• 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!

What is the primary reason behind your support for same-sex marriage? [W:539/549]

What is the primary reason behind your support for same-sex marriage?

  • Because I’m gay/lesbian

    Votes: 3 2.2%

  • Because it’s an equal rights issue

    Votes: 78 57.4%

  • Because gays/lesbians love each other too

    Votes: 6 4.4%

  • Because I despise bigots/haters

    Votes: 1 0.7%

  • Because I don’t want to be labeled a bigot

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I’m opposed to gay marriage

    Votes: 13 9.6%

  • I don’t care, either way

    Votes: 16 11.8%

  • Other

    Votes: 19 14.0%
  • Total voters
    136
  • Poll closed .

Being gay is not a risk factor for HIV. Sorry. Certain activities are risk factors, not states of being.
 

well i agree thats why i didnt say society
yes society is "effected" in ways but thats just life, equal rights does that. When blacks and women were granted equal rights society was effected.

as far as what people believe or are taught thats up to them, IE people still feel and teach women and minorities are lesser :shrug:

Many things "effect" society in some way

nobody will be forced to "accept" anything though in personal terms
 

Still waiting for your answers on this.....
 
digsbe said:
And it's not a violation of the Constitution for a state to define one man one woman marriage which indirectly bans SSM.
Click to expand...

And I disagree with this. Ultimately, it's what's going to get determined in court. We have judicial precedence that the EPC applies to sexual orientation and to gender. We have judicial precedence that marriage is a civil right. We have constitutional amendments stating that States are subject to the restrictions of the constitution.

The act of sodomy laws and banning homosexual sex is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

They're unconstiuttional BECAUSE homosexuality is protected under teh EPC.

However, I do not believe that Constitutionally homosexuals as a group are protected to the same level as race, religion, and gender which are specific in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

This is correct, they are protected at a lower level than those things. That doesn't mean they're not protected, it just means that the state has a lower burden to justify their discrimination....but they still need to meet that burden and "Because people want it" doesn't meet it.

I don't believe that issuing equal rights on the basis of sexuality is clearly outlined in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

It's as "clearly outlined" as any of the other things you listed. Why is an amendment needed to do it for sexuality but not for Race or Gender?

It's not a violation of ECP to define one man one woman relationships as marriage unless of course the SCOTUS rules otherwise.
Click to expand...

And I'm arguing that they should rule otherwise because there has been no demonstrated IMPORTANT state interest that is substantially served by denying them based on gender. Can you offer one?


And I can see where they come to that conclussion, in part because that was the argument and directoin put forth to the court and because it was not challenging based on the notion that there was an EPC violation.


And this continues to be my confusion and my assertion that your argument is illogical because the constitution doesn't "Clearly state" that race and gender can't be discriminated against either and yet you ROUTINELY point to those as being legitimate. Those have been defined in the same manner sexual orientation has bee ndefined as applying to the EPC....through judicial preccedence.

There is legal sexual inequality in this country.
Click to expand...

Correect. That legal sexual inequality in this country meets the required standard under the EPC. I invite you again....provide an important State Interest (Let me pull out a common one, "raising a family", that is an example of a state interest. "People wanting it" is not a state interest) that you believe is substantially served by discriminating against gender in marriage.


That's fine. Accept the fact then that you're picking and choosing which pieces of judicial precedence you wish to accept and making up things to justify it to yourself such as stating what the constitution "Clearly" states.
 
Dooble said:
I'm opposed to same-sex marriage for the simple fact that I believe it is contrary to God's will.
Click to expand...

Dooble said:
I agree that homosexual marriage is an abomination in the sight of God.
Click to expand...
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he
placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his
arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he
separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
(Source: Virginia trial judge upholding conviction of Mildred and Richard
Loving for interracial marriage, quoted in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 3
(1967))



Dooble said:
Yet same-sex couples don't share identical body functions that straight people have, therefore, they should not be allowed to legally wed.
Click to expand...
Dooble said:
Back to the original argument that I refuted. Homosexuals can't possibly share the EXACT same love with each other that Heterosexuals share.
Click to expand...

“The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always*
productive of deplorable results. *The purity of the public morals, the moral*
and physical development of both races, and the highest advancement of*
civilization . . . all require that [the races] should be kept distinctly separate,*
and that connections and alliances so unnatural should be prohibited by*
positive law and subject to no evasion.”
* *(Source: Dissenting California Supreme Court Justice objecting to that*
Court's decision striking * * * * * down a state law ban on interracial marriage in*
Perez_v. Lippold, 198 P.2d 17, 41 (1948), (Shenk, J. dissenting))




“uch laws [banning interracial marriage] have been in effect in this
country since before our national independence and in this state since our first
legislative session. They have never been declared unconstitutional by
any court in the land although frequently they have been under attack. It is
difficult to see why such laws, valid when enacted and constitutionally
enforceable in this state for nearly one hundred years and elsewhere for a
much longer period of time, are now unconstitutional under the same
constitution.”
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 35 (Shenk, J. dissenting))


Dooble said:
Intersting that you compared alcohol consumption to homosexuality/same-sex marriage. Both can be destructive to the person physically, and most certainly destructive to the person spiritually.
Click to expand...

"Persons wishing to enter into interracial marriages come from the “dregs of
society.”
(Source: Advocates in favor of California's ban on interracial marriage,
quoted in Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 25)



"Racial intermarriage should not be allowed because of the physical inferiority
and higher incidence of certain diseases among certain races, such as
sickle-cell anemia among African Americans."
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 23-24 and n.5 (summarizing the
State's argument in favor of ban on interracial marriage))


Like I said in post #255,very eerily similar.
 
Agreed, ultimately the SCOTUS will decide.
They're unconstiuttional BECAUSE homosexuality is protected under teh EPC.
Click to expand...
The act of homosexual sex is, forcing states to recognize homosexual unions as a legal marriage is not in my opinion.
I believe that the states right to define and issue marriage licenses is above the right of homosexuals to have their sexuality recognized as a legal marriage with marriage terminology.
It's as "clearly outlined" as any of the other things you listed. Why is an amendment needed to do it for sexuality but not for Race or Gender?
Click to expand...
We had racial inequality until an amendment was added. Under the current Constitution I just don't see it legally protecting homosexual marriages and forcing that upon the states that issue licenses/certificates and that they adopt such a definition.
And I'm arguing that they should rule otherwise because there has been no demonstrated IMPORTANT state interest that is substantially served by denying them based on gender. Can you offer one?
Click to expand...
I personally think that there isn't a pressing logical issue that prevents SSM. But I also believe that it is within the due process of the law for a state to define marriage as one man one woman.
And I can see where they come to that conclussion, in part because that was the argument and directoin put forth to the court and because it was not challenging based on the notion that there was an EPC violation.
Click to expand...
The fact still remains that the ruling was based on the fact that MA has a right to define marriage and the federal government does not have the authority to limit that. It may not have been tried on the grounds of the EPC, but it was tried on the grounds of state rights and on those grounds it is completely legal for a state to define marriage.
The constitution clearly discusses racial equality with Amendment 15. The Constitution clearly discusses sex/gender in Amendment 19. There is no Amendment extending rights on the basis of sexuality. One may argue that sexuality can tie into gender, but as far as it being clearly mentioned it isn't there. Unlike race and gender, sexuality is not clearly mentioned which is what I'm getting at. You may be arguing SSM as a Federal Constitutional right based on gender, but to state that it is in violation due to sexuality (homosexuality in specific) I just don't think it's there.
It's not unconstitutional to define marriage as one man one woman. An interest does not need to be stated in amendments to state Constitutions doing such. What important state interests are there in outlawing polygamy, incest, making bestiality illegal or other such things? It is within due process of the law for people in a state to define the terms for marriage that exclude polygamy and homosexuality. Regardless, important state interest is subjective to individual beliefs. I support SSM at the state level, I see no logical reason to ban it so I can't produce an important state interest from my own beliefs. However, I also think it's overstepping federal powers under the current Constitution to void a states right to define marriage as one man one woman and fully respect the right of states to do so or to legalize SSM and polygamy.
That's fine. Accept the fact then that you're picking and choosing which pieces of judicial precedence you wish to accept and making up things to justify it to yourself such as stating what the constitution "Clearly" states.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. I believe rulings on DOMA and the upheld belief that states may define marriage as one man one woman overpowers rulings striking down sodomy laws. By clearly stating something, the Constitution directly has amendments for race and gender, not sexuality. As I've said, the Constitution has causes directly and clearly discussing racial and gender rights, there aren't ones for sexuality. You may be arguing based on gender, and I disagree that it is a violation of rights based on gender to say that a man can be a wife/bride or that a woman can be a husband/groom or to force all marriage definitions to state that a union is between two consenting adults regardless of sex. I don't think the legal definition of marriage that we have held in this country up until a few states changed that years ago is unconstitutional and unlawfully discriminating against gender rights. The judicial fact is that the Federal government does not have the authority to tell a state how to define marriage and the current definitions are lawful until overturned by the SCOTUS if that indeed happens. I personally think for that to happen that an amendment should be added to the constitution that repeals a states right to define marriages and clarifies that it is gender discrimination or discrimination based on sexuality for a state to do as such and the fact that that has been upheld in nearly all states (with the exception of California where SSM had been previously allowed).
 
digsbe said:
The constitution clearly discusses racial equality with Amendment 15.
Click to expand...

Only in regards to voting.

The Constitution clearly discusses sex/gender in Amendment 19.
Click to expand...

Again, only in terms of voting.

There's a reason why Brown v. Board of Education utilized the 14th and not the 15th...becuase it had nothing to do with voting. The fact that the 15th was present and pointed out race is irrelevant to the notion that the 14th applies to race. The 15th is singularly about voting rights.


It's not unconstitutional to define marriage as one man one woman.
Click to expand...

. . . .sigh

I'm not denying it's currently found to be constitution. I'm asking you WHY you believe that's correct.

What important state interests are there in outlawing polygamy, incest, making bestiality illegal or other such things?
Click to expand...

I'm going insane here because it's becoming clear you have no clue what you're talking about and that's why there's a disconnect.

Polygamy can not be argued from the notion of Gender discrimination. If you feel it could be, please present your argument as to how. It can't be argued based on Race either. It would have to be very narrowly tailored to be argued on Religion, and it wouldn't stand up to well since there's no clear discrimination against someone because of their religion. As such, at best, it'd qualify as needing rational basis scrutiny...the lowest level of scrutiny...and as such doesn't need to have a "Important" state interest but rather a legitimate state interest.

The state has a legitimate interest in maintaining an equitable tax code, as well as being reasonable in terms of public spending in terms of the contract aspects that would need to be dealt with in such situations. Allowing for polygamous marriage creates a plethora of significantly new and unique tax issues due to the potential stringing together of multiple households through contractual marriage and thus creating a swiss cheese setup of tax connections. For example, one man marries two wives. One of those wives marries a second man who he himself has three wives, one of which is also married to the wife that shares both husbands. How is the tax code worked up for those individuals? How would things be settled with regards to divorce, custody rights, power of attorny, etc. Does husband one, husband two, or the wife have precedence.

Beastiality, if you're talking about it in the sense of Marriage since that's the only way that it'd really be relevant to this discussion, has a similar issue with acting that it requires "important" state interest and again is another thing that is questionable as to whether or not it even register for the "rational basis" level of things. But lets assume it does. The state has a legitimate state interest in terms of the legitimacy of contracts and allowing for an entity that does not have the ability to actually consent to be able to enter into a binding legal contract is problematic for that legitimate state interest.

In terms of incestuous marriage, I'm actually one who doesn't believe that should be inherently illegal from a constitutional stand point.

There, for two seperate ones you've provided me I've given you, off the cuff, clear and reasoned examples of a State Interest that the government has in denying them the ability to marry and an indication of how it's needed in relation to the particular discrimination. Something you've yet to provide in this entire conversation in terms of gender.
 
I support gay marriage for one reason and one reason only...

Equal protection under the law. So as soon as the "hate" laws go away, we can move forward.

Marriage is marriage and assault is assault. Having special laws for some but not all is tearing this country asunder. It needs to stop.
 

Agree here. While I can understand the notion of judging something more sternly on a case by case basis, based on Judges discretion, within the STANDARD degrees of punishment for a crime when the action is done specifically due to the persons race or gender or other such thing I am completely and utterly against the notion that there should be an additional Law and criminal charge on the books specifically for such cases.
 
winston53660 said:
so discouraging monogamous stable relationships via gay marriage bans is the correct course of action ?
Click to expand...
Only if you suport illegal marriages such as same-sex marriage, which I don't, so, no.
 
Blackdog said:
Equal protection under the law. So as soon as the "hate" laws go away, we can move forward.
Click to expand...
rof Moving Forward[sup]TM[/sup] doesn't help when you're facing the wrong direction.
 
Dooble said:
Only if you suport illegal marriages such as same-sex marriage, which I don't, so, no.
Click to expand...

So you don't support SSM because it isn't legal?

Would you feel the same if interracial marriages weren't legal?


“uch laws [banning interracial marriage] have been in effect in this
country since before our national independence and in this state since our first
legislative session. They have never been declared unconstitutional by
any court in the land although frequently they have been under attack. It is
difficult to see why such laws, valid when enacted and constitutionally
enforceable in this state for nearly one hundred years and elsewhere for a
much longer period of time, are now unconstitutional under the same
constitution.”
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 35 (Shenk, J. dissenting))
 

[tangent]
I love this citation because it references the country existing before the Constitution, in fact even before we declared independence. This plays to other threads where folks ask "is this a Christian nation", invalidating arguments relying on the Constitution. The yes/no answer to that question is not based on the law, but the culture of the people. The country existed before our constitution, our country will exist after the current constitution is gon.
[/tangent]
 
No, it isn't. You just had to use the issue of race to try and make a point. You were probably fishing for a potential racist. Bigotry has nothing to do with it. I support both the laws of the land as well the laws of God. You ignore both, and yet you still have the coconuts to point your finger at me. I'm not the bigot here, and I'm certainly not the hypocrite, either.
 
Dooble said:
Only if you suport illegal marriages such as same-sex marriage, which I don't, so, no.
Click to expand...
Gay marriage in and of its self is not illegal. Gays get married every day all across this country in every single State. What ,unfortunately, is "illegal" is in to many States it is illegal for the State to recognize gay marriage
 


Suuuuuuure you aren't.
Don't get mad at me just because both you and I keep proving my point.
You say I ignore the Laws of this Land?
Prove it.
What Laws have I broken?
Prove your God even exists to even provide laws.
I obey MY Deity's Laws.
How about prove I don't do that either,hmmmm?

I don't give crap about YOUR deity or his overly long boring book.
YOUR Deity has no power over me.

Like I've said before,Christianity and Christians do not own God,they do not own Marriage,the have no entitlement to rule others simply because they are Christians,they don't have the right to ram their beliefs down everone eles throats.they don't own Love,and they don't own Peace.
All they have is the right to THEIR own beliefs.
No one is required to partake in them.

I wasn't fishing for a potential racist,but a certain bigot keeps insisting on jumping into the boat.

Damn right I have the coconuts.
 
Jerry said:
rof Moving Forward[sup]TM[/sup] doesn't help when you're facing the wrong direction.
Click to expand...

My religious views do not dictate our secular law. If I want equal protection, then I want it for everyone.

Jesus did not get into Roman politics for a reason, neither should we. This does not mean I can't vote for laws etc that are dictated by my morals. I do however want equal treatment, period.
 
I voted other. To be honest, I think it is a stupid issue. What should stop two people from getting married? If Marriage is to be strictly religious, then all non-church marriages should be abolished and there should be no benefits outside of the Church. However, nobody is going to want to do that. A seemingly simple solution is to have marriage only be recognized by the church, but allow for state contracts granting two people union whether gay or straight. This discriminates nobody on a national level.
 

I liked not because I also oppose SSM on a personal level (I don't), but because you demonstrate a maturity by stating that you are religiously opposed to SSM but understand that there is a line of separation between political and religious beliefs, a maturity that many do not have. Good on you
 
Blackdog said:
Jesus did not get into Roman politics for a reason, neither should we.
Click to expand...

It would kinda hard for us to get involved in Roman politics these days. :razz:
 

I agree and not only is it a maturity level its an ablity to be non-hypocritical.
 
....implying lack of support for personal reasons is immature....
 
Jerry said:
....implying lack of support for personal reasons is immature....
Click to expand...

Goshin said that he didn't support it for personal reasons but didn't oppose it either. I like that. Try reading, please.
 
I support gay marriage because its an equal right that should be given, it doesn't harm anyone and should be legalized.
 
MadLib said:
Goshin said that he didn't support it for personal reasons but didn't oppose it either. I like that. Try reading, please.
Click to expand...
Typical liberal, always with the personal attacks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…