• 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!

Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

This matter is simply rightly one of appeal to definition .. and there's no theocratic/non-theocratic element to the matter.

Sorry, but that's even more absurd than your other appeals to popular prejudice/tradition.

I dealt with this topic professionally for about four years, and in all that time (with hundreds of students writing persuasive essays each quarter), I didn't encounter a single rational, non-contradictory argument against SSM. The remaining arguments -- the irrational ones -- were ALL easily traceable to religious dogma.

In fairness, one very real possibility for explaining this is that there ARE NO rational and logically consistent arguments against legal marriage equality.

As for theocracy, there's no chance in hell Prop 8 would have come within miles of passage were it not for OPEN, OVERT appeal to religious doctrine and vigorous fundraising and GOTV campaigns wages by religious adherents (both within and -- most infamously -- outside of California). Basing electoral decisions upon religious dogma IS theocracy, but since there is an electoral culture in the United States in which sound justification for one's vote is a minimal -- if not altogether absent -- concern. Many (if not most) religious adherents here don't reject the notion of applying self-discipline to avoid polluting one's vote with religious dogma...so much as the relevant danger of theocracy not even occurring to them as a hazard in the first place.
 
By definition marriage is between "a man and a woman as husband and wife" ....
It sometimes boggles my mind how those opposing Prop 8 just don't get it.

LOL....you seem to be the one who doesn't "Get it". You act as if the definition of marriage has never changed over the course of history. "Marriage" used to mean a union of a man/woman who were of the same race. That definition has changed over the years.
 
Last edited:
Okay, poochily speaking, your perspective would force dog owners to let cat owners enter their cats in a dog show via appeal to "separate but equal".

And of course, that's ludicrous to allow cats in a dog show .. just as it is ludicrous for gays to have a marriage contract, marriage being between straights by definition.

Your analogy would make since if dogs and cats were protected by the 14th amendment. But they are not. Plus you're trying to compare two completely different species (cats & dogs) vs one species (human). And that is ludicrous.

Before separate but equal is applied jurists first examine the matter to see if it makes sense before determing if there is a valid state interest in the matter.

The only part where you are wrong here is using the word "jurists". In this kind of case there are no juries. Only a judge. Juries are only used in criminal cases.

Since the opposite of Prop 8 is to include gays in marriage, non-politicized jurists would rightly reject challenge to Prop 8 on those grounds, that the opposite violates the very definition of words and would thus be nonsensical to consider.

That's not how it works. In order for a law that restricts rights to be valid it must serve a legitimate state interest that over rides a persons rights. Restricting the rights of a murderer for example is acceptable because it is in the states interest to keep its citizens alive. This is the way that it has always been done. So for this to hold true the state must have a legitimate interest in restricting the right of gays to marry. The only thing that would give the state a legitimate interest in denying SSM is if SSM harms society. Which it does not.

It's like as if the CA legislature passed a bill that said "Window panes in CA will now be made of cardboard to improve visibility". If the law was tossed by a judge, would analyzing for legitimate state interest be the first thing jurists deciding an appeal attempt? Of course not, that would be ridiculous! The first thing jurists would do would be to assess the structure of the law from a common sense perspective .. and they would overturn the law on that basis before they ever got to the legitimate state interest analysis and its separate but equal test.

Again, there are no juries available when determining if a law is constitutional or not. Only judges. And judges do not look at "common sense". When it comes to Constiutionality and restricting rights the very first thing they look at is "does this law serve a state interest?" No judge bases thier decision on "common sense". They are not even allowed to do that as common sense is subjective. It changes from one person to another. For instance, in our arguement here you think that it is common sense to deny SSM (reasons don't matter at this moment). I however think that it is common sense to allow SSM (again, reasons don't matter at this moment). A judge must make thier judgement based upon facts and the law.

The same holds true here. By definition marriage is between "a man and a woman as husband and wife", so proper non-politicized review of Prop 8 by an appellate court would be to reject overturning of Prop 8 by simple appeal to common sense definition of words, as, considering that marriage is, by definition, "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", there is no equating gay and straight committed couple relationships via the word marriage, and the jurists would rightly never have gotten to the legitimate state interest analysis and its separate but equal test in the Prop 8 matter.

Again, the definition doesn't really matter for the simple fact that the definition of words change. Remember, the definition of marriage use to include a definition that restricted inter-racial marriage. Obviously that has changed.

You selectively quote from my previous post to meet your ideology, but there was also this in that post:

Committed gay couples have every 14th Amendment right to have a domestic partnership civil union constract like committed straight couples have .. they just can't call it marriage, by virtue of simple test of definition.

Again, that's a win-win for everyone, gays and straights.

Again, seperate but equal is not equal.

As for the part that you quoted yourself saying lets re-quote it here...

Intelligently speaking, it's obvious that two separate contracts in this matter are absolutely required, because the "separate but equal" test simply does not apply in this matter: gay committed couples and straight committed couples simply aren't equal entities, obviously. That's why one (straight couples) is rightly called marriage, and the other (gay couples) is rightly called .. something else, I don't know .. "homarriage"? like there is man and woman respectively?

Bold part: You're going to have to explain this. In what way are homosexuals not equal to heterosexuals?
 
Either allow any 2 adults to get married or dont allow any of them to do it.

I dunno, I'm actually leaning towards that "traditional marriage" definition now. The one where the wife is literal property of the husband.
 
LOL....you seem to be the one who doesn't "Get it". You act as if the definition of marriage has never changed over the course of history. "Marriage" used to mean a union of a man/woman who were of the same race. That definition has changed over the years.

It's strange that you as an opponent to prop 8, are supportive of Rick Santorum... I just find it mildly ironic.
 
It's strange that you as an opponent to prop 8, are supportive of Rick Santorum... I just find it mildly ironic.

Disney has this obnoxious shtick he's been doing for years for now where he facetiously acts like he's a big supporter of whatever Republican of the moment he wants to attack, degrade, insult, mock, and belittle to highlight that he wants the Republicans to rally behind that person because he thinks it'd make his side have an easier chance at winning.

Makes you wonder why he thinks his side is so ****ty that he's so desperate to get Republicans to rally behind people he seems to think are the most unappealing and worst possible options.
 
It's strange that you as an opponent to prop 8, are supportive of Rick Santorum... I just find it mildly ironic.

Actually, I believe he is supporting Santorum because Romney has a better chance of beating Obama.
 
Okay, poochily speaking, your perspective would force dog owners to let cat owners enter their cats in a dog show via appeal to "separate but equal".

And of course, that's ludicrous to allow cats in a dog show .. just as it is ludicrous for gays to have a marriage contract, marriage being between straights by definition.

Before separate but equal is applied jurists first examine the matter to see if it makes sense before determing if there is a valid state interest in the matter.

Since the opposite of Prop 8 is to include gays in marriage, non-politicized jurists would rightly reject challenge to Prop 8 on those grounds, that the opposite violates the very definition of words and would thus be nonsensical to consider.

It's like as if the CA legislature passed a bill that said "Window panes in CA will now be made of cardboard to improve visibility". If the law was tossed by a judge, would analyzing for legitimate state interest be the first thing jurists deciding an appeal attempt? Of course not, that would be ridiculous! The first thing jurists would do would be to assess the structure of the law from a common sense perspective .. and they would overturn the law on that basis before they ever got to the legitimate state interest analysis and its separate but equal test.

The same holds true here. By definition marriage is between "a man and a woman as husband and wife", so proper non-politicized review of Prop 8 by an appellate court would be to reject overturning of Prop 8 by simple appeal to common sense definition of words, as, considering that marriage is, by definition, "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", there is no equating gay and straight committed couple relationships via the word marriage, and the jurists would rightly never have gotten to the legitimate state interest analysis and its separate but equal test in the Prop 8 matter.

You selectively quote from my previous post to meet your ideology, but there was also this in that post:

Committed gay couples have every 14th Amendment right to have a domestic partnership civil union constract like committed straight couples have .. they just can't call it marriage, by virtue of simple test of definition.

Again, that's a win-win for everyone, gays and straights.

It sometimes boggles my mind how those opposing Prop 8 just don't get it.

Since when is a dog show run by the government? Since when does being involved in a dog show give participants rights and benefits that those participants in a cat show cannot get?

Plus, it isn't win-win because the people have to pay for the fact that we would have two full sets of laws covering the same basic legal contract, with the only difference being the name of the contract. That is just stupid and a complete waste of tax-payer dollars just to promote discrimination.
 
W-w-w-what? Are you insane? A man cannot nurture a child? Maybe therein lies the problem, you have a backwards view of what being a father is all about. I would argue that the best fathers out there are the ones that take the time to love and nurture their children and I think most people would agree.

Preception is reality. I do not think he is insane at all in his opinion having walked a mile in his shoes.

A man cannot nurture a child when he spends months at sea and bounces from duty station to duty station, and does it for a career. A looooong career. That is NP's reality and therefore his perception is understandable.

However, that reality does not pertain to all men. I think that's where NP gets tripped up. But he means well.

As Popeye said, "I am what I am and that's all that I am. I'm Popeye the Sailor Man. Toot! Toot!"

View attachment 67122647
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom