• 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

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Simple question. Do you consider marriage to be a right? I want you to actually think about this question. Ask yourself how you would react if the government anulled your marriage. (if you are married) If you're not married how would you feel about never being able to be married?

Now I realize that some of you wish that the government would just get out of the marriage business. But honestly that is just wishful thinking. I'm sure you know that. So consider this...Since the government is in the marriage business do you consider it a right?

Yes I know that there is nothing in the Constitution about marriages. But we also have a right to breath air freely or take a piss and those are not in the Constitution either. So obviously there are some things that is still considered a right even though it's not in the Constitution.

Me, I would be pissed as hell if the government anulled my marriage. I DO consider it a right. A right that is just as strong as those listed in the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
The government does not convey any special tax or administrative benefits on you for pissing or breathing air because those things are natural and necessary human functions. The government conveys special tax and administrative benefits on married couples because it wants to encourage social contracts that it deems beneficial to society. If the government wants to place limitations on the types of contracts that will receive those special benefits, it is free to do so, provided that those limitations comply with the Constitution.
 
Simple question. Do you consider marriage to be a right? I want you to actually think about this question. Ask yourself how you would react if the government anulled your marriage. (if you are married) If you're not married how would you feel about never being able to be married?

Now I realize that some of you wish that the government would just get out of the marriage business. But honestly that is just wishful thinking. I'm sure you know that. So consider this...Since the government is in the marriage business do you consider it a right?

Yes I know that there is nothing in the Constitution about marriages. But we also have a right to breath air freely or take a piss and those are not in the Constitution either. So obviously there are some things that is still considered a right even though it's not in the Constitution.

Me, I would be pissed as hell if the government anulled my marriage. I DO consider it a right. A right that is just as strong as those listed in the Constitution.

I'm one of the people who wishes that the government would get out of the marriage business, but like you I recognize that that's most likely never going to happen. As it stands, yes, I believe marriage is a right.
 
I see marriage as nothing more than a contract between two or more people. I believe that people have the right to come voluntarily together and form contracts and when you violate that right, you violate liberty.

I think that many of 1138 federal benefits that you get for marriage are privileges.
 
I see marriage as nothing more than a contract between two or more people. I believe that people have the right to come voluntarily together and form contracts and when you violate that right, you violate liberty.

I think that many of 1138 federal benefits that you get for marriage are privileges.

I can definately agree with that. :)
 
i said no.

marriage is a choice. you should have the right to make that choice.

mtm1963
 
i said no.

marriage is a choice. you should have the right to make that choice.

mtm1963

Anyone can make a choice about anything. So yes making a choice is a right.

So are you suggesting that rights are only rights if said "right" isn't a choice?
 
Well the religious aspect yes.
The legal aspect? probably not.
 
If you don't believe in God, then I guess you have no God given rights, in your own mind. So therefore you are subject to the state for yours. We who believe in God are not. I pity you atheists, yall are just **** our of luck I guess.
 
Last edited:
The government does not convey any special tax or administrative benefits on you for pissing or breathing air because those things are natural and necessary human functions. The government conveys special tax and administrative benefits on married couples because it wants to encourage social contracts that it deems beneficial to society. If the government wants to place limitations on the types of contracts that will receive those special benefits, it is free to do so, provided that those limitations comply with the Constitution.

You have it all wrong. The government (our welfare system) discourages marriage and incourages single mothers and more babies to unwed mothers. In fact, both health care bills that are on the table unintentionally are going to tax married couples $2,000 extra each year because they were using that model. Hopefully it will be removed, but that is unlikely since it is in both bills. I foresee many divorces if this passes. $2,000 is a lot of money to many people. Anyway, that's what we get for not insisting they read bills before voting on them
 
I see marriage as nothing more than a contract between two or more people. I believe that people have the right to come voluntarily together and form contracts and when you violate that right, you violate liberty.

I think that many of 1138 federal benefits that you get for marriage are privileges.

If it were nothing worthwhile-nothing more than a contract--why are there 1138 priveleges that come along with it?
 
Anyone can make a choice about anything. So yes making a choice is a right.

So are you suggesting that rights are only rights if said "right" isn't a choice?

as i said choice is the "right".

No, i dont think so!

mtm1963
 
I don't know if it is a right, but it is often a wrong. :mrgreen:

One of the few arguments I've ever heard that might soften my opposition to gay marriage was this: "Shouldn't gays should have the right to be just as miserable as everyone else?" :2wave:

Thank you, I'm here til Thursday...try the veal.
 
As long as government is handing out benefits and privileges with tax dollars, then marriage is a right and must be extended to all consenting adults in whatever combination they wish.

Get government out of the equation, then marriage is nothing more than free association with rules determined by whatever groups and organizations people associate with; and hence, not a right.
 
I think the question is framed in the wrong way. Marriage is a law, and the Constitution guarantees every person the equal protection of the laws. Equal treatment under the law--that's a right.
 
I think the question is framed in the wrong way. Marriage is a law,
Nope, marriage is a religious rite that pre-dates any modern law, contract law, and even most religions, including christianity. That said, since marriage is a religious function, under U.S. constitutional law it is automatically an individual right under the first amendment. The government has hijacked that and turned it over to contract law so that it could be taxed and regulated.
and the Constitution guarantees every person the equal protection of the laws. Equal treatment under the law--that's a right.
You are supposed to have the right to seek it out IF a religion will perform the ceremony, you do not have a right to force a religion to.
 
Nope, marriage is a religious rite that pre-dates any modern law, contract law, and even most religions, including christianity. That said, since marriage is a religious function, under U.S. constitutional law it is automatically an individual right under the first amendment. The government has hijacked that and turned it over to contract law so that it could be taxed and regulated. You are supposed to have the right to seek it out IF a religion will perform the ceremony, you do not have a right to force a religion to.
I'm pretty sure that the religious rite element of marriage is superfluous to this discussion, since the context of this discussion is political, and the working of churches is extra-political. Even if it were pertinent, the first amendment would not make marriage a right--it would make the ability of a church to CREATE one a right, perhaps.

Marriage certainly is a legal contract. It creates legal obligations between the participants and affords legal advantages to them. It's only in that context we have any business discussing "rights," since that's a legal--not religious--concept.
 
I voted no because marriage itself is not a right, but the choice to marry is if both people freely choose to marry each other. If marriage were a right then really ugly chicks could demand government provided husbands. I don't want the government exploiting illegal aliens like that, since they would be the most likely candidates. After all, "they do the jobs Americans just won't do".
 
I'm pretty sure that the religious rite element of marriage is superfluous to this discussion, since the context of this discussion is political, and the working of churches is extra-political. Even if it were pertinent, the first amendment would not make marriage a right--it would make the ability of a church to CREATE one a right, perhaps.
The idea of freedom of religion is at the core of the entire arguement. Religions are exempted from many things within the law because of very specific core beliefs held within. This is at the heart of the first amendment itself. All religions have some form of marriage ceremony and marriage is a religious rite, civil marriages, while technically called that are nothing more than recognized civil unions. The rite aspect of marriage is what makes it a right.

Marriage certainly is a legal contract.
Nope, you have to get a license to get married, which is why it can be tried in civil court. That is law which is directly against the first. Marriage is a covenant, not a true contract, that was a failing years ago in an effort to make more tax dollars.
It creates legal obligations between the participants and affords legal advantages to them.
Ask yourself why. Then ask yourself how governments got to license a religious ceremony, there is plenty of good reading on the subject.
It's only in that context we have any business discussing "rights," since that's a legal--not religious--concept.
The rite predates any law, the first amendment of the constitution predates any law regulating marriage, thus the laws are not within the true spirit of the constitution as they civilly regulate something that is protected as religious.
 
If it were nothing worthwhile-nothing more than a contract--why are there 1138 priveleges that come along with it?

Because those "Privilages" are due to hetrosexuals who enter into this contract, as such since all are created equal it would be discrimination not to permit those privilages to a certain group who also enterd into this contract based solely on the gender of the parties.
 
The government does not convey any special tax or administrative benefits on you for pissing or breathing air because those things are natural and necessary human functions. The government conveys special tax and administrative benefits on married couples because it wants to encourage social contracts that it deems beneficial to society. If the government wants to place limitations on the types of contracts that will receive those special benefits, it is free to do so, provided that those limitations comply with the Constitution.

However, the 14th Amendment provides us with the Equal Protection Clause that demands that "no state shall... deny a person in it's jurisdiction equal protection of the laws." Under the Constitution, that limits the limitations that the government can place on marriage. For instance, the government cannot encourage social contracts for only marriages of people of the same race. Therefore, the government should not discourage social contracts for marriages of people of the same gender.
 
As long as government is handing out benefits and privileges with tax dollars, then marriage is a right and must be extended to all consenting adults in whatever combination they wish.

Get government out of the equation, then marriage is nothing more than free association with rules determined by whatever groups and organizations people associate with; and hence, not a right.

Marraige is a game of two halves, a civil and a religious side. One can't have one without the other.
 
However, the 14th Amendment provides us with the Equal Protection Clause that demands that "no state shall... deny a person in it's jurisdiction equal protection of the laws." Under the Constitution, that limits the limitations that the government can place on marriage. For instance, the government cannot encourage social contracts for only marriages of people of the same race. Therefore, the government should not discourage social contracts for marriages of people of the same gender.
Bolded is a critical point. There is no way that the government can enforce any marriage laws without interfering with at least one religion or group of people, so therefore any way you slice it, they have overstepped their grounds.
 
Back
Top Bottom