• 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: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

It isn't about settling for the next best thing or lower because there is no proof that bio parents are the best thing to begin with.

And, as long as opposite sex couples are allowed to use other people's biology to create their children, even before the conception, then you can't say that the children are being forced to accept the next best thing. They would not have existed to begin with without that couple going through the process of getting other cells, besides their own, to make the child.
Sounds to me a lot like "the next best thing." Given the choice, the parent would have preferred using their own genetic material. And, while the child will likely grow to love that parent - given the choice - she would probably prefer to share both love and heredity.
 
And despite your insistence otherwise, there is no valid state interest in procreation occurring for married couples as a reason for only allowing opposite sex couples to marry. If this were true, then there is absolutely no way the federal government or those 5 states could legally recognize those marriages in which the opposite sex couples are only legally recognized if they cannot procreate with each other. They would be completely against the purpose of procreation and legally so.
What insistence?? I believe you were the one that started the discussion on procreation. I could be wrong, but I don't think I've made a single "procreation is a valid state interest" claim - I certainly haven't "insisted" it. For the most part, I've tried to stay neutral w/r to a particular state interest.
 
Sex in no way affects a person's ability to fulfill any of the obligations/responsibilities of the legal marriage contract. I have said this many times.
So what? Neither does Heredity, a Professional Relationship, or a Platonic Friendship.
There is no obligation to have children with each other or be able to have children with each other in any marriage contract so it cannot truly be a consideration in who should be allowed to marry.
Again, your reasoning makes no sense. Policy need not perfectly align with a state interest, and almost never does. I have said this many times.

More examples of such reasoning:
  • There is no obligation to demonstrate that you have achieved sufficient maturity to vote at 18, therefore maturity cannot truly be a consideration in who should be allowed to vote. Open it up to all.
  • There is no obligation to demonstrate that you are unable to afford a higher tax rate simply because your level of income is low for a given year, therefore income cannot truly be a consideration as to what your tax rate should be. Do away with progressive taxes.
 
Where is marriage given over to the government in the constitution I'm confused?

it's not. The founder's certainly didn't need government's permission to get married. But government usurped the power with the Marriage License.
 
Sounds to me a lot like "the next best thing." Given the choice, the parent would have preferred using their own genetic material. And, while the child will likely grow to love that parent - given the choice - she would probably prefer to share both love and heredity.

No, I'm betting that the child wouldn't care one way or another as long as he/she has loving, good parents.

Plus, some parents could use their own genetic material but would prefer not to because of the large possibility that their genetic material could pass some unwanted condition that could cause major concerns or even be fatal.
 
it's not. The founder's certainly didn't need government's permission to get married. But government usurped the power with the Marriage License.

I have no problem with government getting out of the marriage business.
 
I have no problem with government getting out of the marriage business.

I would say it's the proper solution, but good luck on that front. Government rarely gives back power it's stolen.
 
So what? Neither does Heredity, a Professional Relationship, or a Platonic Friendship.

What the hell does heredity have to do with marriage? People in either a professional relationship or platonic friendship can legally get married, as long as they are of the opposite sex at the moment so you didn't make any argument here.

Again, your reasoning makes no sense. Policy need not perfectly align with a state interest, and almost never does. I have said this many times.

More examples of such reasoning:
  • There is no obligation to demonstrate that you have achieved sufficient maturity to vote at 18, therefore maturity cannot truly be a consideration in who should be allowed to vote. Open it up to all.
  • There is no obligation to demonstrate that you are unable to afford a higher tax rate simply because your level of income is low for a given year, therefore income cannot truly be a consideration as to what your tax rate should be. Do away with progressive taxes.

Yes, it does when it comes to denying a right based solely on a condition that is not going to change and is can be shown to have no demonstrable affect on the person's ability to fulfill the conditions of the contract, in and of itself.

You keep trying to relate two entirely different things. Age is something that changes and the rights associated with age limitations are not being completely denied, but rather postponed. The only thing keeping the people involved in this conversation from being able to legally enter into the contract with a person they want to enter into it with is their relative sexes, which could never prevent them from being able to fulfill the obligations/responsibilities of the contract in and of itself.
 
What insistence?? I believe you were the one that started the discussion on procreation. I could be wrong, but I don't think I've made a single "procreation is a valid state interest" claim - I certainly haven't "insisted" it. For the most part, I've tried to stay neutral w/r to a particular state interest.

Then why are you arguing with me then based on a state's interest not needing to be all-inclusive? What do you believe the state's interest in legal marriage is? How is it furthered by not allowing same sex couples the legal right to marriage?

These are questions the SCOTUS will ask because this is what will determine the constitutionality of same sex marriage bans. The state interest must be important enough to justify a ban based on sex and the state must be able to show why the ban actually does further that interest, this would include why the state would not include others who would also be in similar situations but who are not banned from the activity.

And procreation is the reason that many states try to use as a defense for same sex marriage bans. The tradition defense has long ago been deemed not enough by the courts. Religion can't possibly stand up since it would be a violation of our laws to make law taking away a person's right due to another's religious beliefs. Majority vote cannot be a reason either because that is the very reason we have the Constitution, to protect individual's from having their rights denied by majority votes.

If the states with same sex marriage bans actually did deny marriage to everyone who could not procreate or didn't want to procreate with their chosen partner, with no regard to the sex of those involved, the bans would actually most likely hold up constitutionally. Many would not like it, but that doesn't change the fact that it would specifically show that the state felt that they had a legitimate interest in encouraging marriage only for procreation and were doing what they felt would actually achieve that interest.
 
No, I'm betting that the child wouldn't care one way or another as long as he/she has loving, good parents.
That sort of sentiment is fairly rare, according to the data. The vast majority of adoptees express interest in learning about their genetic heritage and/or birth parents. The number who express a desire to be found by their birth parents is as high as 95%+. The proportion of birth mothers who want to be reunited with their son/daughter may also be in that range.
Powerful stuff.

Plus, some parents could use their own genetic material but would prefer not to because of the large possibility that their genetic material could pass some unwanted condition that could cause major concerns or even be fatal.
Well, again - it's a "next best thing." Ideally they'd wish they could use their own genetic material without the chance of passing some unwanted condition.
 
That sort of sentiment is fairly rare, according to the data. The vast majority of adoptees express interest in learning about their genetic heritage and/or birth parents. The number who express a desire to be found by their birth parents is as high as 95%+. The proportion of birth mothers who want to be reunited with their son/daughter may also be in that range.
Powerful stuff.

And if their birth parents are dead?

People want to know things, but that doesn't mean that they would trade the parents that raised them for their bio parents just because they share genetics. How many of those who want to know their parents actually feel their bio parents are more important to them than those parents who raised them? Genetics only go so far. Many people who have deadbeat dads as sperm donors only. And many people who were raised by horrible parents probably have wished for better parents that would give them a better life, without any regard to genetics.

Well, again - it's a "next best thing." Ideally they'd wish they could use their own genetic material without the chance of passing some unwanted condition.

Okay, how does this have anything to do with same sex couples or their raising children? They would be no different than other couples who cannot pass on the genetics of both parents to their children. And the children would likely not have any information on who their bio parent/parents are.

What is your problem with people trying to raise children together?

Biology doesn't make a good parent, love and willingness and attention and teaching and many other things are much more important.
 
I would say it's the proper solution, but good luck on that front. Government rarely gives back power it's stolen.
What power does it have to "give back"? You can get married without a marriage license in 2012, same as in 1770. To my knowledge, we no longer have laws that criminalize private marriages.

Now, there are legal benefits that you can obtain by asking the state to recognize your marriage - but you could probably get the same basic legal protections with a non-marital relationship contract. It's just not as convenient. So where's the power grab?
 
What power does it have to "give back"? You can get married without a marriage license in 2012, same as in 1770. To my knowledge, we no longer have laws that criminalize private marriages.

Now, there are legal benefits that you can obtain by asking the state to recognize your marriage - but you could probably get the same basic legal protections with a non-marital relationship contract. It's just not as convenient. So where's the power grab?

No, it's nto as convienent. And that's largely the issue. Fix that, and no one needs a state sanctioned marriage.
 
What power does it have to "give back"? You can get married without a marriage license in 2012, same as in 1770. To my knowledge, we no longer have laws that criminalize private marriages.

Now, there are legal benefits that you can obtain by asking the state to recognize your marriage - but you could probably get the same basic legal protections with a non-marital relationship contract. It's just not as convenient. So where's the power grab?

This is a false argument. The same basic legal protections cannot be gained with a non-marital relationship contract.

And even if they could, no one should have to go through more work or spend more money to obtain the same exact legal protections based solely on their sex.
 
What the hell does heredity have to do with marriage?
Nothing, really. That was the point. When it comes to marriage your view seems to be that heredity, sex, whether the pair are just friends, whether they barely know each other at all... none of that really matters in your view, correct? Because none of these factors affect a person's ability to fulfill their obligations:

Sex in no way affects a person's ability to fulfill any of the obligations/responsibilities of the legal marriage contract. I have said this many times.

I'm just trying to understand your position better. Limiting the scope to pairs of individuals, is there any relationship (other than kids or others who lack the intellectual maturity to enter into such a relationship) where you draw the line and say "we shouldn't allow those two to get married"?

If so, why? What's the state interest?
 
Side Bulletin: Ninth Circuit declined to re-hear CA Prop 8...so pretty soon, either legal recognition of marriages resumes (without discriminating against gays and lesbians), or it goes to the USSC.
 
Side Bulletin: Ninth Circuit declined to re-hear CA Prop 8...so pretty soon, either legal recognition of marriages resumes (without discriminating against gays and lesbians), or it goes to the USSC.

Gay marriages are recognized already, there are just stays that are keeping the state from allowing new gay marriages.
 
Gay marriages are recognized already, there are just stays that are keeping the state from allowing new gay marriages.

I meant new recognitions. Was in a rush.
 
The foundation of Marriage is LOVE...not gender. If two people of the same sex love each other, so be it...let them get married. It's not going to hurt the sanctity of marriage....divorce does.

Just live and let live.
 
Nothing, really. That was the point. When it comes to marriage your view seems to be that heredity, sex, whether the pair are just friends, whether they barely know each other at all... none of that really matters in your view, correct? Because none of these factors affect a person's ability to fulfill their obligations:

I'm just trying to understand your position better. Limiting the scope to pairs of individuals, is there any relationship (other than kids or others who lack the intellectual maturity to enter into such a relationship) where you draw the line and say "we shouldn't allow those two to get married"?

If so, why? What's the state interest?

The state interest in marriage is encouraging stable relationships. People who are married have shown to be better citizens and more productive members of society.

Another interest in marriage is to encourage couples to raise children together, in two parent households. This does not require that both or either of the parents be biologically related to the child/children, only that they be willing to raise the children together. Two parents are better than one is not in contention here, since we know that it is usually better for a child to be raised by two loving parents, then by just one. There being a need for the parents to have biological connections or be of the opposite sex to provide that good raising environment is.

There are actually some other state interests in marriage dealing with a person who is taking responsibility for another adult, at least to a certain extent, voluntarily. This allows the government to expect someone to actually pay for medical bills or funeral costs, if they can afford it because they are voluntarily agreeing to do so. And even during life, the shared income of two adults agreeing to live together in this arrangement on what they plan to be a permanent basis is good for the economy because it generally means the couple will have more money to spend, especially if they both have jobs.
 
The foundation of marriage is not love. It's a civil contract treated specially by governments to encourage stability in the family environment. In many cutures marriage came first, romantic love somewhere down the road if you were "lucky".
 
The foundation of marriage is not love. It's a civil contract treated specially by the governments to encourage stability in the family environment. In many cutures marriage came first, romantic love somewhere down the road if you were "lucky".

Since we live in the US, love is generally considered to come first (whether really there or not) rather than marrying and then falling in love, maybe. And the main reason people in the US enter into the civil marriage with each other is because they believe they love each other.

Now, civil marriage is a contract. A couple can make all the vows they want to but that won't change anything pertaining to the civil contract of marriage.
 
The foundation of marriage is not love. It's a civil contract treated specially by governments to encourage stability in the family environment. In many cutures marriage came first, romantic love somewhere down the road if you were "lucky".

I'm fully aware marriage is a legal contract...however, it's rare people get married for the contract. Gay people aren't requesting the right to get married for ****s and giggles...they're capable of love just as heterosexuals are and want to bind it by contract too.
 
The foundation of marriage is not love. It's a civil contract treated specially by governments to encourage stability in the family environment. In many cutures marriage came first, romantic love somewhere down the road if you were "lucky".

I'm not sure how that is incompatible with same sex couples marrying given that same sex couples have kids and those kids could also benefit from the stability.
 
I'm fully aware marriage is a legal contract...however, it's rare people get married for the contract. Gay people aren't requesting the right to get married for ****s and giggles...they're capable of love just as heterosexuals are and want to bind it by contract too.

That's precisely what "gay people" (my god, I don't know if I'm even using the right terminology anymore) want - the legal contract. They can have all the ceremonies they wish right now, any church, or even Uncle Joe if he'll perform the ceremony. But it doesn't confer upon them the priviledges that the contract does. That's what they are after.

It's not rare, just the reverse - people who don't care about the contract generally just live together.

CriticalThought said:
I'm not sure how that is incompatible with same sex couples marrying given that same sex couples have kids and those kids could also benefit from the stability.

That post was only to rebut that the "foundation of marriage is love".
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom