• 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!

Is marriage a right?

Is marriage a right?


  • Total voters
    50
That's wide open for abuse.
Another is, when you use the argument gay marriage is OK because they love each other, where do you draw the line and why... if you move it for gays, why not for others in love?

Mother and Daughter?
Mother and Granddaughter?
Father and son?
Father and grandson?
Father and daughter?
Mother and son?
Under aged?
Cousins?

For a start...

.

I have no problem with that; just as long as all parties involved are consenting adults.
 
Simple question. Do you consider marriage to be a right?
Marriage is a creature of the state; it exists because the state says it exists, and can cease to exist by a simple act of a state legislature.
Thus, marriage is a privilege.
 
Last I knew, it could be done as young as 13 in some states, although that could have changed. But you're still getting a legal adult to make the contract and there are limitations. Certainly an emancipated minor is considered to be an adult in most ways and therefore can enter into legal contracts.

These are all exceptions, certainly not the rule.
True, I can agree to that point.
 
Marriage is a creature of the state; it exists because the state says it exists, and can cease to exist by a simple act of a state legislature.
Thus, marriage is a privilege.
True, but as with all acts of state legislatures, it must be written to allow equal participation by all the people--that part is a right.
 
True, but...
... nothing. Privilege, not a right.

as with all acts of state legislatures, it must be written to allow equal participation by all the people--that part is a right.
This isnt the issue presented by the poll.
 
This isnt the issue presented by the poll.

The poll was made generic. So basically if anything can be used to support/disagree with the answer to said question then it is valid.

Edit Note: made a clairification.
 
Last edited:
The poll was made generic. So basically if anything can be used to support/disagree with said question then it is valid.
Arguing that everyone has the same right to a privilege has no bearing whatsoever on, and does nothing to answer the question as to if marriage itself is a right. Marriage -is- a privilege; any rights involving marriage revolve around the right to equal protection, not the institution of marriage itself.
 
Arguing that everyone has the same right to a privilege has no bearing whatsoever on, and does nothing to answer the question as to if marriage itself is a right. Marriage -is- a privilege; any rights involving marriage revolve around the right to equal protection, not the institution of marriage itself.

Yes, it is a privilege but the access to said privilege is a right. It's like saying the government is issuing driver's licenses... but only to whites. Driving is a privilege. Equal access to that privilege is a right.
 
Yes, it is a privilege but the access to said privilege is a right. It's like saying the government is issuing driver's licenses... but only to whites. Driving is a privilege. Equal access to that privilege is a right.

The problem is that there is a religious aspect to the idea of "marriage".

Not so with drivers licenses...or at least not any religion I am aware of. :2razz:
 
I'm in late.

Is marriage a right?

Well - if it isn't a righ then it's a priveledges and priveledges can be denied, a right cannot. . . it can be regulated and stipulated but not outrightly denied.
 
The problem is that there is a religious aspect to the idea of "marriage".

Not so with drivers licenses...or at least not any religion I am aware of. :2razz:

Who cares? Modern-day marriage has nothing to do with religion. You can walk down all the aisles in all the churches you want, you're not married until you get the piece of paper from the state that says you are. Religious marriage is an *OPTIONAL ADDITION* to getting legally married, it is neither a requirement, nor does it even add anything to the legal document and status.

This is yet another area where the religious think they have more power and influence than they really do.
 
Who cares? Modern-day marriage has nothing to do with religion. You can walk down all the aisles in all the churches you want, you're not married until you get the piece of paper from the state that says you are. Religious marriage is an *OPTIONAL ADDITION* to getting legally married, it is neither a requirement, nor does it even add anything to the legal document and status.

This is yet another area where the religious think they have more power and influence than they really do.

IMO, you are incorrect.

I view marriage as something which can exist between two persons, regardless of any legal contracts they have made.

In fact, I consider it possible for two persons to be married without having performed any ceremonies whatsoever.

I would say that a "legal marriage" would be the "*OPTIONAL ADDITION*" to it's non-legal counterpart.
 
Marriage isn't a right, but EQUALITY is most assuredly a right. Those that don't get this are usually known as bigots and such.
Being against Gay Marraige is to equate yourself with those that don't get the fact that Equality IS a right. ;)
 
Marriage isn't a right, but EQUALITY is most assuredly a right. Those that don't get this are usually known as bigots and such.
Being against Gay Marriage is to equate yourself with those that don't get the fact that Equality IS a right. ;)

I personally am not against "gay marriage" as a private (as in, not effected by any governing body) institution.

What I AM against is the creation of laws to regulate something many persons consider part of their religion.
 
Marriage is a fine institution and I think anyone who actually wants to live in an institution, should. :mrgreen:
 
Arguing that everyone has the same right to a privilege has no bearing whatsoever on, and does nothing to answer the question as to if marriage itself is a right. Marriage -is- a privilege; any rights involving marriage revolve around the right to equal protection, not the institution of marriage itself.
Actually, "that everyone has the same right to a privilege" is the key issues here. The privileges of marriage (tax advantages, the ability to make decisions for someone who is incapacitated, etc.) are legal abilities--privileges--granted to married couples. But citizens are entitled to be treated the same under the law. How to make sure they are equally protected is the key decision here.

People are denied drivers licenses for cause, not because there is something inherently un-driver-like about them.

The religious arguments are really immaterial, except within the context of some religion. Religions don't "own" marriage and have no legal stake in how the state chooses to handle marriage as a legal institution.

This debate is a 14th amendment debate, at the core. Anti-SSM people argue that marriage must be limited to a man and a woman because of tradition (religious or otherwise), but I have yet to hear a practical reason for keeping it heterosexual-only. Here's the first section of the 14th amendment, bold my emphasis:
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.
Failing to allow same-sex couples to marry is, "abridging a privilege," by your own admission. Prop. 8 and other similar laws violate the 14th amendment, because they prevent citizens of the US from marrying the person of their choice.
 
Last edited:
I personally am not against "gay marriage" as a private (as in, not effected by any governing body) institution.

What I AM against is the creation of laws to regulate something many persons consider part of their religion.
But why is it wrong for the laws of some religions and the laws of the state to be at odds? Most churches consider abortion a sin, yet it's legal. Some people don't eat pork, yet it's possible to do so under the law. So long as religions are not forced to do something they consider wrong, why should others be prevented from doing what they think is right?
 
But why is it wrong for the laws of some religions and the laws of the state to be at odds? Most churches consider abortion a sin, yet it's legal. Some people don't eat pork, yet it's possible to do so under the law. So long as religions are not forced to do something they consider wrong, why should others be prevented from doing what they think is right?

But that is precisely my point.

Creating a law which allows two persons of the same sex to "marry" IS forcing some religions to do something they consider wrong.

Some religions consider the institution of marriage to be a "man and woman only" deal.

Thus, IMO, creating a law which legally defines it as otherwise forces those who disagree to accept something counter to their religion.

Which is why I am one of those people who think the governments of the various states should simply cease granting marriage licenses, and start granting only "civil union" or some such licenses. Make it only a legal/financial contract, without the religious connotations.

Edit: Then let the various religions have a nice brawl to decide if it is religiously acceptable for two persons of the same sex to marry.
 
Last edited:
But that is precisely my point.

Creating a law which allows two persons of the same sex to "marry" IS forcing some religions to do something they consider wrong.
I don't mind your "civil union only" solution--I think it's a good compromise--but please explain how SSM is forcing some religions to do anything. Just because the state will grant a marriage license to two people, there's no reason that any clergy might not refuse to perform the ceremony and sign the document for them. Rabbis aren't forced to marry Christians. Priests aren't required to marry non-Catholics or others who have not qualified themselves for marriage within the Catholic Church. This happens all the time--churches can marry or not marry whomever they choose, without interference from government, and this has always been the case. If you think this might change, explain how. Otherwise, it's a red herring.
 
Last edited:
Marriage is for a man and a woman, and everyone else can go to hell. Are we clear now? :lol:
 
I don't mind your "civil union only" solution--I think it's a good compromise--but please explain how SSM is forcing some religions to do anything. Just because the state will grant a marriage license to two people, there's no reason that any clergy might not refuse to perform the ceremony and sign the document for them. Rabbis aren't forced to marry Christians. Priests aren't required to marry non-Catholics or others who have not qualified themselves for marriage within the Catholic Church. This happens all the time--churches can marry or not marry whomever they choose, without interference from government, and this has always been the case. If you think this might change, explain how. Otherwise, it's a red herring.

I am not saying churches would be forced to perform marriages they don't agree with.

I am saying that the word "marriage" itself has religious connotations for some.
 
I am not saying churches would be forced to perform marriages they don't agree with.

I am saying that the word "marriage" itself has religious connotations for some.
Maybe, but they don't own the word, and its inclusion in the law has no practical effect on them. It hurts their feelings. Awwww....
 
Maybe, but they don't own the word, and its inclusion in the law has no practical effect on them. It hurts their feelings. Awwww....

Question is, could a good lawyer or team of lawyers argue that the use of the word "marriage" in a law allowing the legal joining of two persons of the same sex violated the laws preventing government from interfering in the workings of religion?
 
Question is, could a good lawyer or team of lawyers argue that the use of the word "marriage" in a law allowing the legal joining of two persons of the same sex violated the laws preventing government from interfering in the workings of religion?
No, because the law has no actual bearing on the workings of any church. I think we have to make a distinction here between ACTUAL harm (you know, harms that have some measurable effect) and IMAGINED harms (that's the kind where you use a word I think belongs to me and I hate you for it). The feelings of one group to not outweigh the equal protection of another.
 
Back
Top Bottom