• 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!

New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

Poppycock!!Libertarians, like Liberals, and conservatives all draw a line on what is "favorable" and "mature" based on their own goals for society; so please spare me the sanctimony.

In terms of gay marriage, there are logical arguments from both sides. With liberals, the arguments stem from short term inconsequence to society, with Conservatives, their arguments stem from long term consequences to society. Libertarians on the other hand, on the face, care little about consequences in favor of an all or nothing path to unbridled freedom Both liberal and conservative views are potentially correct, however, a libertarian no holds barred approach to freedom, and liberty, is undoubtedly incorrect.

Tim-

Sorry, but pretend libertarians (trying not to accuse anyone) often claim to support gay marriage but only in some unworkable fantasy world that they have not fully considered. It is a way for embarassed Republicans to oppose gay marriage without coming out and saying that they just don't like homosexuality. They use it to rationalize their cynical views on the topic. They do a disservice to all libertarians when they fail to sincerely advance the cause of liberty.

I have been in the movement for over 20 years and I have read and considered about every different theory as calmly as anyone possibly could. If you want to be spared then don't bother baiting me. If you think you have some sort of ideas that I have failed to consider then articulate them clearly and quit playing games.

I really don't care that much what you think anybody thinks or even what I THINK anybody thinks. I was only pointing out the frequent mistakes and the shallow thoughts I have come across to encourage deeper discussion/consideration of the issues. There is no reason to hold your cards close to your vest. Tell us what you think. Do you have an argument to offer? You asked...

Gee I wonder what the pro gay police would say to my views on the topic.. LOL

Officer BayToBay is here to serve. :)

What are your views? I cannot answer you if you don't articulate them. I can help with some questions or you can just tell us what your views are on this case.

Who will handle the dissolution of marriage contracts or ANY contract if not the courts? Private arbitrators? Can they use sharia? What other sorts of legal standards/traditions can they apply? What if they are challenged? Who is the final arbiter?

These are the things those presenting immature thoughts either have not considered or are attempting to hide from public consideration. I don't appreciate either approach. I can answer all these questions, because I have considered it and I have no need to hide my views.

If you think you are going to run me off with some homophobic ad hominem, think again. I don't care what you think about my sexual preferences.

And BTW, there is no reason your view need not be an evolving one. MAYBE, you will cause mine to evolve. Teach me something new.
 
No it doesn't.

Yes it does..



Not really. Anyone can do what anyone else can works fairly well.


I love arguing with true blue libertarians.. Question for you. Should we all be free to use the same bathrooms and change rooms? Now I know you'll say no because noone else is allowed to do that, but then I'd say, well why not? And you say???.....



I'd be interested to read these journal articles. Please cite them.


No, but you can look in the sexuality forums. That'd be a good place to start, if you're really interested.




Yes. We have a will to power. Nietzsche would be proud.


Can you elaborate? :)


Tim-
 
Hehe. I marriage license is a certificate on record with the cival registar that you both meet the eligibility to enter into a marriage contract. Yes, you meet the terms. The marriage certificate is the contract between you an another party reflecting duties and obligations condition precident to fulfill said contract. A marriage license requires no such quid pro quo duty, or responsibility or obligation to enter into the marriage. A drivers license conversly requires that you meet the terms to be able to drive a car. If you fail to meet the laws for operating that vehicle you are subject to punishment. The drivers license is NOT a contract either. It merely says you're eleigble to drive a car. The contract to drive it safely is with you and the common laws of society.

Any more questions Einstein? :)


Tim-

DOMA is still unconstitutional because the Constitution requires a state to respect the laws of the other states, and because the 10th Amendment does not give the right to regulate marriage to the Federal government.
 
It gains several dynamics for insurance, income, household, medical, etc advantages. It is the method through which marriage is officially recognized, and it comes in the form of contract.

A driver's license IS a contract as well. In order to obtain, I must strike contract with the State and agree to operate within their conditions along with several other dynamics mostly related to drunk driving (such as per say). Most certainly a contract.

See^^^ This is why I shouldn't have wasted my time. My answer is correct and yours is not.

Tim-
 
DOMA is still unconstitutional because the Constitution requires a state to respect the laws of the other states, and because the 10th Amendment does not give the right to regulate marriage to the Federal government.

And that might be true, we'll see.


Tim-
 
See^^^ This is why I shouldn't have wasted my time. My answer is correct and yours is not.

Tim-

Yes, well declaring yourself right doesn't necessarily make it so. The Marriage License is a contract, it is one of the reasons why you have to have it dissolved in court for divorce. Additionally, government may not just strip you of it at their leisure as they can a drivers license (which still requires a contract between individual and State). The Marriage License composes a 3-party Contract. The license itself was nothing more than a backdoor means through which government hoped to gain control over marriage and as such is part of the contractual dynamic.
 
Yes, well declaring yourself right doesn't necessarily make it so. The Marriage License is a contract, it is one of the reasons why you have to have it dissolved in court for divorce. Additionally, government may not just strip you of it at their leisure as they can a drivers license (which still requires a contract between individual and State). The Marriage License composes a 3-party Contract. The license itself was nothing more than a backdoor means through which government hoped to gain control over marriage and as such is part of the contractual dynamic.

One does not dissolvetheir marriage license, anyone can still marry if they meet the requirements. They dissolve their marriage contract, and the fact that the state has decided how equity will be determined is by no means any admission that they have control over the terms of the marriage contract. Truth is that, now we have no fault in all 50 states, so the duties, responsibilities and obligations condition precedent are now mostly anything but, but I digress. One has to ask themselves whether the marriage contract is a contract at all between two people, or between two people as one and the state? I get what you're trying to say Ikari, we've talked about it before. Contract law in the US is about as complex as it gets, in fact most would argue that it is perhaps the most complex of all legal practices to master. It's not nearly as simple as you suggest it is, with your apparent failure to make the distinction between a marriage (or any license) license, and a civil contract.

I guess we can agree to disagree as we did before.. But I'm right and your wrong. :)


Tim-
 
Yes it does..

While it's been a while since I was on the debate team, I remember "because it does!" didn't go too well. :roll:


I love arguing with true blue libertarians.. Question for you. Should we all be free to use the same bathrooms and change rooms? Now I know you'll say no because noone else is allowed to do that, but then I'd say, well why not? And you say???.....

Sure. Another sign that society is stupid and illogical.

No, but you can look in the sexuality forums. That'd be a good place to start, if you're really interested.

Interesting. Most of the studies I've come across in Child Development journals and Psychology journals claim that there isn't enough evidence to really say it deters children.

Can you elaborate? :)

Read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil, or The Will to Power (although I'd be weary of the latter because it was posthumously printed and may / may not be Nietzsche's original works.)
Tim-[/QUOTE]
 
I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend a great deal of time on explaining it to you if you do not already know my well
documented views on the subject. To do so would be a massive waste of time.

You said...

Gee I wonder what the pro gay police would say to my views on the topic.. LOL

So we are supposed to guess?

In my experience, people who've made up their minds on this issue, will not change them.

Have you made up your mind about that?

Suffice it to say that my argument stems mostly from a breakdown in the family over the last 40 years as leading to the direct result of why our country is as screwed up as it is. Gay marriage would add to that breakdown, it would not solve it, or improve it in any way. Kids need both their mothers and their fathers active in their lives and as direct role models. Uncles and Aunts, and neighbors, or schools do not provide for these needs, and until we decide collectively as a nation to restore these virtues, we're destined to fall even further as a once strong familial based society.

A marriage between two people of the same sex in no way infringes upon the marriage of anyone else. That legal standard will not work.

How do you suggest we restore the family? You are suggesting a package deal. That is, you don't want to allow gay marriage because you are hoping for some sort of cultural shift in the family. That implies that you would want to change something to improve the stability of families. I am here to tell you, marriage as it existed before women's liberation and the 70s is not going to come back without some sort of change in the treatment of marriage by the courts and state. I do not support a return to what existed before the 70s, but if you do or anyone else does they should be up front with it.

Laws are representative of a societies values on justice and punishment. Libertarians, as I explained, just want to be in the drivers seat, as do conservatives and liberals.
Tim-

An honest libertarian and/or liberal usually are looking to find a framework that works for everyone. Many conservatives and/or progressives are the ones who demand the drivers seat and tell everyone else to shut up and be quiet.
 
While it's been a while since I was on the debate team, I remember "because it does!" didn't go too well. :roll:




Sure. Another sign that society is stupid and illogical.



Interesting. Most of the studies I've come across in Child Development journals and Psychology journals claim that there isn't enough evidence to really say it deters children.



Read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil, or The Will to Power (although I'd be weary of the latter because it was posthumously printed and may / may not be Nietzsche's original works.)
Tim-

Well thanks for the reading suggestions, however I fear I have better things to be doing. Like thinking for myself. :)

I already told you I'm NOT here to debate anyone. I'm merely here to profess any objections I might have about a particular comment or two. I've already done the debating part ad nausium, and there's really nothing to learn from the other sides point of view. I cannot possibly entertain the idea of presenting my views as complex as they are, as every little flare up on this topic appears on DP. Can you imagine? It's not something that can be summarized in a paragraph or two, and even if it could, the resulting oppositions questions and critique would require more vested time to clarify. What results is a link war that says my study is more credible than your study, but all the while both sides missing the point - that none of the studies meets the burden of proof required to win the debate. So where are we left? Nowhere really, and I have come to the point that when bored I'll enter a thread like this; spout off a few one liners, or maybe a parapgraph about my views on the subject, joust a bit, and then go back to my normal way of life.

Topics (like this) are perfect for debate forums in some ways because there isn't a correct answer. The subjectivity of the material makes it perfect for philosophical forums, and or religious forums, but where facts and truth are concerned, very little is solved by spending days going back and forth in the hope that perhaps you'll find a way to articulate your point of view better, or more consice as to change anyones opinion, or vice versa.. It's a futile endeavour..


Tim-
 
I love arguing with true blue libertarians.. Question for you. Should we all be free to use the same bathrooms and change rooms? Now I know you'll say no because noone else is allowed to do that, but then I'd say, well why not? And you say???.....

Tim-

Oh that is such a head scratcher.... As long as the owner permits it and is willing to accept liability for possibly creating a dangerous environment in consideration of the cutlural and social norms in which the bathroom exists. Are you under the impression that such restrooms are prohibited by law or that they should be? Do you believe that providing for public safety is a valid state interest or imagine that it is no different than enforcing a narrow view of the state's interest in family?
 
You said...



So we are supposed to guess?



Have you made up your mind about that?



A marriage between two people of the same sex in no way infringes upon the marriage of anyone else. That legal standard will not work.

How do you suggest we restore the family? You are suggesting a package deal. That is, you don't want to allow gay marriage because you are hoping for some sort of cultural shift in the family. That implies that you would want to change something to improve the stability of families. I am here to tell you, marriage as it existed before women's liberation and the 70s is not going to come back without some sort of change in the treatment of marriage by the courts and state. I do not support a return to what existed before the 70s, but if you do or anyone else does they should be up front with it.



An honest libertarian and/or liberal usually are looking to find a framework that works for everyone. Many conservatives and/or progressives are the ones who demand the drivers seat and tell everyone else to shut up and be quiet.


I'll tell you what. You seem like a bright fellow, I'll entertain your questions but it will have to wait until later this evening, however I'm not sure what you wish to focus on? Is it my views on gay marriage and they could potentially affect our society in the long run, or is it my ideas on how to recapture, or maybe reinvent my idea of the most ideal society? Or would you prefer that I pick on libertarians for the rest of our exchange? I can do either or, but in the interest of time and effort, I'd prefer you focus on my opposition consisting of one topic at a time? Fair? So, which one do take priority with?


Tim-
 
I guess we can agree to disagree as we did before.. But I'm right and your wrong. :)


Tim-

You can claim it as much as you want, but any precursor to the contract is part of the contract. If I have right to contract, and I want to engage in contract, but you add a piece called a license on top of that contract that forbids me from entering that contract, you have infringed upon my right to contract (additionally, the license becomes part of the contract dynamics). Having done so through the use of government force, in this case the marriage license, is an act of aggressive government interference in the exercise of rights. The government is not allowed to act in this manner.
 
Oh that is such a head scratcher.... As long as the owner permits it and is willing to accept liability for possibly creating a dangerous environment in consideration of the cutlural and social norms in which the bathroom exists. Are you under the impression that such restrooms are prohibited by law or that they should be? Do you believe that providing for public safety is a valid state interest or imagine that it is no different than enforcing a narrow view of the state's interest in family?

Ya know, call me silly, but I think you take issue with my challenging libertarian purism? Someone as well-read as yourself can't possibly like it when someone so clearly deficient on the subject matter as I, scoffs at something so dear to you that it approaches insulting. Especially since you've taken 20 years to adopt your philosophy, so let me ask you. Is this what you wish to discuss later this evening?


Tim-
 
You can claim it as much as you want, but any precursor to the contract is part of the contract. If I have right to contract, and I want to engage in contract, but you add a piece called a license on top of that contract that forbids me from entering that contract, you have infringed upon my right to contract (additionally, the license becomes part of the contract dynamics). Having done so through the use of government force, in this case the marriage license, is an act of aggressive government interference in the exercise of rights. The government is not allowed to act in this manner.

The use of contract dynamic is interesting as an argument. I have to leave for a bit but I promise to entertain the idea in a response later. Agreed?


Tim-
 
Well thanks for the reading suggestions, however I fear I have better things to be doing. Like thinking for myself. :)

I already told you I'm NOT here to debate anyone. I'm merely here to profess any objections I might have about a particular comment or two. I've already done the debating part ad nausium, and there's really nothing to learn from the other sides point of view. I cannot possibly entertain the idea of presenting my views as complex as they are, as every little flare up on this topic appears on DP. Can you imagine? It's not something that can be summarized in a paragraph or two, and even if it could, the resulting oppositions questions and critique would require more vested time to clarify. What results is a link war that says my study is more credible than your study, but all the while both sides missing the point - that none of the studies meets the burden of proof required to win the debate. So where are we left? Nowhere really, and I have come to the point that when bored I'll enter a thread like this; spout off a few one liners, or maybe a parapgraph about my views on the subject, joust a bit, and then go back to my normal way of life.

Topics (like this) are perfect for debate forums in some ways because there isn't a correct answer. The subjectivity of the material makes it perfect for philosophical forums, and or religious forums, but where facts and truth are concerned, very little is solved by spending days going back and forth in the hope that perhaps you'll find a way to articulate your point of view better, or more consice as to change anyones opinion, or vice versa.. It's a futile endeavour..


Tim-

There is no study you can offer that changes the facts of these cases. The state has no valid interest in supporting a distinction in the rights of one person over another here and therefore cannot deny them equal protection of the laws.

You are arguing for totally partisan judges or simply allowing the majority to do whatever it choose to minorities and individuals. That is a bad idea and not very conservative, considering the fact that it flies in the face of hundreds of years of common law and our 200 plus years as a nation. If judges were as partisan as you seem to want them to be, the lower courts would have no framework for deciding cases or protecting any of our rights.
 
I'll tell you what. You seem like a bright fellow, I'll entertain your questions but it will have to wait until later this evening, however I'm not sure what you wish to focus on? Is it my views on gay marriage and they could potentially affect our society in the long run, or is it my ideas on how to recapture, or maybe reinvent my idea of the most ideal society? Or would you prefer that I pick on libertarians for the rest of our exchange? I can do either or, but in the interest of time and effort, I'd prefer you focus on my opposition consisting of one topic at a time? Fair? So, which one do take priority with?


Tim-

You begged for attention, got it and then do little but complain.

I already asked you to focus on the case at hand or the issue of gay marriage. But your argument needs to be well thought out if you wish to challenge the legal opinions. These cases can't just be decided on a whim. The courts should absolutely NOT be attempting to give legal opinions in the hope of shaping the long term direction of society. That sort of action is destructive to the judiciary and our carefully crafted form of government.
 
Ya know, call me silly, but I think you take issue with my challenging libertarian purism? Someone as well-read as yourself can't possibly like it when someone so clearly deficient on the subject matter as I, scoffs at something so dear to you that it approaches insulting. Especially since you've taken 20 years to adopt your philosophy, so let me ask you. Is this what you wish to discuss later this evening?


Tim-

You are now claiming to be a libertarian?!? Huh?

Officer BayToBay takes notes, so let's go back and check them.

Gee I wonder what the pro gay police would say to my views on the topic.. LOL

Quit squirming. You asked for the attention. If you did not want it or have decided you are not up to it then move along. It does not matter to me.
 
The fine print...

As a group still subject to social stigma, many of those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender may not be forthcoming about this identity when asked about it in a survey. Therefore, it's likely that some Americans in what is commonly referred to as "the closet" would not be included in the estimates derived from the Gallup interviews. Thus, the 3.4% estimate can best be represented as adult Americans who publicly identify themselves as part of the LGBT community when asked in a survey context.

Translation: We know our result is way too low, but we headlined it anyway.
 
It is unconstitutional because it prevents a state from defining marriage however it wants to, which is constitutional.
 
What are you trying to argue here? The Marriage License is a government issued and recognized contract...
Sixty-five posts before it was mentioned that marriage is a CIVIL institution. Some of these complaints here are the equivalent of demanding that government keep its hands off Medicare.
 
See^^^ This is why I shouldn't have wasted my time. My answer is correct and yours is not.
Your answer is a sham of semantics. A marriage license is a document issued by a state anointed official indicating qualification for entering into a contract of marriage. A marriage certificate is a document issued by a state anointed official indicating that such a contract has indeed been entered into.

Steve-
 
And that might be true, we'll see.
It's unequivocally false. The state does not have rights, but powers, and the Tenth Amendment doesn't confer any power upon the federal government at all.

Edwin-
 
Truth is that, now we have no fault in all 50 states, so the duties, responsibilities and obligations condition precedent are now mostly anything but, but I digress.
No, you trip stumble, and fall. The terms and conditions for no fault divorce are set out by the state and a meeting of those terms and condtions must be established to the satisfaction of a state-established authority empowered to grant the divorce. No-fault is all state, all the time.

Roger-
 
Back
Top Bottom