California overturned gay-marriage ban today!

Post Reply New Topic

Quick argument for the legal basis of same-sex marriage: Most states have some sort of Equal Rights Amendment which prohibits discrimination based on sex/gender, or at least makes the person rationalizing it provide a darn good justification for it. Not allowing Lisa to marry Mary is discrimination on the basis of sex; the same could be said of a male couple. Many states also have various laws which prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in healthcare and other areas. This issue is an extension of it. If you believe that people deserve to be treated as equals under the law regardless of sexual orientation, this is a pretty obvious issue. That's the basic issue.

Why do homosexuals want to marry?

It is an issue about equality and being able to have the freedom and right of having the same lifestyle any heterosexual person can have, that including, the same legal benefits and legal treatment in same fairness on everything, regardless of their sexual orientation, being able to have equal oportunities on persuing any personal goal like any human being, that including marriage.

They likely come from religious grounds. Really though, scientific studies don't lead to ethical conclusions. Now, the issue of "should" comes from some ethical grounds. Now, honestly, I disagree with your views in a more liberal manner, but still, the political system is one based upon the choices, on whatever grounds they choose.


The reason why people in the US vote on this is because it is not currently a law, and we want to make it a law. The issue of unfairness is perhaps true, but still, the US functions on relatively democratic/republican lines. As well, where does the constitution fall in on a law that does not currently exist? Women were given suffrage after it was voted upon, so it is not different and we had an entirely new amendment created for this purpose. Black people did have to have some public opinion on their own legal status, and the rest was based upon application of the existing laws made. Frankly, I don't like democracy, period, but it is a relatively democratic system.

Wow. You think pre-1919 America was a "democracy" even though more than half the population couldn't vote? (The same could be said of the pre-1965 period before the Voting Rights Act.) I mean, the constitution itself said that slaves were "3/5ths of a person," and that's supposed to be okay because it's democracy? In a liberal republic which professes to allow freedom, equality is not something which is open to debate. The majority does not have the right to trample over the rights of minorities.

I said "relatively democratic", just think about Athens, the first democracy, it pretty bad for the number of people given suffrage too. I never said anything about moral correctness, I am only talking about the actual institutional workings. Frankly, srriv345, all of this stuff IS up to debate, and there is no reason other than your assertion to say that it isn't up to debate. Who says that anyone has any rights? The government? If the majority controls the government, then how does that assertion make any sense? You are pulling it from nowhere other than your head. Frankly, I agree with the claim on some level, but the world works through might making rights, not through some idealistic process that aligns perfectly with whatever moral you or someone else decided to hold.

But many people don't find homosexuality acceptable. I won't speak for Europe, it is by far more liberal than America. I don't think people are willing to see gays be affectionate in public which is something that will happen (and must be accepted) if Homosexual marriage was allowed.

I really don't see it as an equality issue. There is subtle discrimination everywhere. Same-sex marriage bans is just more blatant. Honestly, gays have been given plenty of rights to enfranchise them and remove as much discrimination. I don't see a reason why the state should allow marriage though (considering that plenty of people are still against it). It is not at all similar to miscegenation, although people still might argue against it (which I can understand why). If a person were to argue on moral/religious grounds against mixed marriages, anti-miscegenation has no foundation. On science? Same sex marriage arguments by moral/religious grounds has much to work with. A scientific approach? I would like to hear this.

What actually is Same-Sex marriage? What are the benefits of it? How would happen to "Family"? How would the roles in family work? How many people would be accepting of these new roles? What about the transgender/transsexual?


I'm having a hard time trying to accept and understand any of this.

How democratic are democracies? Direct democracies are hell for the minorities. Republics are hell for the majority.

Ok. I understand that, but I was just referencing the nature of the institution.

I actually was trying to quote that.

Doesn't matter if some people find homosexuality unacceptable. This issue is about every citizens right to marry another adult... period.
The focus on homosexuals marrying is here because they are currently disallowed to marry in many states.
Once this country (the U.S.) allows each adult the opportunity to marry another adult without consideration as to this couple's sexuality, gender, religion, race, ethnicity, incarceration,etc., then marriage as a state sanctioned event will be equal for every adult citizen.



Fearmongering!
You have no evidence that this will happen do you?
In your claim above you are saying that it is your opinion that no people are willing to see gays be affectionate in public.
This is wholly untrue. You are not telling the truth here! I, for one, am not opposed to public displays of affection between two adults be they heterosexual or homosexual.
I know of other people who would feel the same as I do.
You project your own concerns/fears upon this issue, that this supposed increase in public display of affection will take place.
I have seen public displays of same-sex affection for many years in America.
I have yet to see where it has caused harm to anyone.


I'm not sure why you cannot see it as an equality issue.
There are some Americans who are not allowed to enter into a legal, state-sanctioned, marriage... while there are others who can.
The difference is based solely upon the sexuality and sex of the individuals... that's it. Yes... this is not equality. Yes... it is an equality issue.
You keep harping about people's sexuality.
What the problem is here is all about equality for all Americans.
A person's sex and their sexuality should NOT be an issue regarding marriages.
You seem to enjoy acting as though you cannot understand this, but you do come across as intelligent other times.

I really think you are just playing games here to goad folks into getting upset with you so you can go on about how your arguments never fail.

The truth is... if we are only talking about equality among adults in America, then state sanctioned marriage should be available to all... sexuality has no place in determining who gets state sanctioned things like marriage.
If states are going to give a driver's license to heterosexuals... they still have to give them to homosexuals no matter if you like having gay people driving vehicles on public roads or not.

Same thing with any contract sanctioned or recognized by the state. A person's sexuality is not a factor in who gets these benefits from the state and who doesn't... except when talking about marriage.
It's a blatant issue of discrimination in that one area.



I suppose your first question is rhetorical?
About the second... same benefits as any other marriage... two people signing a contract to live together. There is nothing that says a marriage is about two people getting together to raise a family... i.e.... having children.
There have been childless marriages for as long as I have known about marriage.
Other than having children through sexual relations between the two partners in a marriage, there is nothing that differentiates the 'benefits' of marriage between heterosexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals and asexuals. Sexuality is not one of the tenets of marriage... it is a benefit to the partners if they choose to engage in such conduct.

I will agree that there is the assumption that most marriages have a sexual component, but sex itself is not a reason for the state to license marriages in this country. You will find no such qualifications from any state in the U.S. specifying that the partners will engage in sexual entercourse.

Here again Oscario... sex is not a main factor in deciding who gets married by the state and who doesn't.. so sexuality of the partners is a moot point... or it should be.

Finishing up on the quote above...
It does not matter to the state how the roles work in any marriage. In my marriage, once our daughter was born I became a house-husband... meaning, I stayed at home with our daughter while my wife went to work. No state in this country cares about that!

Also, it does not matter how many citizens of this country would be accepting of those 'new' roles.
Just like in other areas of marriage we do not run around raising red flags when we see something in a marriage that we do not like... as long as it is not illegal as in rape, physical assault, etc.... if a couple wants to crossdress and eat dinner like that.. it does not matter to the state. I don't care how many people in this country object to a crossdressing couple eating dinner in each other's clothing... to the state.. it's a non-issue.

You keep bringing up your personal likes and dislikes and this is not what the issue of marriage equality for all U.S. Citizens is about. You can have your opinion... it doesn't override the equal application of state licensure for every American.

You don't have to like homosexuals, nor do you have to like seeing them hold hands in public or kissing.
Same with heterosexuals.
The fact is that this activity is deemed permissible in our country and protected by law. This is allowed equally for EVERY adult citizen of the U.S.





You work it out in your own way.. you do not have to accept OR understand any of this.
The state, though HAS TO apply laws, and other legal vehicles equally to every adult citizen of the U.S., plain and simple.
Marriage is one of these.

Why do heterosexuals want to marry?

1) It does matter if people find it unacceptable because if it becomes an issue for the voters, the voters will not allow it. Adults aren't the only people that marry. I still don't think that marriage is about equality. Certainly the federal government doesn't care much.

"The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states."


2) That is because you more than likely live in a more liberal city. Certainly not in my state, although there are districts that cater to gays in my city, I would highly doubt that the majority would applaud gay pda.


3) Marriage is marriage. It is a discriminating process already. I don't know of many cultures that have historically praised and accepted same-sex marriage. It has as a whole been understood as a union between a man and a woman. So yes gender is an issue, especially in more conservative nations which I would argue America is. Your driver's license is not comparable as the vehicle wasn't made for heterosexuals alone.


4) Now this is where definitions of marriage come along. Everyone has a different definition of marriage (mostly liberal and conservative interpretations). Mine happen to be that it is between a man and woman to have and raise children, to be a family acceptable to society. The rest is legal work. I won't explain any further because then that would be an argument on morality and I'd rather not discuss such (ie childless marriages, love/loveless marriages, divorces, etc).



That is a very big benefit.

I don't think the laws explicitly say we can cross dress, kiss, fondle each other in public. I don't see it anywhere.


5) The state has to apply laws, yes. I will voice my opinion and give my vote against gay marriage when/wherever possible. It is my democratic duty.

Have a child, raise a family? That is my reason.

Forgot, religious duty.

gay couples want that too. unfortunately close-minded people have the misconception that because they're gay that they're also child molesters or that somehow the gay will rub off on the kids so that's also facing a streaky legal ground right now. what a bunch of half-wit morons those people are.

That's them and their opinion.

Homosexuals cannot have children through sexual relations. End of story for me.




irrelevant information: my fortune cookie reads "The Stars appear every night in the Sky. All is Well"

Obviously all is well now. I will sleep comfortable knowing that.