|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:08 pm
I have debated this topic for years and heard almost every argument in both directions. I personally have found that this issue is summed up best as follows. Make your own decisions and discuss them.
...Notes...
...Religion does not enter into this debate, except on moral standings, because the marriage being debated is legal marriage, which is independant of religious marriages. Same-sex couples can already be religiously married by various churches and the legal system cannot force churches to do anything that goes against their faith...
...We are not debating the existance of marriage. We are debating the possible redefinition of the current legal term "marriage" to include same-sex couples...
...More to come as needed...
Now, on to the legal argument...linaloki Here's the problem I have with the desire for a definition [of marriage] which is effectively a ban on homosexual marriages. If we review Loving v. Virginia, we see that the Supreme Court unanimously struck down Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, which banned inter-racial marriages. The Supreme Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment. So, would bans of homosexual marriages, or the denial of marriage licenses and all the rights attached to homosexual couples, be legitimate because they apply equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals? That's a COMMON argument [against same-sex marriage]. Are distinctions drawn according to sexuality generally "odious to a free people"? I should think so. Would those laws have any legitimate purpose? Independent of invidious sexualized discrimination? You tell me.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:37 am
I believe that homosexuals should have the right to legaly marry. It's not up to the majority to decide who can and can't marry, it's up to the constitution and those who interpet and enforce it to protect the rights it proclaims, even if those rigths go against the people's moral, ethical and/or religious beliefs.
About five months ago, the love of my life purposed to me. I can't describe how great it was, how emotional the memory still makes me. It was absolutely magical. But it wasn't real. I may have a ring, and we may love eachother, and we can have all the ceremony we want, but unless the laws change, it wont mean anything to anybody except for us. It's not fair. Why can't we be recognised for our love like the heterosexual newlyweds down the block?
Though, progress is being made. Now, I think it's up to about five states that allow homosexual marriage. It's only five out of fifty, but it's a start. It's hope.
I guess Bob Dylan said it best:
And don't speak too soon,
for the wheels' still in spin,
and there's no telling who that it's namin',
for the looser now will be later to win.
Oh the times they are a-changin'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vengeful Elegance Vice Captain
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:58 am
Testament of Death I believe that homosexuals should have the right to legaly marry. It's not up to the majority to decide who can and can't marry, it's up to the constitution and those who interpet and enforce it to protect the rights it proclaims, even if those rigths go against the people's moral, ethical and/or religious beliefs. About five months ago, the love of my life purposed to me. I can't describe how great it was, how emotional the memory still makes me. It was absolutely magical. But it wasn't real. I may have a ring, and we may love eachother, and we can have all the ceremony we want, but unless the laws change, it wont mean anything to anybody except for us. It's not fair. Why can't we be recognised for our love like the heterosexual newlyweds down the block? Though, progress is being made. Now, I think it's up to about five states that allow homosexual marriage. It's only five out of fifty, but it's a start. It's hope. I guess Bob Dylan said it best: And don't speak too soon, for the wheels' still in spin, and there's no telling who that it's namin', for the looser now will be later to win. Oh the times they are a-changin'. agreed. unfortunately this country likes to pretend to be a democracy. sadly most of the people who bother to vote are some form of christian so they vote according to their religious values and not according to what is in the best interest of the people. frankly it shouldn't even be an issue because we are supposed to have separation of church and state and homosexuality being 'wrong' is a religious thing. I don't care if the government is 'trying to protect the sanctity of marriage'. Sanctity by definition is something that is sacred. Sacred is a religious thing...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 8:14 am
Testament of Death I believe that homosexuals should have the right to legaly marry. It's not up to the majority to decide who can and can't marry, it's up to the constitution and those who interpet and enforce it to protect the rights it proclaims, even if those rigths go against the people's moral, ethical and/or religious beliefs. About five months ago, the love of my life purposed to me. I can't describe how great it was, how emotional the memory still makes me. It was absolutely magical. But it wasn't real. I may have a ring, and we may love eachother, and we can have all the ceremony we want, but unless the laws change, it wont mean anything to anybody except for us. It's not fair. Why can't we be recognised for our love like the heterosexual newlyweds down the block? Though, progress is being made. Now, I think it's up to about five states that allow homosexual marriage. It's only five out of fifty, but it's a start. It's hope. I guess Bob Dylan said it best: And don't speak too soon, for the wheels' still in spin, and there's no telling who that it's namin', for the looser now will be later to win. Oh the times they are a-changin'.
That actually gets to the crux of this issue. Technically, same-sex couples are equal under the current laws except in one way, to be allowed to marry the person to whom they are sexually/romantically attracted. That's it. That brings into question what the purpose of marriage is. So far, I have yet to find any concrete purpose. In turn, it can't be argued one way or another in this respect without a concrete purpose being recognized.
So, as much as I agree, based in my biases, I do not agree that this would count as a real justification for the allowance of same-sex marriage. At least, not to any competant debator, if you brought it up. It's more an appeal to emotion.
So, in my biased opinion, I agree.
As a debator, I believe this is a bad argument.
I hope the laws change in your favor, though -^_^-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 8:18 am
Elven Angel 1987 Testament of Death I believe that homosexuals should have the right to legaly marry. It's not up to the majority to decide who can and can't marry, it's up to the constitution and those who interpet and enforce it to protect the rights it proclaims, even if those rigths go against the people's moral, ethical and/or religious beliefs. About five months ago, the love of my life purposed to me. I can't describe how great it was, how emotional the memory still makes me. It was absolutely magical. But it wasn't real. I may have a ring, and we may love eachother, and we can have all the ceremony we want, but unless the laws change, it wont mean anything to anybody except for us. It's not fair. Why can't we be recognised for our love like the heterosexual newlyweds down the block? Though, progress is being made. Now, I think it's up to about five states that allow homosexual marriage. It's only five out of fifty, but it's a start. It's hope. I guess Bob Dylan said it best: And don't speak too soon, for the wheels' still in spin, and there's no telling who that it's namin', for the looser now will be later to win. Oh the times they are a-changin'. agreed. unfortunately this country likes to pretend to be a democracy. sadly most of the people who bother to vote are some form of christian so they vote according to their religious values and not according to what is in the best interest of the people. frankly it shouldn't even be an issue because we are supposed to have separation of church and state and homosexuality being 'wrong' is a religious thing. I don't care if the government is 'trying to protect the sanctity of marriage'. Sanctity by definition is something that is sacred. Sacred is a religious thing...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:02 pm
I don't think we're quite equal under all laws besides those regarding marriage. What about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 3:54 pm
Hypatia Star I don't think we're quite equal under all laws besides those regarding marriage. What about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
Regardless, none of what you said addresses the issue. I agree with you, but it doesn't address the issue at hand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 6:12 pm
I have to wonder what the purpose of banning gay marriage actually is. Aren't laws in place to protect the people and the communities they live in? Is the government trying to protect me from two men living together in my neighborhood? Obviously not; if this were the case, wouldn't those two men be unable to lawfully do so?
As they are now, these two men are considered "safe" merely because they do not have rings on their fingers and they are not legally considered "married." However, there is apparently some sort of danger that I am not aware of that will put me and my community at risk if these two were to become legally bound by marriage. Can anyone tell me what this danger is? What is it that the government is protecting me from?
It seems to me that gay marriage is harmless, and should not be disallowed unless it poses an imminent threat to our society. If people think that gay marriage is going to damage our country, then shouldn't the burden of proof be on them? Why should we have to provide evidence of it's harmlessness if there was never any reason to think that it was dangerous in the first place? If someone where to petition to have pinball banned, wouldn't they have to first provide evidence as to WHY it should be banned? We should not have to prove to anyone the harmlessness of pinball if there is nothing that is dangerous about pinball in the first place?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 6:24 pm
Rabid Irishman I have to wonder what the purpose of banning gay marriage actually is. Aren't laws in place to protect the people and the communities they live in? Is the government trying to protect me from two men living together in my neighborhood? Obviously not; if this were the case, wouldn't those two men be unable to lawfully do so? As they are now, these two men are considered "safe" merely because they do not have rings on their fingers and they are not legally considered "married." However, there is apparently some sort of danger that I am not aware of that will put me and my community at risk if these two were to become legally bound by marriage. Can anyone tell me what this danger is? What is it that the government is protecting me from? It seems to me that gay marriage is harmless, and should not be disallowed unless it poses an imminent threat to our society. If people think that gay marriage is going to damage our country, then shouldn't the burden of proof be on them? Why should we have to provide evidence of it's harmlessness if there was never any reason to think that it was dangerous in the first place? If someone where to petition to have pinball banned, wouldn't they have to first provide evidence as to WHY it should be banned? We should not have to prove to anyone the harmlessness of pinball if there is nothing that is dangerous about pinball in the first place?
To begin with, from my understanding, the government is meant to be the practiced execution of decisions agreed upon by the majority of the populous. At least, that's what it would be in a functioning democracy. It would be that all of us are a small part of it. As it currently stands, the issue of the governments' purpose is not applicable to the issue being debated.
To illustrate why, note the bolded portion. Your argument switches around at that point. Gay marriage isn't being banned. The institution of marriage is being maintained as it currently is. The burden is on us to prove why it should be changed. Of course, there is no reason not to allow it, but that's a bad argument in principle, as for how that principle could apply in other situations. No one will simply accept that argument if they can come up with a good comparison in which the principle should not apply. Your entire argument would then be moot. I cannot give you such an example because I agree with you, but I wanted to point that out.
So, the basis of your issue with the issue at hand seems to be flawed, in my view.
I do agree, but because I believe that same-sex marriages should be allowed based on my own answers to the questions posed in my initial post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 9:36 pm
I would like to point out that gay marriage (In california) WAS banned with the passing of prop 8.
I feel that the opinions of the majority should not be imposed upon the rest of us when it comes to our constitutional freedoms. That is why we HAVE constitutional freedoms, so that the majority can't just **** on everyone else simply because they are the majority. Every member of even the smallest minority has the same rights as everyone else. And no amount of votes should be able to override our inherent rights. This is the foundation of our country!
And I feel that the governments purpose is a huge issue that you are glossing over far too easily. It should be the government's responsibility to enforce and defend our rights. Especially when they are being jeopardized and manipulated for NO GOOD REASON.
If there was vote as to whether every red-headed person in wyoming should be executed, it is the governments job to step in and say "hey guys, this is really infringing on the rights of these red-heads. Not cool." The fact is that we have a constitution that defends the rights of every american whether or not they belong to the majority.
If the problem is that "gays shouldn't marry because that's how it's always been" then we still need to look at WHY it has always been that way. Was there EVER a real reason that same sex marriage was not legal?
I dunno, I am just baffled as to why this is even an issue. Is there a monetary reason why gay marriage hurts us? Is there ANY reason why gay marriage should be considered unlawful? That is ALL I want to know. If you can provide me with ONE reasonable reason why gay marriage could prove harmful to our society, then I will be happy just because I will then know that there IS INDEED AN ISSUE to discuss instead of a bunch of people just whining that "girls shouldn't kiss girls because I don't like it." I honestly just do not understand what the other side of this argument is at all, the only reason I have never felt the need to take the other side of this argument is because I honestly do not know what it is.
/deep breath
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:21 pm
Rabid Irishman I would like to point out that gay marriage (In california) WAS banned with the passing of prop 8. I feel that the opinions of the majority should not be imposed upon the rest of us when it comes to our constitutional freedoms. That is why we HAVE constitutional freedoms, so that the majority can't just **** on everyone else simply because they are the majority. Every member of even the smallest minority has the same rights as everyone else. And no amount of votes should be able to override our inherent rights. This is the foundation of our country! And I feel that the governments purpose is a huge issue that you are glossing over far too easily. It should be the government's responsibility to enforce and defend our rights. Especially when they are being jeopardized and manipulated for NO GOOD REASON. If there was vote as to whether every red-headed person in wyoming should be executed, it is the governments job to step in and say "hey guys, this is really infringing on the rights of these red-heads. Not cool." The fact is that we have a constitution that defends the rights of every american whether or not they belong to the majority. If the problem is that "gays shouldn't marry because that's how it's always been" then we still need to look at WHY it has always been that way. Was there EVER a real reason that same sex marriage was not legal? I dunno, I am just baffled as to why this is even an issue. Is there a monetary reason why gay marriage hurts us? Is there ANY reason why gay marriage should be considered unlawful? That is ALL I want to know. If you can provide me with ONE reasonable reason why gay marriage could prove harmful to our society, then I will be happy just because I will then know that there IS INDEED AN ISSUE to discuss instead of a bunch of people just whining that "girls shouldn't kiss girls because I don't like it." I honestly just do not understand what the other side of this argument is at all, the only reason I have never felt the need to take the other side of this argument is because I honestly do not know what it is. /deep breath
The point is that no one has yet to use the exact argument I used in the initial post. If it was used, I believe that, assuming we have accepting individuals on the Supreme Court, same-sex marriage would be allowed on the federal level. My argument shows that the precedent has already been set by the Supreme Court that the 14th Amendment covers the right of couples to marry for the reasons cited as questions at the end of my initial post. This precedent can apply directly to homosexuals in our current situation.
That is my opinion and is why I believe your premise is flawed. Marriage is not defined as a basic human right in our country, so you can't say the government should be defending it as such. Unless, of course, it was recognized that my argument applies in this case.
Basically, without the argument I gave in the initial post, there technically would be no leg for homosexuals to stand on concerning this issue. Pisses me off that one has to dig so hard through so much bullshit just to be able to show this to people, even though it's right on the surface.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:18 pm
Whether or not marriage is a basic human right in this country, sexual discrimination is still sexual discrimination. If all people are completely equal, then gender should never be an issue. Who's to say that only a woman can fulfill the role of "wife?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vengeful Elegance Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 12:10 am
Hopefully the laws will change in the future. I believe at one point it was illegal for a black person to even BE with a white person. That has obviously changed. Hopefully in the future we will stop being looked at as men and women and just be seen as people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:14 pm
Rabid Irishman Whether or not marriage is a basic human right in this country, sexual discrimination is still sexual discrimination. If all people are completely equal, then gender should never be an issue. Who's to say that only a woman can fulfill the role of "wife?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:23 pm
Vengeful Elegance Hopefully the laws will change in the future. I believe at one point it was illegal for a black person to even BE with a white person. That has obviously changed. Hopefully in the future we will stop being looked at as men and women and just be seen as people.
*Ahem* While your agreement is appreciated, it doesn't help the debate. Sorry if I sound rude. I'm used to the ED.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
