• 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!

Gay marriage should be a constitutional right in America

Gay marriage should be legal in America

  • Yes

    Votes: 43 69.4%
  • No

    Votes: 19 30.6%

  • Total voters
    62
But the homosexual union itself cannot be marriage because marriage is a union between a man and woman. You can't define apples as oranges because the apples want to be oranges.

"But the black side of the resturant can't be the white side of the resturant, because the white side of the resturant is the white side of the resturant. You can't define apples as oranges because apples want to be oranges."
 
The problem is not that people are voting because of there religious beliefs, the problem is that the law banning SSM is based on religion. There is no reason besides religion to ban SSM. Logically there is no argument. Laws based on religion are illegal, and thats the fact.

Why is that a problem though? And how do you know that? So then is someone's opinion more valid if it isn't based on their religious beliefs? What is someone votes against gay marriage because they are homophobic and hate gay people? What is someone votes for gay marriage because they hate Christians and just want to tick them off? There are other reasons to ban SSM aside from religion. Many believe that it shouldn't be called marriage because it's not the traditional (not religious) definition. What logical argument is there for redefining marriage and forcing secular morals upon an institution that has never been legally defined? The government can't nullify a vote or a stance simply because some hold their views because of their religion. The wording on Prop 8 never mentioned religion of any kind. It merely asked prople to define marriage, and their reasons behind defining it are not important.

"But the black side of the resturant can't be the white side of the resturant, because the white side of the resturant is the white side of the resturant. You can't define apples as oranges because apples want to be oranges."

Huh? It's more like "the white man can't call himself a black man, because by definition he cannot be a black man."
 
Last edited:
Marriage in general isn't - why just focus on gay marriage?

Unlike many other countries - ours does not govern marriage via the constitution within the federal government at all. It's a state-by-state basis, not a federal issue.

The federal government has been granted no jurisdiction over our personal-relationships *at all* - who we're friends with, how we're related, who can marry, who can't - our government is strictly hands and opinions off of *any* "personal" issues what so ever in large part because of the first amendment which bars Congress from passing laws which favor or conflict with religion.

Since marriage/gay marriage is strongly religious to many - if Congress passed a law which said "yes, allow it" then that would directly be in conflict and thus be governing religions and thus is actually unconstitutional.

Unfortunately - it's a state by state issue . . . which sucks but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

legal marriage has nothing to do with religion.
 
Gay marriage is not a Constitutional right, nor should gay marriage ever be legalized. The homosexual union is not marriage nor can it properly fit the definition of the legal heterosexual one. If anything, civil unions identical to marriage would be acceptable.

The marriage license is a contract, and the individual has right to contract. End of story.

There is no non-theist, rational argument against same sex marriage.
 
The marriage license is a contract, and the individual has right to contract. End of story.
An individual doesn't have the right to alter a state contract because he feels its not fair. He does have the right to the contract, but the contract's boundaries are between one man and one woman.
There is no non-theist, rational argument against same sex marriage.
The fact that marriage is a family institution and has been traditionally only offered to men and women is logical enough to not warp and redefine something to include another sexuality. And why just homosexuality, what about other sexualities? If someone has the right to redefine a legal contract, why can't a pansexual?
 
The fact that marriage is a family institution and has been traditionally only offered to men and women is logical enough to not warp and redefine something to include another sexuality. And why just homosexuality, what about other sexualities? If someone has the right to redefine a legal contract, why can't a pansexual?

You can repeat this argument over and over but it doesn't change the fact that you have already been defeated on it multiple times now. You are just ignoring opposing arguments. In the other thread about the CA overturn on Prop 8 you used this same strategy.

But please, by all means, keep reciting your defeated mantra.
 
An individual doesn't have the right to alter a state contract because he feels its not fair. He does have the right to the contract, but the contract's boundaries are between one man and one woman.

Incorrect, it's a right. I have the right to contract. You seem very very confused on what a right is. You cannot dictate the terms of my contract. There is one restriction on my right to contract and that is that I may no infringe upon the rights of others in the exercise of my own rights. That's it. Thus the government issued and recognized contract CANNOT DISCRIMINATE along the basis of sexual orientation. That's the end all be all of the argument. Government issued and recognized contract cannot be used to discriminate against classes of Americans. No matter how much you don't like them.

The fact that marriage is a family institution and has been traditionally only offered to men and women is logical enough to not warp and redefine something to include another sexuality. And why just homosexuality, what about other sexualities? If someone has the right to redefine a legal contract, why can't a pansexual?

How far back you want to go with this? Because it wasn't always monogamous. In fact, what we consider marriage has changed dramatically over the course of the years. In fact even the individual aspects of the particular traditions have changed. Ever wonder why the woman is given away at the wedding? It's because women were once considered property, and the giving away of the bride signified the property transfer of the woman from the father to the husband. But it doesn't mean that anymore.

Traditions change, they always do. There is no infinity, nothing is infiintily static or stable. Not even this institution you call marriage.
 
Huh? It's more like "the white man can't call himself a black man, because by definition he cannot be a black man."

Your talking about a definition.

"Marriage" is in the law, "Traditional Marriage" is now. One can't change the definition of traditional marriage unless one forges a new tradition. However, our laws are LAWS, not traditions, and are subject to rules that simple traditions are not.

You present define "Marriage" as being the same as "traditional marriage" which is defined as "between a man and a woman".

That's great.

That doesn't mean that is any kind of legal defense.

If I define "Side A" of my resturant as "The White side of the resturant" and "Side B" of my resturant as "The black side of the resturant" I can't go "What? You can't ask me to allow black people into side A! That'd force me to change the definition of what Side A is!"

Having to change the definition of something is not a worth while legal defense.

Simply because something WAS defined in one way does not mean that is any kind of legal or constitutional standing to violate constitutional protections.

The definition of "equality" as it applied to Black people at one time was "Seperate but equal". That definition was changed because it was unconstitutional.
 
FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Sure you have the right case? The word sex is not in that ruling, so you’ll have to point out the pertinent part.

Did you read the actual opinions rather than just the case brief? From the court's unanimous opinion: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival"
 
You can repeat this argument over and over but it doesn't change the fact that you have already been defeated on it multiple times now. You are just ignoring opposing arguments. In the other thread about the CA overturn on Prop 8 you used this same strategy.

But please, by all means, keep reciting your defeated mantra.
I still hold my views, and no arguments I see can properly contradict them ;)
The only "victory" here comes at the price of denying citizens the right to vote on social issues. Didn't a federal judge in MA rule DOMA as unconstitutional because it violates a state's right to define marriage for that state? I am not ignoring opposing arguments, I am responding to them.

Please don't try to bait me :2wave:
 
Your talking about a definition.

"Marriage" is in the law, "Traditional Marriage" is now. One can't change the definition of traditional marriage unless one forges a new tradition. However, our laws are LAWS, not traditions, and are subject to rules that simple traditions are not.
you are right in that Traditional Marriage is in the law now. For many state's they have legally defined marriage within the traditional definition. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, no where in the Constitution does it say that all sexual orientations must be allowed to have an inclusive definition within the marriage covenant for all states. State's issue the marriage license, and they have the right to define what relationships fit that license. Our laws are based on the will of the people. It's tradition to hold murder as immoral, to hold theft as immoral, and to hold disorderly conducts as immoral. Those traditions are also laws.
You present define "Marriage" as being the same as "traditional marriage" which is defined as "between a man and a woman".

That's great.

That doesn't mean that is any kind of legal defense.
The legal defense is that state's issue marriage licenses. Many states have formerly defined what marriage is in that states. A few have included homosexual unions as acceptable marital relationships. Others have restricted the definition only between one man and one woman. The legal defense is that a state and the citizens of that state have every right as a society, to define a social contract that is recognized by the law.
If I define "Side A" of my resturant as "The White side of the resturant" and "Side B" of my resturant as "The black side of the resturant" I can't go "What? You can't ask me to allow black people into side A! That'd force me to change the definition of what Side A is!"
So then why is it ok to say "this side of the restaurant (marriage) is for gay couples and straight couples. Now, all you other sexualities aren't even allowed inside." If the basis for argument is that it's wrong to disallow homosexual unions from marriage because it's unlawful define marriage as an exclusive thing for one sexuality, then why can't other sexualities along side homosexuality have the right to that contract? Defining spaces in a restaurant and setting the terms for a contract are very different. Suppose there is a contract set in place that gives financial benefits to corporations. Is it wrong for that contract to limit the contract only to corporations and not to individuals? The individuals have money too, they just aren't the same as a corporation. So is it wrong for to make contracts that only allow corporations or other entities? Is it wrong to any contract to have any boundaries? It isn't wrong for a state to define marriage, especially when the state's give out the licenses. They have every right to set the terms, conditions, and boundaries on the contract.
Having to change the definition of something is not a worth while legal defense.

Simply because something WAS defined in one way does not mean that is any kind of legal or constitutional standing to violate constitutional protections.
So then why is it ok to redefine something that has been legal for centuries? Why, within the years America has existed, have there not been any legal gay marriages up until this point in history? It's because society defines marriage, and society has traditionally held religious values.
The definition of "equality" as it applied to Black people at one time was "Seperate but equal". That definition was changed because it was unconstitutional.
Sexuality is not the same as race. This is like comparing homosexuality to polygamy.
 
All in favor, all opposed. I'm not putting any other options. Don't vote if you can't choose one or the other.

I think I like the way things are headed: there is no gay marriage. There is only marriage and everyone has equal access to it.
 
you are right in that Traditional Marriage is in the law now. For many state's they have legally defined marriage within the traditional definition. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, no where in the Constitution does it say that all sexual orientations must be allowed to have an inclusive definition within the marriage covenant for all states. State's issue the marriage license, and they have the right to define what relationships fit that license. Our laws are based on the will of the people. It's tradition to hold murder as immoral, to hold theft as immoral, and to hold disorderly conducts as immoral. Those traditions are also laws.
No where in the Constitution did it say that a black woman can marry a white man, but that was changed in Loving v Virginia. These traditional views change. State's do not have authority to discriminate against a minority without compelling state interest as has been shown to you time and time again in this thread, and I'm sure many others.

The legal defense is that state's issue marriage licenses. Many states have formerly defined what marriage is in that states. A few have included homosexual unions as acceptable marital relationships. Others have restricted the definition only between one man and one woman. The legal defense is that a state and the citizens of that state have every right as a society, to define a social contract that is recognized by the law.
You mean like miscegenation laws in the South?

So then why is it ok to say "this side of the restaurant (marriage) is for gay couples and straight couples. Now, all you other sexualities aren't even allowed inside." If the basis for argument is that it's wrong to disallow homosexual unions from marriage because it's unlawful define marriage as an exclusive thing for one sexuality, then why can't other sexualities along side homosexuality have the right to that contract?
What other sexualities are you talking about? If you're trying to link homosexual marriage to pedophilia or bestiality please let us know.

Defining spaces in a restaurant and setting the terms for a contract are very different. Suppose there is a contract set in place that gives financial benefits to corporations. Is it wrong for that contract to limit the contract only to corporations and not to individuals? The individuals have money too, they just aren't the same as a corporation. So is it wrong for to make contracts that only allow corporations or other entities? Is it wrong to any contract to have any boundaries? It isn't wrong for a state to define marriage, especially when the state's give out the licenses. They have every right to set the terms, conditions, and boundaries on the contract.
I'd like to see a contract that only allows corporations to sign it.

So then why is it ok to redefine something that has been legal for centuries?
Yeah, like only landowners having the right to vote. Or that non-whites aren't allowed to vote. Completely traditional in their time. Not anymore.
 
What's ironic ?


Marriage is between a man and a woman... the union of two homosexuals is not marriage. Seems simple to understand.
The irony is that, in response to a statement of:
Separate but equal, right?

You said:
No, just use a different word.

Which, if you were not aware, is an excellent example of *drum roll please* "Separate but equal".

You are saying that gay marriage is fine if you call it something else - as in, a separate institution, equal in legal standing to the current hetro marriage institution.

The irony…
 
Which, if you were not aware, is an excellent example of *drum roll please* "Separate but equal".

You are saying that gay marriage is fine if you call it something else - as in, a separate institution, equal in legal standing to the current hetro marriage institution.

The irony…

So a word makes it separate, not the privileges that come with the ability for homosexuals to legally be together. Then I guess I'm for separate ... the way I see it if homosexuals just want to marry they wouldn't give a **** what it's called as long as they get the legal protections, decisions, etc... but you're arguing that's not enough. Homosexuals want to be exactly like heterosexuals.. but they're not the same are they. No. So their union should be called something else. You call that "separate but equal" okay. Call it flupurpledismosa for all I care. Use a different name.
Ironic? if you say so.

If homosexuals want to get "married" using that term... they need to find someone of the opposite sex. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
No, no need to amend the Constitution to include what it already protects under the Fourteenth Amendment.
 
So a word makes it separate, not the privileges that come with the ability for homosexuals to legally be together. Then I guess I'm for separate ... the way I see it if homosexuals just want to marry they wouldn't give a **** what it's called as long as they get the legal protections, decisions, etc... but you're arguing that's not enough. Homosexuals want to be exactly like heterosexuals.. but they're not the same are they. No. So their union should be called something else. You call that "separate but equal" okay. Call it flupurpledismosa for all I care. Use a different name.
Ironic? if you say so.

If homosexuals want to get "married" using that term... they need to find someone of the opposite sex. :2wave:

Yes. Lets say you have marriage, for only heterosexuals, then you have civil unions only for gays. Thats a separate but equal institution. There two different things, with equal rights, it's not that hard to understand.
 
So a word makes it separate, not the privileges that come with the ability for homosexuals to legally be together. Then I guess I'm for separate ... the way I see it if homosexuals just want to marry they wouldn't give a **** what it's called as long as they get the legal protections, decisions, etc... but you're arguing that's not enough. Homosexuals want to be exactly like heterosexuals.. but they're not the same are they. No. So their union should be called something else. You call that "separate but equal" okay. Call it flupurpledismosa for all I care. Use a different name.
Ironic? if you say so.

If homosexuals want to get "married" using that term... they need to find someone of the opposite sex. :2wave:
Yes, giving them the identical privileges yet calling the institution by a different term is “separate but equal”. In fact, that’s almost the definition of the phrase.

Thus, your response to a “so, you mean “separate but equal”” statement was, indeed, highly ironic.

-------

Two homosexuals can easily get married anywhere and anytime. Just not in the legal sense.

That is the reason for the discussion - they wish the same legal recognition of their married status as heterosexual couples.

Personally, I want the term marriage eliminated from legal usage, and replaced with "civil union" or some such.

As it's a legal union of two people who, coincidentally, are also married in the religious sense (or personal), and it's none of the gov's business who does or does not get married...except as it positively or negatively effects the country.

As many have said, two married/joined/whatever people is the ideal child-rearing framework.
It's also the most stable relationship, and the "only two people" restrictions on legal marriage is a recognition of that.

The purposes of a legal marriage contract are multiple.

Legal reasons, such as power of attorney, etc.

Financial reasons, such as lower overall taxes for the combined persons (I think, in most areas). This serves to promote marriage, and thus, stability.

Many more, that I’m too lazy to list atm.

But you get the idea.

------

So, two persons in a stable social (hopefully) and financial (also hopefully) relationship is the goal.

That those two persons are both the same sex has not been proven as a negative at this time. So the Gov has no reason to prevent them from joining themselves legally – as opposed to multiple persons, which I believe is far less stable and positive a child-rearing environment.
 
Partly agree --- it's not Constitution and never should be... same sex "marriage" no. It's not a marriage, call it something else --- civil union, same sex union... get creative. But it's not marriage, but should have the same priveledges as a heterosexual marriage in the eyes of the law. Then I could agree to it and support it.

Legally, if it is not called "marriage" then it is not marriage. Changing the name makes it a separate institution and "separate yet equal" does not exist.

I do not support the creation of any legal entity that would serve as a lesser form of marriage.
 
Legally, if it is not called "marriage" then it is not marriage. Changing the name makes it a separate institution and "separate yet equal" does not exist.

I do not support the creation of any legal entity that would serve as a lesser form of marriage.
Why?

Perhaps I'm not seeing potential problems...

But it seems to me that creating a legal institution that compliments and supports marriage while not actually being such would not cause much issue.
 
Why?

Perhaps I'm not seeing potential problems...

But it seems to me that creating a legal institution that compliments and supports marriage while not actually being such would not cause much issue.

Its unconstitutional. Its discrimination, oh well you're not good enough for marriage, so we'll give you civil unions. It's the same kind of thinking as well I don't want black kids in the same school as my white kids, so we'll give them their own separate school.
 
Its unconstitutional. Its discrimination, oh well you're not good enough for marriage, so we'll give you civil unions. It's the same kind of thinking as well I don't want black kids in the same school as my white kids, so we'll give them their own separate school.
No no.

I meant that the only marriage-like legal institution - for everyone - would not be called marriage. Not a seperate institution for same-sex couples, a seperate institution from marriage.
 
Last edited:
No no.

I meant that the only marriage-like legal institution - for everyone - would not be called marriage. Not a seperate institution for same-sex couples, a seperate institution from marriage.

Oh, okay. Yeah that would be okay. Taking the word marriage out of government, and just offering civil unions I wouldn't have a problem with. Though I wonder how many people against gay marriage would be against taking the word marriage out of government also.
 
Oh, okay. Yeah that would be okay. Taking the word marriage out of government, and just offering civil unions I wouldn't have a problem with. Though I wonder how many people against gay marriage would be against taking the word marriage out of government also.
No idea.

I can't see why they would...but then, unreasonable thoughts rarely make sense.
 
Its unconstitutional. Its discrimination, oh well you're not good enough for marriage, so we'll give you civil unions. It's the same kind of thinking as well I don't want black kids in the same school as my white kids, so we'll give them their own separate school.

Cross-posted in another thread, since I just addressed this there.

Here's my gripe with the same-sex marriage laws/inter-racial marriage laws comparison.

In the decision that deemed inter-racial marriage laws unconstitutional, Loving v Virginia, the SC seemed reluctant to reach that conclusion because part of the defending argument was true, i.e. that all races could still marry someone within their own race (similar to the argument that marriage law doesn't discriminate agianst gays because they can still legally marry someone of the opposite gender like everyone else) which would make it difficult to fit under the Equal Protection Clause. Ultimately they reached the final conclusion because 1. race is an arbitrary categorization that matters only in a racist point of view, and 2. the inent of the law was clearly to discriminate against non-whites, which violated the 14th Amendment. From Wikipedia:



Neither qualifiers work in the current case. As Zyphlin said, it is actually gender, not sexual orientation, that marriage laws themselves discriminate. This in itself is important, but not the main point. Gender is not an arbitrary categorization (though that's what the judge in this case argues) and current marriage law is not set up to discriminate against either men or women (or gays, for that matter). Marriage is between a man and a woman because, frankly, the entire reason marriage exists is for reproduction. I'm not saying that's the only reason people should get married for, but the fact is that it is the cultural basis for marriage's existence. That fact alone makes it difficult to provide a Constitutional argument against current marriage law on a 14th Amendment basis.
 
Back
Top Bottom