CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Why Do Straight People have the Call on Marriage or Civil Unions?
Every time we have a question about Gay Marriage or Civil Unions it's always put forth from the straight person's point of view. Like how dare you steal my word for your paltry little ceremony and call it marriage. You don't love, you just have sex and that's noting to get married about! Oh no? Even the good book says no sex before marriage. So let's hear from some gay people on this one. What do you think? Shall we be the ones who choose the name for our ceremony or should they?
If it really came to down to just titles, we live in a Fuckin' Democratic Republic where shit like this doesn't make a difference.
To me, marriage should just be abolished as a government institution and it should just be Civil Unions. Government should have nothing to do with who loves who, and Marriage is EXACTLY that.
marriage should just be abolished as a government institution and it should just be Civil Unions. Government should have nothing to do with who loves who, and Marriage is EXACTLY that.
The United States isn't a democracy Jake, if that's what you're trying to get at. Nor do the majority have the right to impose their beliefs on a minority. This is the exactly the sort of reason that the United States was established as a Representative Republic. The majority's prejudices and inability to cope with people and ideas they disapprove of is precisely why the founding fathers distrusted rule by the mob.
I was just trying to say that straight people should and do have a say. there are obviously more straight people so naturally when put to a vote (like prop 8) straight people will have the majority call no matter what it is.
I thought about putting a link to Representative Democracy to be safe from any loopholes like the one you scrambled up. Guess I have to be more specific next time. Nice try.
About 10% of the population is gay, countless more bisexual. That's a minority, that should be protected from the majority.
Pretty soon white people will be outnumbered by now minorities. We'll see what you say about majority rule when you, a religious white male,when you're outnumbered.
That's the sort of attitude that makes people like Jake feel so threatened and perpetuates tensions. The whole idea that "you'll get yours later" is ridiculous. The system should protect everyone equally and it shouldn't matter what happened in the past. It should be based off of the present. Many relatively well off white people feel like the rest of the country is gaining up on them, attacking them for something that happened a hundred years ago, a dozen years ago; and so they hold onto the status quo so much harder. Blind hostility towards the other side is a sin that both sides of the aisle, politically speaking, are guilty of.
What we need is a compromise, the primary argument against gay marriage is the idea that it will undermine the institution. Fine, the government should get out of the marriage business and let people figure out what marriage is. I think the tax system aught to be scrapped and rewritten anyway, but baring that give all committed couples with legal civil unions the same tax rights that current marriages have. It seems to me that the tax issues are the main obstacle here. The homosexual couples that are married, but whose marriage isn't recognized by the government shouldn't give a damn what the government says except that they are being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. What other people think, so long as those thoughts don't result in physical harm to them or their property, shouldn't matter in the least. Marriage is more than a piece of paper, its a commitment between two people that transcends physical attraction or sex and it's certainly not something that can be regulated.
"Pretty soon white people will be outnumbered by now minorities. We'll see what you say about majority rule when you, a religious white male,when you're outnumbered"
Then you saw what he said and changed it to a what if situation. Not to mention resorting to name calling. [sad]
So why don't you try not to be a "pussy" and own up to what you do. That's what I do.
My answer: If [and that is "if" not when] I was the minority and people where voting against me I would still respect the law and the constitution no matter what. It's simple.
That's not a "you'll get yours" situation. I never said that all of the sudden minorities will turn and put white people into slavery, or oppress them. You just wont have the majority vote in the country.
If [and that is "if" not when] I was the minority and people where voting against me I would still respect the law and the constitution no matter what. It's simple.
Okay, so let me put it into words that a less easy for you to just avoid with "I'm a good American" speeches.
Pretend that today, 900 Million babies were born. Now it's 18 years in the future and all of those babies can vote, and are gay. You're the straight minority, and not yet married. A law passes saying that only gay people can get married. It passed legally, with majority rule. Now you, as a man, can't get married to a woman int he United States. You are okay with that? Because you respect the law?
And that was always my question, before he responded. I asked you "How would you feel if white people were the minority and were voted against?"
Saying "You'll get yours" isn't constructive. I'm trying to help you think.
Saying "You'll get yours" isn't constructive. I'm trying to help you think.
Think about something that will never happen? Thanks. If it's about race I know that whites are becoming a minority, that doesn't matter! Many people with different skin share my beliefs.
Pretend that today, 900 Million babies were born. Now it's 18 years in the future and all of those babies can vote, and are gay. You're the straight minority, and not yet married. A law passes saying that only gay people can get married. It passed legally, with majority rule. Now you, as a man, can't get married to a woman int he United States. You are okay with that? Because you respect the law?
No.
I think it's safe to assume that your next move is "you hypocrite!".[sorry for not giving you the satisfaction I really am] I can go ahead and answer that if you would like. I'm am not a hypocrite because I do not believe it to be the same thing. I believe in god and that homosexuality is a sin.
Now all you can do is insult my beliefs. Have fun.
PS: sorry it took so long, the thing didn't notify me
How could homosexuality be immoral when God [presumably] created gay people?
You can't say that homosexuality is a choice either, because He also apparently created homosexual animals (you've already seen the big list in a different debate so I'm not going to copy and paste it here, but suffice it to say nearly every species of mammal has a portion of their population that exhibits homosexual behavior).
In addition, why does your belief that something is immoral, give you the right to restrict it? What if every religious group acted this way?
You agree that it is immoral not to attend Church, correct? What if a group voted that everyone had to attend Church?
How about if vegetarians made eating meat illegal for the mere fact that they thought it was immoral?
Don't you see that gay people getting married doesn't hurt anyone? Why would you outlaw something that has no effect on you? They're not forcing you to get gay married, so live and let live.
(I would ask why something that would only bring happiness to those involved could be considered immoral, but I know that as a religious person you rarely ask questions like "why?".)
The point still remains that two gays getting married doesn't hurt you, and it allows them to have the happiness that we are all brought up to want: to live the rest of your life with the person you love. What could be wrong with that?
Gays should have never asked to be allowed to marry. They should have just asked for the same rights as marriage. Then, after obtaining said rights, they should have just started calling it a marriage and if someone objected, they should have said, "Well, what the hell would you call it?" By asking to be allowed to marry, they gave straight people the power to decide. It is better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission ( but don't try that at home with your parents, boys and girls ) ;)
My whole view on this is that gays can do whatever the hell they want. They can have civil unions, get married, etc, but I have always preferred it to stay out of a religious ceremony. I'm not against some new religion that allows it (hint hint lol), but Christianity is so against it and always has been. There's no point in trying to get it because the church will never back down... like ever.
There is no way any straight person should have a say on what we call our ceremonies. When two people are joined together by a minister or a Justice of the Peace they take their vows and are married. It's no different in the straight world and I make no distinction on what they are called so why should they? It's my business and my wedding and I'll call myself married if I want to whether you like it or not. I'm trying to make this mean something serious and not minimize it in any way. It seems to me that straights wish to minimize our rituals and rites of passage while enjoying the same names themselves. If they can chip away at it, it means less and I'm not having it...are you?
The good book says no sex without the purpose of having a baby. and since the "good book" also encourages a strong family, it says that you can't have sex until you're married because you must procreate with the intention of raising a healthy child.
Since gays can not procreate, gay marriage doesn't exist in the bible. And, since gays can't procreate, gay sex is considered a sin. When it comes to marriage and sex, that's what the "good book" says.
What does the "good book" and the church have to say about sterile couples?
.
Since sterile couples cannot procreate, marriage between sterile couples doesn't exist in the bible. And since sterile people can't procreate, sex between sterile people is a sin. When it comes to marriage and sex, that's what the "good book" says.
So the union between two sterile people shouldn't be called "marriage" and the church should refuse to perform the service...
Hi Pyggy! While I do understand where you're coming from with you dispute I just want to say that even though we cannot procreate in the real sense of the word we can have children by other ways and means. Perhaps I used the phrase too loosely...sorry!
First of all, I personally could care less about what the so called good book has to say one way or the other. Spare me your imaginary playmate in the sky. Secondly, gay folks pay taxes just the same (probably more) as straight people. And thirdly, I couldn't care less what straight people think about gay people. Most times they wouldn't know a gay person if they were bitten on the butt by one. Fourth: Straight people should have absolutely no say in the matter whatsoever. I don't get to vote on whether they should be married, why should they vote on whether I should be married to the partner of my choice. The whole notion that they have a vote is totally absurd and one day everyone will look back on it and agree. President Obama included.
First of all, I personally could care less about what the so called good book has to say one way or the other. Spare me your imaginary playmate in the sky.
lol, well said, up vote.
And I don't want people to get us confused. I'm David, from LV, and I have no idea what my astrological sign is.
And so whatever religion one prescribes to should have the say,
Now I have no idea what the sexual orientation of any religion would be (though I think they're all gay, get it, punny stuff)
but I'm completely baffled as to why a bunch of gay people have not yet come together to form their own religion, in which marriage between gays is considered part of their "religious" freedom, and hence protected by our constitution under freedom of religion.
At any rate, as pyg said on the other side, government has no business in marriage; just as I, you, Rev whatever, Pastor whoever, Father whatshisname should have no say in what two consenting adults want to do, and what ceremonies they want to play dress-up for.
But as long as gov. does decide to take it upon itself to get all in everyone's business, they should allow everyone to have equal business going on, regardless of their personal tastes.
Marriage is not just a religious institution; it's a civil institution regulated by the State. One's religious freedoms exist only to the extent that they are not, and cannot be, circumscribed by law.
"Religious freedom" is not carte blanche. You cannot legally murder people or perform "human sacrifices" in the name your religion. You cannot take illegal drugs in the name of your religion. And you can't get legal recognition for a purely religious marriage unless the State endorses it, either.
Polygamous marriages are not allowed by law, and it doesn't matter if you belong to a religious sect that thinks otherwise. Child marriage is not allowed by law, and again, it doesn't matter if you belong to a religious sect that thinks otherwise. You still have no legal right to form those types of marriages and there is no Constitutional protection to do so.
Because marriage IS a civil institution regulated by the State, the particulars of its regulation MUST go through state legal processes (e.g., legislative proposals and court decisions). It doesn't even particularly matter whether we like that process, because it is simply not possible to hand over the powers of state and national sovereignty in that fashion -- and to whom would the powers of sovereignty be handed? "The gay community"? What governing body speaks for them? Are gay people and straight people now to be subjected to entirely different governments? Should we also have separate governments for men and women, or for people of different races? It seems clear that that's absurd, and would fundamentally unravel our political process and our state and federal governments.
I personally support gay marriage, and I support the democratic process of government. You don't like what the government is doing, that's great -- vote, protest, and engage in political and social processes to encourage a change in law.
We've tried "separate but equal", and we all know how that worked out. If "separate but equal" was insufficient to address racial discrimination, and is an insufficient expression of the rights of gay people to form "marriages" or "civil unions", how could "separate" governing bodies or voting rights formed solely in order to make decisions for minority members of society possibly do us any good?
No, you are missing my point. I did not compare gay marriage to polygamous marriage or child marriage. I noted those as uses of the State's asserted interest in regulating marriage and prohibiting certain forms of it that trump any First Amendment claims regarding "freedom of religion." Whether you agree with the outcomes of that regulation - or even the power to regulate - is irrelevant. It's deeply entrenched in our legal codes and the States are not going to give it up.
Your suggestion would actually deprive gay people of ANOTHER right, namely the First Amendment right you so dearly claim, that of choosing and practicing the religion of one's choice. AND, it would do absolutely zero in terms of affording any legal marriage rights or protections to gay people.
STATES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO RECOGNIZE RELIGIOUS MARRIAGES. That's why people who are getting married have to sign something or get a marriage license or otherwise register the marriage with the State and get the State's stamp of approval on it before they get the legal "benefits" of being married.
Marriage was a civil institution far further back in our Western history than it was a religious one. The only reason marriage became a religious institution in Christianity was because the Catholic Church, during early medieval times, declared marriage a "sacrament" in order to combat the massive problem of poor women whose "marriages" were not being adequately recorded and upheld by law having essentially illegitimate children and being left as "single unwed mothers." Of course it had a religious component before that - basically all religions have set out rituals of marriage - but it was always "the State" who regulated it.
Furthermore, there is nothing NOW that prohibits gay people from having exclusively religious ceremonies, save for the doctrines of individual churches. That doesn't give them any legal rights, but they can certainly go to any church that performs marriage ceremonies for gay people and go have an exclusively religious wedding.
I certainly agree that two consenting adults getting married does not interfere with anyone's rights -- but that doesn't mean it's beyond State power to regulate it anyway.
My arguement is pretty clear, that States not allowing gay people to get married is unconstitutional. Just like slavery, internment camps, segregation etc.
All of which were "rights" of States, that were later found to be unconstitutional.
You are citing what the situation is but just because that is the current situation does not mean that it is therefore inherently constitutional. This country has been doing unconstitutional things for hundreds of years.
Your arguement is basically, that's how it is, and therefore that's how it is,
fine.
but that line of logic is not really debate material.
the tag "they are the majority" presumes that the majority is right by virtue of being the majority. This is demonstratably incorrect in everything from social matters like what this debate is about, to things like the shape of the earth a few hundred years ago.
No, my argument is "you are wrong; a kneejerk recitation of 'freedom of religion' does not and cannot establish a 'Constitutional' right to gay marriage."
The Court does not, has never, and never will find a "right to marriage" stemming from the First Amendment specifically. And why is that? Because it's not there.
They have, do, and will find "rights to marriage" flowing from the Constitutional protections on "liberty" and, by extension of the Court's reasoning, privacy - and in particular family privacy.
Now, if you want to argue that a Constitutional right to gay marriage can be extrapolated from the protections of "liberty" and, by the Court's extension, privacy, then I will fully agree that you have a valid argument.
But no, you can't get there through the First Amendment. That's simply a wrong understanding of First Amendment rights.
The First Amendment, again, is not carte blanche, nor is it the Constitutional source of any "right to marriage" that the Court has ever recognized. Quite the contrary - if the only thing backing a claim of a particular "right to marriage" is "that's my religious belief," the Court is quite willing to permit a State to ban it anyway. Go read some of the polygamy cases to see how arguments claiming a "First Amendment right to marriage" pan out.
The "right to marriage," insofar as the Court recognizes it, arises from its jurisprudence on substantive due process - meaning, liberty and privacy. Form all the churches you want, but it still won't get you a "Constitutional right to marriage," because that isn't the legal source of the right. Your suggestion that slapping a claim of "freedom of religion" onto a gay marriage would grant it some Constitutional protection is just plainly, simply incorrect as a matter of law.
To illustrate my point that there is no First Amendment "right to marriage," here is that same point as delivered by the Supreme Court.
..........
“The Constitution does not specifically mention freedom to marry, but it is settled that the ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment embraces more than those freedoms expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights . . . but no claim based on the First Amendment is or could be made by this appellee.” – Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978)
“The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights. It merely says, ‘The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.’ But a catalogue of these rights includes customary, traditional, and time-honored rights, amenities, privileges, and immunities that come within the sweep of ‘the Blessings of Liberty’ mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution. Many of them, in my view, come within the meaning of the term ‘liberty’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment . . . [including] freedom of choice in the basic decisions of one's life respecting marriage, divorce, procreation, contraception, and the education and upbringing of children. These rights, unlike those protected by the First Amendment, are subject to some control by the police power [of the States].” – Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 179 (1973)
“The ‘Establishment’ Clause [of the First Amendment] does not ban federal or state regulation of conduct whose reason or effect merely happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions. In many instances the Congress or state legislatures conclude that the general welfare of society, wholly apart from any religious considerations, demands such regulation. Thus, for temporal purposes, murder is illegal. And the fact that this agrees with the dictates of the Judaeo-Christian religions while it may disagree with others does not invalidate the regulation. So too with the questions of adultery and polygamy.” – McGowan v. State of Md., 366 U.S. 420 (1961)
“The first amendment to the constitution, in declaring that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or forbidding the free exercise thereof, was intended to allow every one under the jurisdiction of the United States to entertain such notions respecting his relations to his Maker and the duties they impose as may be approved by his judgment and conscience, and to exhibit his sentiments in such form of worship as he may think proper, not injurious to the equal rights of others, and to prohibit legislation for the support of any religious tenets, or the modes of worship of any sect . . . It was never intended or supposed that the amendment could be invoked as a protection against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society.” – Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890) (overruled on other grounds)
“The integrity of this conduct or behavior as a religious practice has not been challenged . . . [but] we do not intimate or suggest in respecting their sincerity that any conduct can be made a religious rite and by the zeal of the practitioners swept into the First Amendment. Reynolds v. United States and Davis v. Beason denied any such claim to the practice of polygamy and bigamy. Other claims may well arise which deserve the same fate.” – Murdock v. Com. of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
..........
So you see, creating a "Church of Gay Marriage" would not give gay people any Constitutional right to gay marriage. All it would give them is a Constitutional right to believe that gay marriage should be legal - which they have anyway, under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. So the upshot is that it wouldn't give them anything at all.
You want to find a Constitutional right to gay marriage, look for it in the Court's substantive due process jurisprudence regarding the Fourteenth Amendment. Make a case that it's among the unenumerated rights of the Ninth Amendment. But don't look for it in the First Amendment, because it ain't there.
Your question was: "I'm completely baffled as to why a bunch of gay people have not yet come together to form their own religion, in which marriage between gays is considered part of their 'religious' freedom, and hence protected by our constitution under freedom of religion." I have given you the answer - it's because gay marriage would NOT be protected under "freedom of religion" even if "a bunch of gay people" formed such a church. Simple as that.
And how does any of that answer my claim that not allowing gays to not marry is unconstitutional...
Okay it's not in the first amendment, fine,
but writing a small novel refuting a sidepoint seems a bit riduculous when no where does it address my real point, which is not allowing any two consenting adults to marry is wrong, regardless of who is in the majority.
And quit downvoting all of my replies. Instead just focus focus your arguement on my actual point.
Your point was "just form a church." I don't know how many ways I can possibly keep telling you that THAT WON'T WORK.
Your argument is like saying, "Well, if all the gays would just show up to their weddings packing a piece or two, they could claim that gay marriage was Constitutionally protected under the Second Amendment right to bear arms."
And I'm telling you, the Courts have said THAT'S NOT WHAT THAT AMENDMENT MEANS.
So too with your interpretation of the First Amendment. The Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses only provide a Constitutional protection to believe what you want. They do not provide a Constitutional protection to act on those beliefs. In fact, the States absolutely can and do prohibit acting on certain "religious" beliefs.
You have not yet MADE a cogent argument that there is a Constitutional right to gay marriage, even though I keep tossing you bones about how to do it.
"Wrong" is not the same as "unconstitutional." You want to make a moral argument supporting gay marriage, I'm all for it - but you haven't done that, either. All you've done so far is to make a completely inaccurate suggestion about what the First Amendment means.
And quit downgrading all my replies - they are well-reasoned and supported, whereas yours are mostly just rambling. Make an actual argument beyond just "that's wrong." Okay, banning gay marriage is wrong, I agree. Now how about you make an argument as to WHY it's wrong?
Bah! I give up. Fine, I was wrong and forming a new religion wouldn't protect gay marriage under the guise of freedom of religion.
But you have to see that my suggested solution was in no way supportive evidence of my stance, it was a suggestion... apparently a horrendous one.
So, let's both drop the religious side okay? agreed please?
I thought I made the case for it being unconstitutional when I compared it to legal slavery, legal segregation, and legal internment camps. All of which were supported by a majority much like the current prohibition on gay marriage, all of which were supported by the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative Branches as Constitutional and rights of States, all of which later were found to be unconstitutional, regardless of the majority's opinion because they were found to be discrimination... which is unconstitutional.
I mean, you obviously know something about the law, I don't. I believe that would be precedence though, and I believe regardless of what the majority says now, history will show that indeed not recognizing marriage in one group based only on sexual orientation is discrimination, and unconstitutional.
You're right that the Court and Congress have sometimes said a thing is constitutional (or not) and then totally changed their minds. Slavery, segregation, and internment camps are all good examples of "whoops, we got that one awfully wrong." And, the legal reasoning that led to the realization that we got those horribly wrong is in many ways like the reasoning that is being advanced in favor of changing the legal stance on gay marriage and allowing same-sex marriages.
Lawrence v. Texas (striking down the anti-sodomy laws) was of course a huge step in the right direction. And there's some language there that gives a lot of support to the idea that gay marriage should be acknowledged as a fundamental right. Justice Kennedy (and no screeching liberal, he) says in the opinion that "adults may choose to enter upon [a homosexual] relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice."
Now, that's a big victory for sure, but it doesn't get us all the way to a marriage right. It helps that the Court's opinion relies some on this idea of "a personal bond that is more enduring," which starts to look a little like marriage - but it doesn't get us all the way there.
The abortion cases, weirdly, give some pretty decent support. Here, the Court recognizes that decisions about how to order one's family are a fundamental liberty right. That doesn't put them totally beyond regulation, since the Court also finds some competing rights, but it is, again, a big helper.
The problem really is one of historical inertia, because the Court frequently decides that if it's been okay to ban something for a really long time, then being allowed to do it is probably not a "fundamental liberty."
On the up side, the places where the Court is historically most likely to back away from a historic-tradition argument is in the area of civil rights. So when we finally got around to determining that slavery should be abolished and, somewhat later, that equal racial rights should be fully established, the Court went ahead and overruled itself. Ditto for some gender issues. And on a rhetorical level, "gay rights" look a lot like "women's rights" or "black rights" did when they first started hitting the courts and legislatures. So there's some analogical support there.
I personally agree that the government will eventually acknowledge that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. I think they're most likely to get there on liberty/privacy grounds. There's some momentum that points that direction already. But it ain't quite there yet.
Your First Amendment argument was actually not "horrendous." If it was, the Mormons wouldn't have taken it to the Supreme Court on at least three separate occasions. It's just that they lost on those grounds.
