• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Gay Marriage

FogUaLL

New member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I am new to debatepolitics, so I have not had the chance to get know everyone and their poltical views.

How does eveyone feel about gay marriage? In my opinion, I believe gays should be able to marry one another and receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

And... What are your political views and party affiliation? I consider myself a moderate Democrat.
 

Jaxian

New member
Joined
Jun 17, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Location
Clinton Township, MI
I consider myself in between liberal and libertarian. I believe that same-sex couples should have the same rights and protections as opposite-sex couples, nothing less, even in name. Perhaps we can use civil unions, but the law must call them civil unions for everyone, not only for same-sex couples.

Oh, also, galenrox, what is a conservative civil libertarian? Isn't that the same thing as a libertarian?
 

YamiB.

Active member
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
261
Reaction score
41
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'd say I'm liberal, don't really match myself up with a party. I think that gay marriage should be legal and have yet to see any valid reasons against it in the numerous times I've debated it. I have no doubt that it will be legal eventually, people tend to come around in situations like this after their intial reaction of discrimination.
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
YamiB. said:
I'd say I'm liberal, don't really match myself up with a party. I think that gay marriage should be legal and have yet to see any valid reasons against it in the numerous times I've debated it. I have no doubt that it will be legal eventually, people tend to come around in situations like this after their intial reaction of discrimination.
Initial reactions tend to take a really long time to get over. So, what's your estimate on how long it will take?

Women's right to vote took nearly 100yrs. So far, since Stonewall, the Gay Rights fight has taken 36yrs. So...what...another 64yrs or so?
 

YamiB.

Active member
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
261
Reaction score
41
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'd guess in another decade or two gay marriage will be legal. Not that I don't want it sooner.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
YamiB. said:
I'd guess in another decade or two gay marriage will be legal. Not that I don't want it sooner.
That is actually a good way of looking at it.
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Welcome to the forum. I am a newbie myself.

I am a libertarian. I believe that gays should have the same rights as everyone else. We pay the same taxes (some could say more because we do not have marriage reductions), we serve in our military, and we spend just as much money as anyone else to fuel the economy.

Something I think is interesting is that people who are against gays state one reason for it being that gays sleep around too much. Then they state that they should not be allowed to marry, which could lessen the sleeping around. Are these contraditions?
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
alex said:
Welcome to the forum. I am a newbie myself.

I am a libertarian. I believe that gays should have the same rights as everyone else. We pay the same taxes (some could say more because we do not have marriage reductions), we serve in our military, and we spend just as much money as anyone else to fuel the economy.

Something I think is interesting is that people who are against gays state one reason for it being that gays sleep around too much. Then they state that they should not be allowed to marry, which could lessen the sleeping around. Are these contraditions?
Well of course they are.
But trust me, that's not the only excuse I've heard.

Excuses given as to why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry:


Gays can't have kids

Gays are all pedophiles, so they shouldn't be allowed to adopt, marriage would only encourage pedophilial recruitment.

Gays will destroy the institution of marriage

Gays aren't natural

Gays have the same exact right to marry as straights...as long as it's to someone of the opposite sex.

Gays shouldn't get rights because they only want to teach in our schools and recruit kids into becomming gay.

If gays are allowed to marry, everyone will turn gay and then humans would die out because gays can't have kids.

Because everyone hates gays

Because "God" says so

Because all gays will go to hell

Allowing gays to marry will only be a drain on the economy by forcing employers to pay for healthcare to gay spouces

They should just be happy with civil unions

All it will do is open the door to polygamy, beastiality, incest and lusting after objects.



Some of these excuses are just so off the wall there's no trying to argue them, I can only laugh and walk away. Crazy is as Crazy does.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,920
Reaction score
6,035
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
FogUaLL said:
How does eveyone feel about gay marriage? In my opinion, I believe gays should be able to marry one another and receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

And... What are your political views and party affiliation? I consider myself a moderate Democrat.
Kinda scared to jump in here. lol

I have no qualms about gays receiving the same benifits as other married couples. This position was actually recently changed due to some of the ideas represented in this forum.

However, I do have issues with:
1. Calling marriage a "right" when clearly it is a privledge.
2. Homosexual couples using the term "Marriage", it should be labled as something else.

Obviously, I am a Republican.
 

Urethra Franklin

Folle
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
3,579
Reaction score
979
Location
European Union
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vauge said:
Kinda scared to jump in here. lol

I have no qualms about gays receiving the same benifits as other married couples. This position was actually recently changed due to some of the ideas represented in this forum.

However, I do have issues with:
1. Calling marriage a "right" when clearly it is a privledge.
2. Homosexual couples using the term "Marriage", it should be labled as something else.

Obviously, I am a Republican.

You contradict yourself. You claim you have no qualms about gays receiving the same benefits as others, then you go on to reveal that you clearly do.

You can't hide your prejudices with the old "I don't mind gays, but..."
Repeatedly you express the views of a homophobe.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,920
Reaction score
6,035
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
galenrox said:
Ah ha! I recognize who said most of those! I miss that little closet case! He's allowed back tomorrow, right?
Kinda miss him too, he made it an experience here; but also a pain in the toes for the mods and admin. He created 2x more users. As a result, due to the rules clearly defined rule of no multiple accounts, he was permanently banned.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,920
Reaction score
6,035
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Urethra Franklin said:
You contradict yourself. You claim you have no qualms about gays receiving the same benefits as others, then you go on to reveal that you clearly do.

You can't hide your prejudices with the old "I don't mind gays, but..."
Repeatedly you express the views of a homophobe.
If I am a homophobe, then I accept that. But, I do not think a gay person is any less of a person for thier sexual orientation.

Again, this forum has changed this perception.

I simply do not see marriage as a "right" - perhaps that is where we truely disagree.

On one side of the isle we have the folks that claim that it "must be a right" to be fair to everyone. On my side of the isle - it is not clearly defined as a right and each state can act on thier own accord so there is no way that could even be considered a "right" by the government.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
vauge said:
However, I do have issues with:
1. Calling marriage a "right" when clearly it is a privledge.
Alright Vauge, let's take that concept. If you believe marriage is a privilege instead of a right then we can go with that. As long as you also follow the constitution which states in the fourteenth amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...

Now, there are states which are making and enforcing laws that are abridging the privilege of marriage. Are those then unconstitutional?
 

Jaxian

New member
Joined
Jun 17, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Location
Clinton Township, MI
vauge said:
If I am a homophobe, then I accept that. But, I do not think a gay person is any less of a person for thier sexual orientation.

Again, this forum has changed this perception.

I simply do not see marriage as a "right" - perhaps that is where we truely disagree.

On one side of the isle we have the folks that claim that it "must be a right" to be fair to everyone. On my side of the isle - it is not clearly defined as a right and each state can act on thier own accord so there is no way that could even be considered a "right" by the government.
Well, okay. There is a lot of confusion on this subject, and I think it is important to understand what a right is. A right is pretty much something that a person is able to do. Getting married is a right, simply because people are able to do it. A "civil right" is a right that the government allows us to do. So although there is a "right to murder", our government does not make murder a "civil right"; we are not allowed to do it. For any issue where we're talking about whether or not a right should be a civil right, that issue is a civil rights issue.

This is important: a "right" is not necessarily something that everyone should be allowed. We should not, for example, give everyone the right to murder. When someone says, "I have the right to speak my mind", they don't mean "I am entitled to speak my mind", they mean "the government has given me the civil right to speak my mind".

So if marriage is a "privledge", then it is simply a civil right given to some people, but not all. If marriage is not a privledge, then it is a civil right given to everyone. But either way, it is still a right.

Now that we have that clear, I do not think marriage should be a privledge. Now, I have no problem with churches and religious organizations granting marriage only to opposite-sex couples, if they so choose. What I mean is just that our government shouldn't be giving any special privledges only to opposite-sex couples. Our government needs to treat both opposite-sex and same-sex couples the same, or our government is not fair. Both heterosexual and homosexuals are good people, and they both deserve to be treated the same. Our government shouldn't be giving heterosexuals any special privledges.

Now perhaps it would be best if our government changed the legal benefits from the word "marriage" to the word "civil unions". That way, it would be easier to distinguish between the legal benefits of marriage and the religious insitutions of marriage. But the legal name for marriage benefits has to be the same for everyone; no one should get special legal privledges.
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Jaxian said:
Our government shouldn't be giving heterosexuals any special privledges.

Now perhaps it would be best if our government changed the legal benefits from the word "marriage" to the word "civil unions". That way, it would be easier to distinguish between the legal benefits of marriage and the religious insitutions of marriage. But the legal name for marriage benefits has to be the same for everyone; no one should get special legal privledges.
Well said as usual Jax. This is exactly the point I have been trying to make, but you say it so much better. Thank you.
 

Quertol

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
170
Reaction score
0
JustineCredible said:
Well said as usual Jax. This is exactly the point I have been trying to make, but you say it so much better. Thank you.

There are no special benefits for heterosexuals...
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Quertol said:
There are no special benefits for heterosexuals...
If that's true, then they just limit the benefits for homosexuals.
 

Jaxian

New member
Joined
Jun 17, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Location
Clinton Township, MI
Quertol said:
There are no special benefits for heterosexuals...
Vague stated that marriage should be a privledge. A privledge is something that is given to some people, but not others. A privledge is the same thing as a special benefit.

As it stands, we have a privledge called "marriage". Marriage is given as a reward to opposite-sex couples. It is explicitly not given as a reward to same-sex couples. This privledge is given to people who engage in heterosexuality, and it is specifically restricted from people who engage in homosexuality. If homosexuals want to get this privledge, they must stop being homosexual.

We have a restriction on the benefit of marriage which says, "you must be in a heterosexual relationship to get this benefit." Although it is possible for a homosexual to find someone of the opposite sex who would marry him or her, our law is clearly designed to grant a special benefit to heterosexuals. To deny that heterosexuals have a special benefit is to decieve oneself into believing that restricting benefits from homosexuals is okay if they can choose to engage in opposite-sex relationships. You might as well be telling me that it is okay to give Catholics special benefits because anyone could change to Catholic churches if they wanted. In truth, that is special benefits for Catholics, just as there are indeed special benefits for heterosexuals today.
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Jaxian said:
Now perhaps it would be best if our government changed the legal benefits from the word "marriage" to the word "civil unions". That way, it would be easier to distinguish between the legal benefits of marriage and the religious insitutions of marriage. But the legal name for marriage benefits has to be the same for everyone; no one should get special legal privledges.
Very well said. This is a fair and outstanding solution. You rock Jax.
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Quertol said:
There are no special benefits for heterosexuals...
Really? So the 1,000+ benefits attached to MARRIAGE aren't applied to heterosexuals? You know..the one's who are ALLOWED to legally marry...



Benefits attached to marriage - GAO (General Accounting Office)
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) provides definitions of “marriage” and “spouse” that
are to be used in construing the meaning of a federal law and, thus, affect the interpretation
of a wide variety of federal laws in which marital status is a factor.1 In 1997, we issued a
report identifying 1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in
which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital
status is a factor.2 In preparing the 1997 report, we limited our search to laws enacted prior
to September 21, 1996, the date DOMA was signed into law. Recently, you asked us to
update our 1997 compilation.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Jaxian said:
Vague stated that marriage should be a privledge. A privledge is something that is given to some people, but not others. A privledge is the same thing as a special benefit.
If you really want to understand the rights v. privilege debate, check out Hohfield who is the expert on it.(He's a bit tedious, but very interesting). Here's a snippet:

The words "right" or "privilege" have, of course, a variety of meanings, according to the connection or context in which they are used. Their definition, as given by standard lexicographers, includes "that which one has a legal claim to do, " "legal power, " "authority, " "immunity granted by authority," "the investiture with special or peculiar rights."

And, similarly, in the language of Mr. Justice Sneed, in Lonas v. State.'

The state, then, is forbidden from making and enforcing any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. It is said that the words rights, privileges and immunities, are abusively used, as if they were synonymous. The word rights is generic, common, embracing whatever may be lawfully claimed.

The thing is, as I've previously pointed out in this thread, if Vauge wants to consider marriage a privilege, that's fine. It's the onus on him to explain away the constitutional problem that arises when limiting those privileges by states by gay marriage in deference of the 14th Amendment.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
shuamort said:
If you really want to understand the rights v. privilege debate, check out Hohfield who is the expert on it.(He's a bit tedious, but very interesting). Here's a snippet:




The thing is, as I've previously pointed out in this thread, if Vauge wants to consider marriage a privilege, that's fine. It's the onus on him to explain away the constitutional problem that arises when limiting those privileges by states by gay marriage in deference of the 14th Amendment.
I still say it's a right not a privilege. Privileges are something you can lose, rights aren't.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,920
Reaction score
6,035
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
shuamort said:
Alright Vauge, let's take that concept. If you believe marriage is a privilege instead of a right then we can go with that. As long as you also follow the constitution which states in the fourteenth amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...

Now, there are states which are making and enforcing laws that are abridging the privilege of marriage. Are those then unconstitutional?
Should every law from every state be reflected across the board?

I guess, I just do not understand.

If the US supreme court or the US constitution were to exclaim that Gay marriage is allowed - then all states would have to of course concur. But, in this instance, the state of Mass has cliamed this and the Mass Supreme court has said it was ok. The US supreme court has refused to get involved simply because it is not a 14th issue. It's not a Federal privledge but a state privledge.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Pacridge said:
I still say it's a right not a privilege. Privileges are something you can lose, rights aren't.
Sure, one can lose their rights. A person can lose their right to vote by being a felon in some states.
 
Top Bottom