• 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

Deuce said:
Except for all the historical cases of polygamy, you mean? Or when it was "one man and one baby factory?"
Click to expand...

Stiil, breaks the point you were trying to set up. And AFAIK those cases of harems didn't involve marriage.
 
SCOTUSBlog as usual has the best coverage: Argument recap: DOMA is in trouble (FINAL UPDATE) : SCOTUSblog

Justice Kennedy told Clement that there was “a real risk” that DOMA would interfere with the traditional authority of states to regulate marriage. Kennedy also seemed troubled about the sweeping breadth of DOMA’s Section 3, noting that its ban on benefits to already married same-sex couples under 1,100 laws and programs would mean that the federal government was “intertwined with citizens’ daily lives.” He questioned Congress’s very authority to pass such a broad law.


Moreover, Kennedy questioned Clement’s most basic argument — that Congress was only reaching for uniformity, so that federal agencies would not have to sort out who was or was not married legally in deciding who could qualify for federal marital benefits, because some states were on the verge of recognizing same-sex marriage.


Along with sharply negative comments about DOMA by the Court’s four more liberal members, Kennedy’s stance could put the law on the edge of constitutional extinction. But, if the Court were to do that based on states’ rights premises, the final ruling might not say much at all about whether same-sex couples were any closer to gaining an equal right to marry under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

While as the ACA/Obamacare ruling taught us, reading too much into oral arguments is a very bad plan, still, the arguments today cannot be taken as anything other than a very bed day for DOMA supporters.

Transcript of today's arguments:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-307_jnt1.pdf
 
clownboy said:
Stiil, breaks the point you were trying to set up. And AFAIK those cases of harems didn't involve marriage.
Click to expand...

Numerous historical occurrences of actual polygamy exist. And it doesn't do crap to my point: the definition of marriage has changed repeatedly throughout history.
 
Deuce said:
Nobody is proposing forcing a church to marry gay couples. Where on earth did you get that idea?
Click to expand...

Yeah, agreed, churches aren't forced to marry every hetero couple that asks. But this does highlight a difficulty with marriage being considered a civil right. IF marriage were indeed a civil right presently churches would be forced to marry any hetero couple who asked, and that's just not the case.
 
Deuce said:
Numerous historical occurrences of actual polygamy exist. And it doesn't do crap to my point: the definition of marriage has changed repeatedly throughout history.
Click to expand...

Nope, nice try, unless you can show where those polygamist relationships were marriages and all the partners were considered married.
 
clownboy said:
Nope, nice try, unless you can show where those polygamist relationships were marriages and all the partners were considered married.
Click to expand...

How about the bible? :D
 
Deuce said:
Nobody is proposing forcing a church to marry gay couples. Where on earth did you get that idea?
Click to expand...

Just like churches or religious businesses would NEVER be asked to provide free BC to their employees right?

Gay Danish couples win right to marry in church - Telegraph

The church ceremony isn't part of the equation. We're talking about the legal contract that the government recognizes. Churches don't have to perform a marriage ceremony for straight couples either, you know. I have a right to free speech, but that doesn't mean I have a right to use Fox News' equipment to broadcast my free speech. They are under no obligation to host my free expression. I have the right to an attorney when accused of a crime, but that doesn't mean any particular lawyer is legally compelled to represent me.
Click to expand...

So why do gays get the special right to change the definition of marriage then? Why are other sexual special interest groups excluded? You're claiming gays "have a fundamental civil right to marry". Why only them and not others?
 
Bronson said:
Just like churches or religious businesses would NEVER be asked to provide free BC to their employees right?

Gay Danish couples win right to marry in church - Telegraph



So why do gays get the special right to change the definition of marriage then? Why are other sexual special interest groups excluded? You're claiming gays "have a fundamental civil right to marry". Why only them and not others?
Click to expand...

Separate marriage from sex and then actually specify a group, maybe then there's something to talk about.
 
Deuce said:
Separate marriage from sex and then actually specify a group, maybe then there's something to talk about.
Click to expand...

Gays are defined by their sexuality

Blacks aren't blacks because of who they have sex with. Skin color is not relevant to behavior. That's why it's racist to claim gay marriage is a civil right. Blacks were targeted and persecuted for what they looked like. Gays want to change the definition of marriage. It twisted to equate the two on a moral level.

If a bisexual wants to marry both a man and woman, who are you to deny them their civil right to do so? Who they love doesn't harm you. Why deny their right to marry who they want?
 
Bronson said:
Just like churches or religious businesses would NEVER be asked to provide free BC to their employees right?

Gay Danish couples win right to marry in church - Telegraph
Click to expand...

Denmark has the right to make their own laws. They're not beholden to the First Amendment



So why do gays get the special right to change the definition of marriage then? Why are other sexual special interest groups excluded? You're claiming gays "have a fundamental civil right to marry". Why only them and not others?
Click to expand...

Only one other "sexual special interest group" is about other consenting adults, which is polygamists. If you want to "marry" whips and chains, fine, but they can't enter into a contract.
 
Bronson said:
Gays are defined by their sexuality

Blacks aren't blacks because of who they have sex with. Skin color is not relevant to behavior. That's why it's racist to claim gay marriage is a civil right. Blacks were targeted and persecuted for what they looked like. Gays want to change the definition of marriage. It twisted to equate the two on a moral level.

If a bisexual wants to marry both a man and woman, who are you to deny them their civil right to do so? Who they love doesn't harm you. Why deny their right to marry who they want?
Click to expand...

Gays are defined by who they are attracted to, not by sex. Heterosexuals are defined the exact same way.
 
Bronson said:
Gays are defined by their sexuality

If a bisexual wants to marry both a man and woman, who are you to deny them their civil right to do so? Who they love doesn't harm you. Why deny their right to marry who they want?
Click to expand...

Excellent. I'm glad you agree that there has to be some sort of measurable harm done before you can ban other types of marriage!

So tell me the harm done by same-sex marriage or polygamy because I can't really quantify harm of any sort.
 
Bronson said:
If a bisexual wants to marry both a man and woman, who are you to deny them their civil right to do so? Who they love doesn't harm you. Why deny their right to marry who they want?
Click to expand...

That would be polygamy.
 
Redress said:
Gays are defined by who they are attracted to, not by sex. Heterosexuals are defined the exact same way.
Click to expand...

They are defined by their behavior

If marriage is a right based upon who people are attracted to, then you are you to deny the right of anyone to marry anything?
 
Bronson said:
They are defined by their behavior

If marriage is a right based upon who people are attracted to, then you are you to deny the right of anyone to marry anything?
Click to expand...

Absolutely false. By definition, orientation refers to who people are attracted to.

SSM is not about letting people marry any one they are attracted to, it is about allowing people to marry people of the same sex.
 
Deuce said:
Excellent. I'm glad you agree that there has to be some sort of measurable harm done before you can ban other types of marriage!

So tell me the harm done by same-sex marriage or polygamy because I can't really quantify harm of any sort.
Click to expand...

Gay marriage has never been "banned"

There never has been any such thing as gay marriage. It's never been a societal norm. Not even in Sparta where there was rampant homosexuality.

Gays don't have the right to change the definition of marriage at the exclusion of other sexual interest groups

Gay marriage has no social or economic value. It serves no purpose.
 
Redress said:
Absolutely false. By definition, orientation refers to who people are attracted to.

SSM is not about letting people marry any one they are attracted to, it is about allowing people to marry people of the same sex.
Click to expand...

Which means changing the definition of what marriage is

What gives the right to change the definition over any other sexual interest group?

As a man do I have a right to workout at an all female gym?
 
Bronson said:
Which means changing the definition of what marriage is
Click to expand...

Depends on what definition of marriage you are using. It has changed over time.

What gives the right to change the definition over any other sexual interest group?
Click to expand...

Because there are benefits to allowing SSM, and not allowing SSM is harmful. The state has no rational basis to not allow same sex couples to marry.

As a man do I have a right to workout at an all female gym?
Click to expand...

Not even remotely the same thing.
 
Bronson said:
Gays don't have the right to change the definition of marriage at the exclusion of other sexual interest groups
Click to expand...

Thats true, in so much that heterosexuals have no right to refuse changing the definition at the exclusion of other sexual interest groups as well.

No one really has a "right" to change or refuse to change a definition....though they do have a right to make their case one way or another, which is what's happening.
 
Redress said:
Depends on what definition of marriage you are using. It has changed over time.
Click to expand...

No it has never changed over time. It has always meant man + woman. It has never been a societal norm for marriage to mean man + ? or woman + ?

Because there are benefits to allowing SSM, and not allowing SSM is harmful. The state has no rational basis to not allow same sex couples to marry.
Click to expand...

Like what? Give examples

Gay sex can't procreate. They don't spawn new taxpayers.

Not even remotely the same thing.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. Not everyone gets what they want. There are traditions and clubs that exclude people because of specific criteria. If marriage is a "civil right" why do only gays get the right to change it's definition and marry who they love?
 
Samhain said:
Are you saying that gender differences are on the same playing field as race differences? I think that is a terrible correlation to make.
Click to expand...

They're on a slightly lower, but still high, playing field in terms of the law regardless of what he's trying to say.

Since you said playing field....if Race is the Major Leagues, Gender is AAA Ball.

Under the Equal Protection Clause there are essentially three teirs, with the lowest teir being split in two as well. Race is one of the classifications that falls in that upper teir and has very strict requirements in terms of governmental need and the laws impact. Gender is a second teir classification, that still has rather strict requirements but not quite on the level of race.
 
Bronson said:
They are defined by their behavior
Click to expand...

Not at all. An abstinent man who never engages in physical activites with anyone, but who is attracted to other men and not to women, would be gay despite any "behavior" not being exhibited.
 
Bronson said:
Gay marriage has never been "banned"
Click to expand...
Yes it was. In California. Gay people could marry, and Prop 8 took that away.

There never has been any such thing as gay marriage. It's never been a societal norm. Not even in Sparta where there was rampant homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Eleven countries and nine US states disagree.

Gays don't have the right to change the definition of marriage at the exclusion of other sexual interest groups
Click to expand...
Oh now you are against exclusion, are you? :lamo
Dude, you're the one taking the most exclusionary stance. You don't get to use this argument.

Gay marriage has no social or economic value. It serves no purpose.
Click to expand...
Straight-up false. Marriage promotes stable family unions that benefit society, particularly regarding the raising of children. Children of same-sex couples do much better than single-parent households or foster care. And since when the hell does anybody have to justify the value of individual liberty to you?
 
Bronson said:
No it has never changed over time. It has always meant man + woman. It has never been a societal norm for marriage to mean man + ? or woman + ?
Click to expand...

Wrong. Even in this country, polygamy for example was legal until the mid 19th century and the practice was not uncommon.


Like what? Give examples

Gay sex can't procreate. They don't spawn new taxpayers.
Click to expand...

About 1/3 of all lesbians and 1/4 of gay men have children, and that number is rising. 2 parent households are better for raising children than 1 parent households. Marriage tends to result in more stability and responsibility.


Yes it is. Not everyone gets what they want. There are traditions and clubs that exclude people because of specific criteria. If marriage is a "civil right" why do only gays get the right to change it's definition and marry who they love?
Click to expand...

Traditions and clubs are not the US or state governments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom