• 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!

Should gay marriage be legal?

Should gay marriage be legal?

  • Total voters
    60
CriticalThought said:
Right. Within the state of California, civil unions are seen as the same as marriage. However, on the federal level, they are not the same.

How do the rights and obligations granted in marriage differ from those granted in a civil union? Civil Unions (Love & Dating: Partnerships & Civil Unions)

I've made your argument before and so it is important to distinguish.
Click to expand...

If the point needs to be highlighted for the reading impaired, then sure.

There is not federal Civil Union, so I don't see how someone could say civil union isn't equal to "marriage" when it in fact doesn't exist at all to be unequal.
 
Jerry said:
If gay 'marriage is about the family and children, yes.

If gay 'marriage is about "strictly legal contracts", no.
Click to expand...

Marriage equality is all about family and about caring for, honoring and providing for our loved ones.:2wave:
 
evanescence said:
Discrimination based on gender is already illegal. Not allowing people to marry based on their gender is discrimination. Thus, gays should be able to marry.
Click to expand...

I once had that same mindset. However, immediately after Roe v Wade, a group of homosexuals thought "Hey, if one controversial issue can be made legal by flaunting a seemingly irrelevant right, then maybe we can do the same for gay marriage."

However, the US Supreme Court ruled that marriage laws are the exclusive jurisdiction of the states. See, that's why Congress wants to pass a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman, because a common statute would be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
 
middleagedgamer said:
I once had that same mindset. However, immediately after Roe v Wade, a group of homosexuals thought "Hey, if one controversial issue can be made legal by flaunting a seemingly irrelevant right, then maybe we can do the same for gay marriage."
Click to expand...

Why is it an irrelevant right?

middleagedgamer said:
However, the US Supreme Court ruled that marriage laws are the exclusive jurisdiction of the states. See, that's why Congress wants to pass a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman, because a common statute would be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

I see no problem with leaving this issue up to the states. My point is that by not allowing gays to marry, it is clearly (gender) discrimination, and that is illegal.
 
This thread peresents a very odd question. Of course people should be gay when they marry, fetive even, perhaps joyous!
 
evanescence said:
Why is it an irrelevant right?
Click to expand...
Because, prior to Roe v Wade, who'd of thunk it that abortion, arguably a type of murder, could be protected under, of all things, privacy laws.

I see no problem with leaving this issue up to the states. My point is that by not allowing gays to marry, it is clearly (gender) discrimination, and that is illegal.
Click to expand...
Yes, and a lot of state Supreme Courts have been legalizing gay marriage on those exact grounds. However, on a federal level, the Supreme Court does not get involved with marriage laws, even if they are illegal discrimination. For example, the states could outlaw interracial marriages, and unless the state Supreme Courts ruled that as racial discrimination, the Federal Supreme Court would not get involved with it (wouldn't, not couldn't).

As for, specifically, what case it was, give me some time; I'll have to redo my research, but I'll get it to you eventually.
 
The real question should be:

"Is there any real reason why it shouldn't be?"
 
Oftencold said:
This thread peresents a very odd question. Of course people should be gay when they marry, fetive even, perhaps joyous!
Click to expand...
Dude, that overused phrase is about as useful as a ten pound pile of dog crap.

Gay does not mean happy. It used to, but it doesn't anymore. Does **** still mean "ship high in transit?" No, it means fecel matter.

Does the F word still mean "to strike?" No, it means "to engage in sexual intercourse."

Does gang mean "a group of friends?" No, it means "a group of organized criminals."

The definition of gay being happy has gone the way of racism in the United States: It's gone. It doesn't exist anymore. Anyone who wants to claim otherwise is just paranoid.
 
There should be no federal rights associated with marriage of any orientation. It is blatant discrimination against people who choose to remain single.
 
middleagedgamer said:
Dude, that overused phrase is about as useful as a ten pound pile of dog crap.

Gay does not mean happy. It used to, but it doesn't anymore. Does **** still mean "ship high in transit?" No, it means fecel matter.

Does the F word still mean "to strike?" No, it means "to engage in sexual intercourse."

Does gang mean "a group of friends?" No, it means "a group of organized criminals."

The definition of gay being happy has gone the way of racism in the United States: It's gone. It doesn't exist anymore. Anyone who wants to claim otherwise is just paranoid.
Click to expand...
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘T he question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.’


-Lewis Carroll-
Click to expand...
By the way, I still use "gang" to mean "friends."


And "ass" to mean "donkey."

Well usually, for that last.

Sometimes after an unpleasant encounter,
I use it to mean a person.

Quite recently this was the case as a matter
of fact. Indeed, in the last few seconds.
 
Last edited:
middleagedgamer said:
We can argue about whether or not gay marriage should be legal until the end of time, and we'll only convince a few people. The only way you're going to recruit new members for your side are if you have babies yourself and raise them to support your side, and even that may not work.
Click to expand...

I don't think "breeding" is sufficient to explain the shift we've seen on this issue in recent years.

This poll is here for one reason and one reason only: Because the numbers don't lie. If this poll can get a majority of votes in favor of gay marriage, it's reasonable to assume that it's an accurate scale for the rest of the nation, since this forum brings in people from all walks of life and with all kinds of viewpoints. Therefore, if a majority of this site (and, by scale, a majority of the nation) wants gay marriage legalized, then Congress will have no reason for not legalizing it, other than the fact that they just don't give a damn.
Click to expand...

That's not really how sampling works.

Sampling (statistics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As to the issue: I believe it should be legal to the extent that "marriage" is regulated by the state. I would prefer that the state exit the "marriage" business altogether and instead only deal with civil unions.
 
yes it should. if not no marraige should be legal.
 
yes it should. if not no marraige should be legal.
Click to expand...

The latter of the two is the only fair option.
 
I believe it's legal everywhere, one of the perks of keeping government's filthy hands out of religion.

The real question is whether the state should recognize and promote it.
 
middleagedgamer said:
Because, prior to Roe v Wade, who'd of thunk it that abortion, arguably a type of murder, could be protected under, of all things, privacy laws.


Yes, and a lot of state Supreme Courts have been legalizing gay marriage on those exact grounds. However, on a federal level, the Supreme Court does not get involved with marriage laws, even if they are illegal discrimination. For example, the states could outlaw interracial marriages, and unless the state Supreme Courts ruled that as racial discrimination, the Federal Supreme Court would not get involved with it (wouldn't, not couldn't).
As for, specifically, what case it was, give me some time; I'll have to redo my research, but I'll get it to you eventually.
Click to expand...

I believe "they" (the government/elite) are stalling. The reason: keep Americans too busy fighting over these petty issues while they rob us blind financially. I could care less if gays marry or not. Why should I? My point is that it is gender discrimination to not allow them to marry. Gender discrimination is illegal.
 
A wedding has a bride, who is female, and a groom, who is male.

May as well make unicorn horns legal.
 
I am not asserting someone else's opinion, merely stating a fact, thus I don't need a link.
 
Me saying or typing it is not what makes it true.
 
“yes it should. if not no marraige should be legal.” - katiegrrl0

So you are for the abolition of marriage?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom