• 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
Rassales said:
By the way, some very good lawyers are trying just such a case this week in California. It's telling that these lawyers are making no such arguments as you've suggested above. Their tactic is to tie "marriage" to procreation and family rearing--a much more PRACTICAL sort of concern.

Marriage isn't just for procreation, expert testifies - Sacramento News - Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento Bee
Click to expand...

You might want to add the word "yet" to your post. The trial is just begining so it's quite possible that they will still bring it up. Right now it seems like they are just addressing the opening statements at this juncture. This case will no doubt evolve to other areas.

I'm hoping that Prop 8 will be overturned. Once it is you can be sure that it will go across all the other states like wildfire.
 
American said:
Marriage is for a man and a woman, and everyone else can go to hell. Are we clear now? :lol:
Click to expand...

Yes we are... clear that you offered an opinion with not a bit of anything else... which demonstrates nothing. Any questions? :2razz:
 
Kal'Stang said:
You might want to add the word "yet" to your post. The trial is just begining so it's quite possible that they will still bring it up. Right now it seems like they are just addressing the opening statements at this juncture. This case will no doubt evolve to other areas.

I'm hoping that Prop 8 will be overturned. Once it is you can be sure that it will go across all the other states like wildfire.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but I'd argue that the point I was responding to is quite weak and unworthy of serious discussion in a court. If the defendants bring in witnesses to say that marriage is a religious tradition and that SSM hurts religious people as a result, I'll be very surprised. It's one of the first arguments in forums like these, but in a court of law that move is a loser.
 
The Mark said:
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.
Click to expand...

You can view it any way you like, that doesn't mean much. You can declare a pig to be a duck if it really makes you happy. However, just living together doesn't make one married, it makes two people living together.
 
The Mark said:
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.
Click to expand...

Funny, there were people who considered slavery to be part of their religion, I guess we ought to recind civil rights and reinstate slavery, huh?
 
Rassales said:
By the way, some very good lawyers are trying just such a case this week in California. It's telling that these lawyers are making no such arguments as you've suggested above. Their tactic is to tie "marriage" to procreation and family rearing--a much more PRACTICAL sort of concern.
Click to expand...

Which is ridiculous because they'd have to declare all marriages in California that do not result in offspring null and voice. That means women past menopause could not be married, sterile people could not get married and even people who choose not to breed could not get married.

Sure, like that's a can of worms they want to open.
 
Kal'Stang said:
You might want to add the word "yet" to your post. The trial is just begining so it's quite possible that they will still bring it up. Right now it seems like they are just addressing the opening statements at this juncture. This case will no doubt evolve to other areas.

I'm hoping that Prop 8 will be overturned. Once it is you can be sure that it will go across all the other states like wildfire.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but I'd argue that the point I was responding to is quite weak and unworthy of serious discussion in a court. If the defendants bring in witnesses to say that marriage is a religious tradition and that SSM hurts religious people as a result, I'll be very surprised. It's one of the first arguments in forums like these, but in a court of law that move is a loser.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I'm in late.
Is marriage a right?
Well - if it isn't a right then it's a priveledges and priveledges can be denied, a right cannot. . . it can be regulated and stipulated but not outrightly denied.
Click to expand...
Not at all true.
If you do not meet the qualifications necessary to obtain said privilege, it can be (and usually is) denied outright.
 
Rassales said:
Actually, "that everyone has the same right to a privilege" is the key issues here.
Click to expand...
The "key issue" here is if marriage is a right or a privilege (see: topic title and associated poll question).
Everything else is beside that point.
 
Goobieman said:
Not at all true.
If you do not meet the qualifications necessary to obtain said privilege, it can be (and usually is) denied outright.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I talking about - there are strict rules and regulations, thus, it's a priveledge in our country's standards.
 
Goobieman said:
The "key issue" here is if marriage is a right or a privilege (see: topic title and associated poll question).
Everything else is beside that point.
Click to expand...
I've explained this twice before in this thread, most recently and explicitly in post #66. But to recap, the Constitution's 14th amendment guarantees that every citizen has a right to be treated equally by the law when it hands out privileges. The word "privilege" is actually IN the amendment. The government cannot grant a privilege to one class of people and not to another.
 
Rassales said:
I've explained this twice before in this thread, most recently and explicitly in post #66. But to recap, the Constitution's 14th amendment guarantees that every citizen has a right to be treated equally by the law when it hands out privileges. The word "privilege" is actually IN the amendment. The government cannot grant a privilege to one class of people and not to another.
Click to expand...
And, as -I- have explained:

All of that is beside that point raised in this thread.

Is marriage a right?
___ Yes
___ No

None of what you said addresses that question, or supports either answer.
 
Rassales said:
I've explained this twice before in this thread, most recently and explicitly in post #66. But to recap, the Constitution's 14th amendment guarantees that every citizen has a right to be treated equally by the law when it hands out privileges. The word "privilege" is actually IN the amendment. The government cannot grant a privilege to one class of people and not to another.
Click to expand...
And, as -I- have explained:

All of that is beyond the question asked in this thread:

Is marriage a right?
___ Yes
___ No

None of what you said addresses that question, or supports either answer.
 
Goobieman said:
And, as -I- have explained:

All of that is beyond the question asked in this thread:

Is marriage a right?
___ Yes
___ No

None of what you said addresses that question, or supports either answer.
Click to expand...
Sure it does, I'm just explaining how the question is a bit more complicated than the poll allows. It doesn't go beyond the question asked--it fully explains the answer to the question asked. You can't solve a calculus problem with arithmetic. You might as well just define pi = 3.

Is marriage a right? If its offered to one group, it has to be offered to others. Thus is is a right, because everyone has a right to that privilege.
 
Rassales said:
I guess I'll just quote from my last post
If its offered to one group, it has to be offered to others. Thus is is a right, because everyone has a right to that privilege.
Click to expand...
You do know that you're stating that marriage is both a right and a privilege, right?

Mariage is a privilege.
Because you have the right to equal protection, the state may only under certian circumstances discriminate in who it grants that privilege, but it is still a privilege.
The RIGHT in question here is equal protection, not marriage.
 
winston53660 said:
what SCOTUS decision since L vs V supports that position?
Click to expand...
There doesn't need to be one.

As I have pointed out to you numerous times, and as you have continually refused to address:
The fact that marriage exists only because it was created by and extended through legislation the state, and therefore can be removed by simply repealing those laws, trumps any statement by any court.

It is something the state gives you, that you would not -- that you COULD not -- have if it didn't.
Thus, it is a privilege.
 
Goobieman said:
You do know that you're stating that marriage is both a right and a privilege, right?

Mariage is a privilege.
Because you have the right to equal protection, the state may only under certian circumstances discriminate in who it grants that privilege, but it is still a privilege.
The RIGHT in question here is equal protection, not marriage.
Click to expand...
You are making what de Toqueville called "a distinction without a difference." Tell you what--explain to me how the right of equal protection doesn't make marriage a right for the sake of any discussion of contemporary arguments about marriage? When same-sex couples claim they have a "right to marriage," they are actually claim a right to marry based on equal implementation of a privilege. Where is the practical difference?
 
Rassales said:
You are making what de Toqueville called "a distinction without a difference." Tell you what--explain to me how the right of equal protection doesn't make marriage a right for the sake of any discussion of contemporary arguments about marriage? When same-sex couples claim they have a "right to marriage," they are actually claim a right to marry based on equal implementation of a privilege. Where is the practical difference?
Click to expand...

I don't see one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom