• 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!

5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

LowDown said:
There are no victims in polygamy, either, so this makes for a very good case for that. As for animals, they are legally property and it might be argued that they can be used however the owner pleases, especially since animals are used for foodstuff, to make leather goods, and so on. Yes, there are laws against mistreatment of animals, but there are those who are already making the case that sex with animals is not mistreatment. As for pedophilia, there is a lot of room to move the age of consent, which is, after all, an arbitrary, sliding distinction.

You may regard the slippery slope as a weak argument, but it is in fact inexorable. History shows this to be true, and the advent of SSM is a case in point.

The loss of traditional values has not been particularly beneficial over all. Our culture is in the process of literally dying. Many young people no longer bother to marry or have children because they see no value in either. The birth rate has fallen below the replacement rate, and with each generation there will be less of us. We will be replaced by those who regard our traditions and culture, including freedom, democracy, and egalitarianism, as corrupt and evil; those who punish homosexuality with death, and punish women who seek freedom by stoning them will triumph over us.
Click to expand...

I did not say there where victims, I said it was a separate issue with different arguments. There is no evidence of negative effects of SSM, and some evidence of positive effects, both on those directly involved(the couple and any children of the couple), and society. This is simply not the case with polygamy, which has negative effects on those involved in the marriage.
 
Zyphlin said:
I'm waiting for them to rule that Prop 8 is unconstitutional on the basis of Gender discrimination and watching with a smile at the fall out.

The "Traditional Marriage" crowd will be in a tizzy that "the will of the majority" was overturned.

The large amount of supporters of "Gay Marriage" who don't really care about it in general, but rather are using it as a poker chip in their greater attempt to make Homosexuality = Race under the law, will likely also get in a tizzy anger with the court "wussing out" by not taking a stance on homosexuality.

And the few people who actually give a damn primarily about same sex marriage OR the mass of lemmings who like to think they are some kind of modern day activist because they change their f'ing facebook icon will probably celebrate....likely ignorantly and as if the case meant something it didn't in the latter example.

That'd absolutely be my preferred outcome.
Click to expand...

Hey now, I changed my facebook icon and I do give a damn about SSM, but I doubt you could call me ignorant, though I would celebrate in the case you mention. My primary goal, what I want more than anything, is for my mother and niece to be able to marry if they choose to. That does not mean that other goals are not present, nor that I am ignorant, nor that I do not care about the mechanism that gets them there, but only that the overriding concern is for those close to me.
 
LowDown said:
You've made a very good case for polygamy.
Click to expand...

I've made a very good case for individual liberty. It's not up to me to prove why anyone should have a particular right, it's up to the government to prove why they shouldn't. You do agree, don't you?
 
LowDown said:
There are no victims in polygamy, either, so this makes for a very good case for that. As for animals, they are legally property and it might be argued that they can be used however the owner pleases, especially since animals are used for foodstuff, to make leather goods, and so on. Yes, there are laws against mistreatment of animals, but there are those who are already making the case that sex with animals is not mistreatment. As for pedophilia, there is a lot of room to move the age of consent, which is, after all, an arbitrary, sliding distinction.

You may regard the slippery slope as a weak argument, but it is in fact inexorable. History shows this to be true, and the advent of SSM is a case in point.

The loss of traditional values has not been particularly beneficial over all. Our culture is in the process of literally dying. Many young people no longer bother to marry or have children because they see no value in either. The birth rate has fallen below the replacement rate, and with each generation there will be less of us. We will be replaced by those who regard our traditions and culture, including freedom, democracy, and egalitarianism, as corrupt and evil; those who punish homosexuality with death, and punish women who seek freedom by stoning them will triumph over us.
Click to expand...

Moved on to bestiality and pedophilia, how predictable!

Animals and children cannot sign legal contracts.

You've yet to quantify any harm caused by same-sex marriage. Falling birth rates? What, you think banning same-sex marriage increases the birth rate?

Does banning same-sex marriage somehow ward off this invasion of THA MOOOSLIMS that you're terrified of?
 
Gay Marriage is pointless

If you change the definition of the word marriage and claim it's a Civil Right for Gays, then you'll have to change it for all other sexual interest groups that want to get married too. This is just a cultural marxist attack on the traditional family.
 
Bronson said:
Gay Marriage is pointless

If you change the definition of the word marriage and claim it's a Civil Right for Gays, then you'll have to change it for all other sexual interest groups that want to get married too. This is just a cultural marxist attack on the traditional family.
Click to expand...

If you ban same-sex marriage, then you'll have to ban heterosexual marriage! Then you'll have to ban having children and humans will go extinct!

You've "outed" yourself as not being married, because no married man believes that "being married" and "having sex" are the same thing. :lamo
 
Deuce said:
If you ban same-sex marriage, then you'll have to ban heterosexual marriage! Then you'll have to ban having children and humans will go extinct!

You've "outed" yourself as not being married, because no married man believes that "being married" and "having sex" are the same thing. :lamo
Click to expand...

I reject your premise

There has never been gay marriage. Even the spartans revered and respected the tradition of marriage because it has a specific purpose for the existence of mankind. It's in harmony with natural law. The warriors had open homosexual relationships and even they never proposed the concept of gay marriage. Marriage has always meant one thing. A union between a man and a women. Gays don't have the right to change it's definition. If you give gays this right, you'll have to give every other sexual interest group the same right. Or any other group that wants the "fundamental right to marriage".
 
Bronson said:
I reject your premise
Click to expand...
Good, because I was being deliberately ridiculous to try and show you how silly your slippery slope argument is.

There has never been gay marriage. Even the spartans revered and respected the tradition of marriage because it has a specific purpose for the existence of mankind. It's in harmony with natural law.
Click to expand...
There is no natural law. Tigers don't give a crap about the rights of a gazelle. Laws and rights are an entirely human concept.

The warriors had open homosexual relationships and even they never proposed the concept of gay marriage. Marriage has always meant one thing. A union between a man and a women. Gays don't have the right to change it's definition.
Click to expand...
Since when do you own the definition to a word? Who owns the definition of marriage? I define marriage as between two consenting adults. What makes your definition better? Tradition? Tradition said blacks and whites couldn't marry. Tradition said the wife was literally property. Tradition said the local baron got to devirginize your new bride if he wanted. What did people say about those definitions being changed? Exactly what you're saying now. You don't have the right to redefine marriage! It has always been between one man and one woman of the same race! Interracial marriage goes against natural law and the word of God! (they literally said this, and you are saying it now)

If you give gays this right, you'll have to give every other sexual interest group the same right. Or any other group that wants the "fundamental right to marriage".
Click to expand...
Marriage isn't sex, and the slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy for a reason. I have a really stunning revelation for you:

Gay people already have sex. They are having sex right now. As we speak. Naked, hot, gay sex. Gay people have sex a lot. This isn't about sexual interests.

So if allowing same-sex marriage means you "have to" legalize every other type of marriage, how come you rejected my premise? Why does the slippery slope only go your way and not mine? How come we don't "have to" ban all marriage, or take other rights away from people?
 
Deuce said:
Good, because I was being deliberately ridiculous to try and show you how silly your slippery slope argument is.
Click to expand...

It isn't a slippery slope argument. If you allow gays to change the definition of marriage, you'll have to allow all other sexual interest groups the same right as well. Just because you can't refute logic doesn't make it "slippery slope". You are arguing from emotion. That doesn't interest me.

There is no natural law. Tigers don't give a crap about the rights of a gazelle. Laws and rights are an entirely human concept.
Click to expand...

Yes there is natural law. Gays cannot procreate through gay sex.

Since when do you own the definition to a word? Who owns the definition of marriage? I define marriage as between two consenting adults. What makes your definition better? Tradition? Tradition said blacks and whites couldn't marry. Tradition said the wife was literally property. Tradition said the local baron got to devirginize your new bride if he wanted.
Click to expand...

This isn't about ownership. This is about what the definition of the word is and has always been, and what one sexual interest group that makes up about 2% of the population wants to change it to.

Marriage isn't sex, and the slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy for a reason. I have a really stunning revelation for you:
Click to expand...

Marriage is an institution that is in harmony with natural law. It's purpose it to bring the sexes together for procreation, where children are raised in an optimal environment. Biological parents have a specific purpose in regards to the emotional and psychological well being of a child. Marriage is about children.

Gay people already have sex. They are having sex right now. As we speak. Naked, hot, gay sex. Gay people have sex a lot. This isn't about sexual interests.
Click to expand...

Your gay fantasies do not interest me. Gays are a sexual interest group.

So if allowing same-sex marriage means you "have to" legalize every other type of marriage, how come you rejected my premise? Why does the slippery slope only go your way and not mine? How come we don't "have to" ban all marriage, or take other rights away from people?
Click to expand...

Gays do not have the right to change the definition of what marriage is and always has been.
 
I would be really disappointed if the court kicked the issue down the road. The nation is crying out for an answer, one way or the other. They should just do it and get it over with.

Bronson said:
There has never been gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Actually, there have. China has records of legal same sex marriages from more than three thousand years ago. There are also records of Roman men, including the emperor Nero, marrying other men. There are records of a SSM performed by a Christian priest in Spain in 1061. So, SSM isn't actually a new concept.
 
Bronson said:
It isn't a slippery slope argument. If you allow gays to change the definition of marriage, you'll have to allow all other sexual interest groups the same right as well. Just because you can't refute logic doesn't make it "slippery slope". You are arguing from emotion. That doesn't interest me.
Click to expand...

That is the textbook definition of a slippery slope argument.

Yes there is natural law. Gays cannot procreate through gay sex.
Click to expand...
That's biology, not law. This was brought up in court. (sortof) If marriage exists to promote procreation, why are infertile couples allowed to marry? What about couples who are fertile but just refuse to have children?
Marriage isn't just about children.

This isn't about ownership. This is about what the definition of the word is and has always been, and what one sexual interest group that makes up about 2% of the population wants to change it to.
Click to expand...
You missed the point. The definition of marriage has changed repeatedly. One man and one woman of the same race, remember? One man and his property. Marriage didn't start as a holy covenant, it started as a contract for the transfer of property. Why is it ok to change that definition and now it isn't?

Marriage is an institution that is in harmony with natural law. It's purpose it to bring the sexes together for procreation, where children are raised in an optimal environment. Biological parents have a specific purpose in regards to the emotional and psychological well being of a child. Marriage is about children.
Click to expand...
So why are you not arguing for dissolution of elderly couples' marriages?


Gays do not have the right to change the definition of what marriage is and always has been.
Click to expand...
It has changed before. If you can't see that, there's no reason to discuss this with you further.
 
Redress said:
Hey now, I changed my facebook icon
Click to expand...

And you consistently vocalize or debate on the notion of homosexual rights and/or gay marriage and are rather outspoken about it. That's far different then the mass of lemmings that likely populate the facebook page of many people who mindlessly skip to the new cause du jour of any given moment because it's simple and easy and yet they can act like they're some grand supporter of "the cause" or some kinds of activists. Those folk generally annoy me...I get it, I know it's technically good for whatever particular cause they're clinging to this week, but it doesn't annoy me any less. They're the same ones to throw up stuff about the Green Revolution despite never talking about or paying attention to Iran before or since...to then move off and "Spread the word" about Kony 2012 without really knowing what the hell it was actually full about....to raging against/for Chick-Fil-A and on and on and on. Not everything that jumps on these kind of things necessarily are the lemming types...but a large amount are.

and I do give a damn about SSM, but I doubt you could call me ignorant, though I would celebrate in the case you mention. My primary goal, what I want more than anything, is for my mother and niece to be able to marry if they choose to.
Click to expand...

Which would put you in that latter category. I wouldn't think you ignorant, but then again the ones I was suggesting would be largely ignorant were the facebook lemming activists.
 
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
I would be really disappointed if the court kicked the issue down the road. The nation is crying out for an answer, one way or the other. They should just do it and get it over with.



Actually, there have. China has records of legal same sex marriages from more than three thousand years ago. There are also records of Roman men, including the emperor Nero, marrying other men. There are records of a SSM performed by a Christian priest in Spain in 1061. So, SSM isn't actually a new concept.
Click to expand...

You really want to use Nero as an example?

You know as well as I that the definition and concept of marriage has always meant one thing

What are the limits if we allow gays to change the definition of the word marriage? If you make marriage a "civil right" than anyone can claim that right and say their civil rights are being violated if you don't allow them to engage in that "fundamental right to marry".
 
Deuce said:
That is the textbook definition of a slippery slope argument.
Click to expand...

Your feelings don't = facts.

That's biology, not law. This was brought up in court. (sortof) If marriage exists to promote procreation, why are infertile couples allowed to marry? What about couples who are fertile but just refuse to have children?
Marriage isn't just about children.
Click to expand...

It's not my problem you don't know what natural law is

Infertile couples don't change the definition of marriage. Gay marriage does.

You missed the point. The definition of marriage has changed repeatedly. One man and one woman of the same race, remember? One man and his property. Marriage didn't start as a holy covenant, it started as a contract for the transfer of property. Why is it ok to change that definition and now it isn't?
Click to expand...

The definition of marriage has never been changed. It's always meant one thing.

So why are you not arguing for dissolution of elderly couples' marriages?
Click to expand...

You're getting desperate

It has changed before. If you can't see that, there's no reason to discuss this with you further.
Click to expand...

Nope

Even SCOTUS recognized this yesterday during oral arguments
 
Bronson said:
You really want to use Nero as an example?
Click to expand...

As the ruler of an empire who demonstrates the history of legal same sex marriage in multiple cultures, yes. As an example of a healthy attitude towards one's mother, no.

You know as well as I that the definition and concept of marriage has always meant one thing
Click to expand...

Yes, it meant the transfer of ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. Why are you trying to change the definition of marriage by giving women autonomy?

What are the limits if we allow gays to change the definition of the word marriage? If you make marriage a "civil right" than anyone can claim that right and say their civil rights are being violated if you don't allow them to engage in that "fundamental right to marry".
Click to expand...

Marriage already is a civil right. But I'll tell you the limits. The limits are that any two consenting adults can enter into a marriage with one another. Maybe the "two" requirement will go away at some point, too. Even so, I don't imagine a lot of people would enter into polyamorous marriages. A lot of people seem to prefer a two person partnership. But even then, there's nothing intrinsically harmful about them, though many of the examples have been used to allow a few men to control many women, including underage women. But that's illegal due to the coercion faced by these woman and girls, and that many are underage. But that's the extent of the supposedly slippery slope. Children and animals are obviously not going to be included in marriages as neither has legal standing to give consent. Inanimate objects likewise cannot.

Give it up. You've lost. One more brand of bigotry is going away.
 
Bronson said:
Your feelings don't = facts.



It's not my problem you don't know what natural law is

Infertile couples don't change the definition of marriage. Gay marriage does.



The definition of marriage has never been changed. It's always meant one thing.



You're getting desperate



Nope

Even SCOTUS recognized this yesterday during oral arguments
Click to expand...

I must have just imagined the fact that there used to be interracial marriage bans. Or that women were property. Or that local barons could sleep with your wife first. Or that some marriages are arranged without consent of the people marrying eachother. None of those definitions ever existed, thanks for helping me there!

I again ask: Why do you own the definition?
 
Deuce said:
I must have just imagined the fact that there used to be interracial marriage bans. Or that women were property. Or that local barons could sleep with your wife first. Or that some marriages are arranged without consent of the people marrying eachother. None of those definitions ever existed, thanks for helping me there!

I again ask: Why do you own the definition?
Click to expand...

Except through all that, the basic definition of marriage remained unchanged - one man to one woman.
 
Paschendale said:
As the ruler of an empire who demonstrates the history of legal same sex marriage in multiple cultures, yes. As an example of a healthy attitude towards one's mother, no.
Click to expand...

Nero engaged in all kinds of sexual depravity and made all kinds of things "legal" because it was his whim. Not a good example in comparison to a Constitutional and Civil Society. Gay Marriage is not healthy to society. It serves no social or economic purpose.

Yes, it meant the transfer of ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. Why are you trying to change the definition of marriage by giving women autonomy?
Click to expand...

Not sure if serious. Marriage = union between man and women. Men and women have sex. Produce children. Hence reason for the tradition and institution. Has never included gays or groups of people who want to marry each other.

Marriage already is a civil right. But I'll tell you the limits. The limits are that any two consenting adults can enter into a marriage with one another. Maybe the "two" requirement will go away at some point, too. Even so, I don't imagine a lot of people would enter into polyamorous marriages. A lot of people seem to prefer a two person partnership. But even then, there's nothing intrinsically harmful about them, though many of the examples have been used to allow a few men to control many women, including underage women. But that's illegal due to the coercion faced by these woman and girls, and that many are underage. But that's the extent of the supposedly slippery slope. Children and animals are obviously not going to be included in marriages as neither has legal standing to give consent. Inanimate objects likewise cannot.

Give it up. You've lost. One more brand of bigotry is going away.
Click to expand...

Here is where the argument for gay marriage crumbles. Gay marriage is not a civil right. Marriage is not a "civil right". This is the premise advocates for gay marriage argue from and it's a canard.

If you exclude one sexual interest group over another, you're denying people their rights. What makes gays so special? Why do they get to change the definition of marriage and other sexual groups don't? Why are you bigoted against people who want to marry more than one person? Why would you deny them that right? What right do you have to deny them their "fundamental rights". A lot of people might not prefer the traditional 2 partner definition of marriage. What if a group of people want to marry so they can get tax incentives? What harmful about that? Who are they hurting? If a guy wants to marry himself so he can get the same benefits of married couples what harm would that cause? Why deny him his civil right to marry something?
 
Deuce said:
I must have just imagined the fact that there used to be interracial marriage bans. Or that women were property. Or that local barons could sleep with your wife first. Or that some marriages are arranged without consent of the people marrying eachother. None of those definitions ever existed, thanks for helping me there!

I again ask: Why do you own the definition?
Click to expand...

All strawmen

Interracial marriage didn't change the definition of marriage. No example you have given ever changed the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?
 
clownboy said:
Except through all that, the basic definition of marriage remained unchanged - one man to one woman.
Click to expand...

Except for all the historical cases of polygamy, you mean? Or when it was "one man and one baby factory?"
 
Bronson said:
All strawmen

Interracial marriage didn't change the definition of marriage. No example you have given ever changed the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?
Click to expand...

Why are you ignoring part of the previous definition? It was one man and one woman of the same race. Hey, I can ignore parts of the definition too.

Same-sex marriage doesn't change the definition from one ___ and one ____.
 
Deuce said:
Why are you ignoring part of the previous definition? It was one man and one woman of the same race. Hey, I can ignore parts of the definition too.

Same-sex marriage doesn't change the definition from one ___ and one ____.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. You are mistaken.

And yes it does change the definition to man + ? or woman + ?

Also comparing gay marriage to the real racial discrimination blacks have suffered through is racist
 
Bronson said:
Also comparing gay marriage to the real racial discrimination blacks have suffered through is racist
Click to expand...

Talking about discrimination makes a person racist? That's an interesting new definition of the term.
 
Deuce said:
Why are you ignoring part of the previous definition? It was one man and one woman of the same race. Hey, I can ignore parts of the definition too.

Same-sex marriage doesn't change the definition from one ___ and one ____.
Click to expand...

Are you implying that race differences are the same as gender differences? I was under the impression that there is no difference between the races.
 
longknife said:
That's not the point! The point is that the people of a state voted overwhelmingly for a state proposition. If you don't like it - MOVE.
Click to expand...
America is a constitutional republic, not a "democratic" republic, so democracy as a vehicle to decision-making is not an absolute in America.

That being said, I wish those arguing for Prop 8 would have presented a more intelligent and comprehensive argument than they did.

I think their argument is a loser.

Though some think the court will punt, I don't think the liberal-dominated court will do anything but overturn Prop 8, and they will overturn DOMA as well.

This is all ideological, not sensibly intelligent.

And, no matter what decisions are made by the SCOTUS on these issues, the matter simply will not go away, ever, as clearly an SS couple is not an OS couple, and thus marriage, by definitive propriety, simply does not apply to SS couples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom