at all.
 
----
1) And resolve privacy, inheritance, divorce, and custody... how?

2) No, it didn't. It didn't at all.

1) Where is the problem? Let the people work out how they want it and put it in a contract.
2) Of course, if you do not mind the government systematically breaking the constitution, I guess one could take that position.
 
I can't vote in the poll......

I don't have a definite lean.

Do what you feel in your heart to be right-for you'll be criticized anyway. Eleanor Rossevelt
 
I cannot vote either because I have no particular lean. With that said...SSM should have been allowed long ago so they could have the same perks heteros have. Long over due. However, with that said, I don't think the SCOTUS should have the right to vote it in to law. It should be each states decision, voted on by people of that state.

No Right should be left up to mob mentality. It was mob mentality that kept slavery going for so long. It was mob mentality that allowed Jim Crow laws to last so long. It was mob mentality that allowed miscegenation laws. It was mob mentality that led to a lot of black people being strung up in trees. It was mob mentality that destroyed many many civilizations.

I don't want to live in a mob mentality state/country that allows restrictions on Rights.
 
I voted I'm left leaning because on this particular issue I am left leaning.
 
Do what you feel in your heart to be right-for you'll be criticized anyway. Eleanor Rossevelt

Im not right or left...

SSM should be legal.... There is no way to support suppressing a right or liberty of the people that does not infringe upon the rights/liberties of others.
 
1) Where is the problem? Let the people work out how they want it and put it in a contract.

A contract enforced or disputed in a court... meaning that the government is going to have to say something about it. And when someone dies and two people show up with contracts, claiming to be that person's spouse, the government will have to decide who was really married to whom. Your "contract" fallback is woefully insufficient to cover the legal issues that marriage deals with.

2) Of course, if you do not mind the government systematically breaking the constitution, I guess one could take that position.

I don't think you have any idea what does or does not "break" the constitution.
 
There is no way to support suppressing a right or liberty of the people that does not infringe upon the rights/liberties of others.

Marriage is not, and can never be considered, a 'right'. 'Rights' cannot be 'granted' nor 'taken away' and certainly are not bestowed by man-made institutions; they are protected, but not derived from governments. The most obvious 'right' is one's 'right to life', categorically and demonstrably different to a supposed 'right to marriage', a fiction of the campaigns of the last few years.

We do not vote for or about rights in a constitutional republic; they transcend popular opinion as a safeguard against majoritarianism and totalitarianism. They are inalienable and indisputable.
 
Marriage is not, and can never be considered, a 'right'. 'Rights' cannot be 'granted' nor 'taken away' and certainly are not bestowed by man-made institutions; they are protected, but not derived from governments. The most obvious 'right' is one's 'right to life', categorically and demonstrably different to a supposed 'right to marriage', a fiction of the campaigns of the last few years.

We do not vote for or about rights in a constitutional republic; they transcend popular opinion as a safeguard against majoritarianism and totalitarianism. They are inalienable and indisputable.

Thousands of years of marriage is pretty good indication that yes, it IS a Right. In fact marriage has been around far longer than any other recognized Right both in world history and in our Constitution.

As for that "fiction of the last few years"...how long would you say "last few years is"? In actuality marriage was deemed a Right long before SSM was even slightly talked about. In several court cases.

And yes, Rights CAN be taken away. Don't believe me? Ask a felon, such as myself, whether they have a gun legally in their home. Also ask a felon, such as myself, whether or not they can vote while incarcerated. Once you are done with that go over to someplace like Iran or even Germany and ask if they have a Right to Free Speech where they have banned any talk in support of homosexuals.

Your argument here is one of naivety of how the world actually works.
 
Marriage is not, and can never be considered, a 'right'. 'Rights' cannot be 'granted' nor 'taken away' and certainly are not bestowed by man-made institutions; they are protected, but not derived from governments. The most obvious 'right' is one's 'right to life', categorically and demonstrably different to a supposed 'right to marriage', a fiction of the campaigns of the last few years.

We do not vote for or about rights in a constitutional republic; they transcend popular opinion as a safeguard against majoritarianism and totalitarianism. They are inalienable and indisputable.

And yet, the courts have legally recognized the "rights" of a spouse in various legal transactions concerning their partner. If marriage is not a "right" then why are these "rights" legally recognized? And if they are to be legally recognized, shouldn't they be legally recognized for marriages in all forms?
 
A contract enforced or disputed in a court... meaning that the government is going to have to say something about it. And when someone dies and two people show up with contracts, claiming to be that person's spouse, the government will have to decide who was really married to whom. Your "contract" fallback is woefully insufficient to cover the legal issues that marriage deals with.



I don't think you have any idea what does or does not "break" the constitution.

We had a situation here recently, where two women came to court after their husband had died. The country did not have a law that prescribed how to rule and there was no contract, but the court had to decide how to deal with poligam inheritance and pensions or health insurance. A contract would have made that much easier. I cannot understand your conservatism. Are you afraid of change and not being within your peer group's paradigm? You sound like Peter's grandfather warning of the wolf.
 
Thousands of years of marriage is pretty good indication that yes, it IS a Right. In fact marriage has been around far longer than any other recognized Right both in world history and in our Constitution.

Ironically, your argumentation here represents a classic 'appeal to antiquity'. I say ironically because the conception of marriage of which you speak never included same-sex couples.

'Rights' cannot be repealed or restrained, we possess them by virtue of our humanity. Unless you believe that one's 'right to life' hinges upon the courts of the day.

'Marriage' requires governmental licensing, and the subsequent conference of associated privileges. It is not a 'right', but an institution of Man, an institution that has represented the backbone of Western civilization.

all men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

And yes, Rights CAN be taken away. Don't believe me? Ask a felon, such as myself, whether they have a gun legally in their home. Also ask a felon, such as myself, whether or not they can vote while incarcerated. Once you are done with that go over to someplace like Iran or even Germany and ask if they have a Right to Free Speech where they have banned any talk in support of homosexuals.

Classic conflation. The entire premise of classical republicanism is that inalienable rights cannot be conceded to the sovereign or ruler. 'Voting rights' are not inalienable rights but privileges granted by a legal system under the social contract.

I recommend a reading of Locke.

Your argument here is one of naivety of how the world actually works.

Ad hominem.
 
We had a situation here recently, where two women came to court after their husband had died. The country did not have a law that prescribed how to rule and there was no contract, but the court had to decide how to deal with poligam inheritance and pensions or health insurance. A contract would have made that much easier.

So the actual solution is to have laws addressing polygamy, not to gut the existing laws and make a lot of people's positions more precarious.
 
No Right should be left up to mob mentality. It was mob mentality that kept slavery going for so long. It was mob mentality that allowed Jim Crow laws to last so long. It was mob mentality that allowed miscegenation laws. It was mob mentality that led to a lot of black people being strung up in trees. It was mob mentality that destroyed many many civilizations.

I don't want to live in a mob mentality state/country that allows restrictions on Rights.

States get to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights.
 
No Right should be left up to mob mentality. It was mob mentality that kept slavery going for so long. It was mob mentality that allowed Jim Crow laws to last so long. It was mob mentality that allowed miscegenation laws. It was mob mentality that led to a lot of black people being strung up in trees. It was mob mentality that destroyed many many civilizations.

I don't want to live in a mob mentality state/country that allows restrictions on Rights.

Its the mob mentality that allow idiots to loot, burn, and pillage in the name of BlackLivesMatters as well.

One must clearly see that the mob mentality is bad all around, and it crosses political lines.
 
Ironically, your argumentation here represents a classic 'appeal to antiquity'. I say ironically because the conception of marriage of which you speak never included same-sex couples.

Actually there are historical cases of SSM. Native Americans used to have SSM. China has cases of SSM. There's even a Christian pastor that performed a SSM in ancient Europe. But where do you think that our Founders looked to when they wrote the BoR's? Did they just string them along out of thin air? Or did they look to history? Making an "appeal to antiquity" is not in and of itself a bad thing. It is in how it is used that makes it worth while or not.

'Rights' cannot be repealed or restrained, we possess them by virtue of our humanity. Unless you believe that one's 'right to life' hinges upon the courts of the day.

Tell this to the millions of people around the world in countries like Iran, Syria, Iraq, Germany, China, Mexico, everyone that ISIS deals with. Yes. Rights CAN and often ARE restrained and not even allowed, much less appealed. And yes, ones Right to Life already hinges upon the courts of the day. Death Penalty anyone? ;)

'Marriage' requires governmental licensing, and the subsequent conference of associated privileges. It is not a 'right', but an institution of Man, an institution that has represented the backbone of Western civilization.

So I can go out and legally buy a gun for self defense Right now despite my felony history?

all men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

Meaningless to how reality actually is.

Classic conflation. The entire premise of classical republicanism is that inalienable rights cannot be conceded to the sovereign or ruler. 'Voting rights' are not inalienable rights but privileges granted by a legal system under the social contract.

I recommend a reading of Locke.[/quote]

I noticed you didn't say a single thing about what I said about guns. Or what happens to those in Germany that support homosexuals via speech. Here's another for ya, freedom to practice whatever religion you wish...what happens if a Christian is caught by ISIS members? Peoples Rights are constrained all the time. Denied all the time.

Ad hominem.

Not towards you but towards your comments. And it wasn't actually an ad hom as no malice was meant in it.
 
What about multiple wives for one husband? Will that be allowed via SCOTUS,too? Or man marries daughter? Mother marries son? Man marries Horse? Woman marries dog?

And what about religious rights? Can someone refuse to perform the marriage if it goes against their religious beliefs? So what is next? Will religion now be considered a moot point?
 
What about multiple wives for one husband? Will that be allowed via SCOTUS,too? Or man marries daughter? Mother marries son? Man marries Horse? Woman marries dog?

And what about religious rights? Can someone refuse to perform the marriage if it goes against their religious beliefs? So what is next? Will religion now be considered a moot point?

O.. M... G.

Can horses consent? Can Dogs?

And religion was able to refuse to marry a couple at their will before this, and will be the same after.
 
Back
Top Bottom