• 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

Cardinal Fang said:
In what specific ways that do not involve the state?
Click to expand...

Sorry?

Yes, you do. Marriage is entirely a civil institution, the rights and responsibilities of which have been codified into law. Agents licensed by the state must approve an application for marriage, and must administer the corny oaths and other trappings that confirm its completion. Once married, modification or dissolution of the union requires the approval of more agents of the state. Everything to do with marriage is intertwined with the state. Without the state, you do not have a marriage at all, but some pale cohabitation/"going steady" imitation of it.
Click to expand...

No marriage is first and foremost a commitment between people where the promises are made on the day of the commitment. The contracts warps the personal aspects of marriage into a legal enforcement of rules the state finds important. Marriage in a way has always been going steady but with higher purpose and meaning and there is no reason to suspect that is bad thing.
 
BayToBay said:
You need some sort of government/arbiter for the contract to have meaning. Without it there is only your personal commitment, that is, going steady. Marriage has greater meaning because of society's recognition of the commitment.
Click to expand...

According to you.
 
Ray410 said:
Of course it's aberrant behavior. If it wasn't, this little celebratory thread wouldn't be here would it?
Click to expand...

There's a misconception it's aberrant behavior.

You rabid, hate filled homosexuals have confused "acceptance" with bullying others into silence, but after 60 years of attacking all aspects of heterosexuality, including the faith of others, school children, boy scouts, military, etc., etc., you don't have much left except to remark on meaningless decisions in liberal courts that are deeply resented and ridiculed by the silenced majority.
Click to expand...

There's not an attack on heterosexuality. Someone being homosexual doesn't interfere with your heterosexuality. A silenced majority is a minority, then.
 
Ray410 said:
Of course it's aberrant behavior. If it wasn't, this little celebratory thread wouldn't be here would it?
Click to expand...

Of course it's not aberrant behavior. This thread exists to attempt to educate some of you folks who don't know this.
 
Henrin said:
No marriage is first and foremost a commitment between people where the promises are made on the day of the commitment. The contracts warps the personal aspects of marriage into a legal enforcement of rules the state finds important. Marriage in a way has always been going steady but with higher purpose and meaning and there is no reason to suspect that is bad thing.
Click to expand...
You can subscribe to all the flower petals and rose-colored glasses imagery you want. It doesn't change by one whit what a marriage is and is not. It is a civil institution exclusively offered and maintained by the state. Take it or leave it. Those are the two basic choices.
 
Henrin said:
Marriage is still more than just "going steady". You don't need government to make it what it is.
Click to expand...

Who keeps custody of the children after divorce in your ideal world of government-free marriage?

Ray410 said:
Of course it's aberrant behavior. If it wasn't, this little celebratory thread wouldn't be here would it?

And people like you wouldn't feel the need to demand answers to your self serving questions in a bullying manner like you did.

You rabid, hate filled homosexuals have confused "acceptance" with bullying others into silence, but after 60 years of attacking all aspects of heterosexuality, including the faith of others, school children, boy scouts, military, etc., etc., you don't have much left except to remark on meaningless decisions in liberal courts that are deeply resented and ridiculed by the silenced majority.
Click to expand...

Ahh yes the "silent majority" invocation. Lots of people agree with me, I swear! No I can't substantiate that!

Here's something to consider.

Nobody cares about your acceptance. You can sit there and stew all day about just how terrible those meanie homos are. Nobody cares. Gay people don't want to get married in your hate-filled church by a man who thinks they're an abomination because the Old Testament told him so. Nobody who ever got married ever cared if you personally approve of their union. Not one person on this planet has asked themselves "what would Ray410 think about me marrying this person?"

You whine about being forced to "accept" something. Bull****. Nobody is forcing you to accept anything. We're talking about changing the law, not changing your opinion.

Because nobody cares.

It is not an attack on heterosexuality to suggest that gay people be given the same rights as everyone else. Don't believe me? Well, answer this question then:

What demonstrable harm is done to you by two men marrying each other?
 
Last edited:
Cardinal Fang said:
You can subscribe to all the flower petals and rose-colored glasses imagery you want. It doesn't change by one whit what a marriage is and is not. It is a civil institution exclusively offered and maintained by the state. Take it or leave it. Those are the two basic choices.
Click to expand...

State intervention has always been secondary to what marriage is and represents to people. Marriage is simply not just a government contract and nothing else.
 
Henrin said:
State intervention has always been secondary to what marriage is and represents to people. Marriage is simply not just a government contract and nothing else.
Click to expand...

Except the discussion here isn't about any of that other stuff. Nobody is trying to change any of that. We're discussing a federal law and its relationship to the legal status of individuals. We aren't discussing what you call it, or what meaning you place on it.

So, yes, people place other meaning on the word. That's irrelevant to the discussion. State recognition is most definitely not secondary when you're talking about a legal contract. It's very primary.
 
Henrin said:
State intervention has always been secondary to what marriage is and represents to people. Marriage is simply not just a government contract and nothing else.
Click to expand...
Backwards alert! The state and its laws are at the core of every marriage. You want fries with that? Fine. Cook up all you like. But as much as you might like them, they will still be just a side dish of little decorative frilly things.
 
Deuce said:
Except the discussion here isn't about any of that other stuff. Nobody is trying to change any of that. We're discussing a federal law and its relationship to the legal status of individuals. We aren't discussing what you call it, or what meaning you place on it.
Click to expand...

Deuce, people were telling me that without a government contract marriage would be just "going steady". I was simply saying that is a bogus claim.

So, yes, people place other meaning on the word. That's irrelevant to the discussion. State recognition is most definitely not secondary when you're talking about a legal contract. It's very primary.
Click to expand...

My point was there is no need for a government contract or even a contract in general for marriage.
 
Henrin said:
The core of a marriage is the people involved.
Click to expand...

Fantastic. Would you like to talk about the law now? As a libertarian, what's your view on the government deciding who an individual is or is not allowed to enter a contract with?
 
Deuce said:
Fantastic. Would you like to talk about the law now? As a libertarian, what's your view on the government deciding who an individual is or is not allowed to enter a contract with?
Click to expand...

The government has no business making such decisions. If people wish to enter into a contract with each other the government should take no steps to stop them. Is there something about this you would like to discuss perhaps?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom