• 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!

Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

roguenuke said:
My single sister does not have the same right you do. She cannot marry a woman only because she is a woman. You can marry a woman because you are a man. There is no legitimate government being furthered by not allowing my sister to marry a woman based solely on her sex/gender.
Click to expand...

Everyone plays by the same rules...
 
wbcoleman said:
So the Constitution protects polygamy?
Click to expand...

It might. But that issue is separate and has to stand in its own. You have to have just cause o prevent it.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Why would one want to marry someone of the same sex
Click to expand...

Why does a person want to marry a person of the opposite sex? Or more specifically, why did Mr. Loving want to marry Mrs. Loving? Why does any person want to marry any other specific person? If you don't know the answer to this, maybe you should consider not getting married.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Everyone plays by the same rules...
Click to expand...

Same excuse used to justify the same sort of discrimination against interracial couples. "Black people can marry black people, white people can marry white people, everyone has access to marriage and plays by the same rules."
 
Boo Radley said:
It might. But that issue is separate and has to stand in its own. You have to have just cause o prevent it.
Click to expand...

I see no way for SCOTUS to honestly distinguish between gay marriage and polygamy. It's just that there's no political constituency for polygamy. Shabbat shalom, be back tomorrow night!
 
roguenuke said:
Why does a person want to marry a person of the opposite sex? Or more specifically, why did Mr. Loving want to marry Mrs. Loving? Why does any person want to marry any other specific person? If you don't know the answer to this, maybe you should consider not getting married.
Click to expand...

I married because of love, to legitimize our children, and the BENEFITS. When you're willing to admit that the benefits are the underlying reason, I'll take you seriously...
 
Mr.Nick said:
Yeah well a pet cant consent to being adopted now can they? obviously a table cant consent to being purchased.... So what is the damn difference???

You can adopt a pet but not marry a pet?

You can buy a table but not marry a table?

And if you don't think people DON'T want to marry pets or inanimate objects then you would be totally wrong.
Click to expand...

The difference is that those things, cats and tables, are not guaranteed rights by the US Constitution, citizens of the US are, including gay citizens and anyone who might want to marry another person that they would want to marry but can't just because of their gender.
 
Boo Radley said:
I disagree. If you're a heterosexual, you can marry who you are attracted to and love, assuming they feel the same. The homosexual person can't do the same. To see the discrimination you have to take your fingers out of your ears and listen.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely wrong... There is NOTHING that is stopping homosexuals from engaging in civil contract with their partners -- that's what "marriage" is -- de facto civil contract.
 
digsbe said:
DOMA essentially punishes states that recognize SSM. Those people are legally wed but cannot receive federal benefits due to the federal government legislating marriage which is not their jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

States don't get to decide who gets federal benefits, that's the feds who have that duty. That makes DOMA precisely in their "jurisdiction".
 
wbcoleman said:
Excuse me, do you get to define murder, grand larcency, contract law, to suit yourself???
Click to expand...

All of your examples include harm or the potential thereof.

How does gay marriage affect you in any way?
 
roguenuke said:
The difference is that those things, cats and tables, are not guaranteed rights by the US Constitution, citizens of the US are, including gay citizens and anyone who might want to marry another person that they would want to marry but can't just because of their gender.
Click to expand...

Really? animals don't have rights???

Then why did Michael Vick go to prison? why do sick people who torture animals go to prison? Why are some animals protected?
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I married because of love, to legitimize our children, and the BENEFITS. When you're willing to admit that the benefits are the underlying reason, I'll take you seriously...
Click to expand...

I've never said it wasn't the benefits as a part of the reason. That is a major part of it and nothing to be ashamed of. One group of people should not be able to get those benefits while they are denied to another group just on the basis of their relative genders.

I got married out of love and commitment to my husband and the BENEFITS too (legitimizing my children is in no way a priority to me, I would love them just as much if their father and I weren't married and they would be no less legitimate either). I want others to be able to get those same benefits I have no matter what their relative sexes are and there is no legitimate reason to deny those benefits to them in the form of legal marriage.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Really? animals don't have rights???

Then why did Michael Vick go to prison? why do sick people who torture animals go to prison? Why are some animals protected?
Click to expand...

Not protected by the Constitution they don't. Animals have rights protected by our laws, only. There is a difference. In giving animals a right under our laws, we agree by only a simple majority to grant them certain rights, such as not treating them cruelly. Those can also be taken away by a simple majority as well.
 
clownboy said:
No, it really hasn't. Not in this context. Always been one man/one woman or one man/X number of women. If you want to include the later in the modern definition, more power to ya. But SSM has never fallen within the definition of marriage.

And the states HAVE decided. The vast majority have decided against SSM. And the few outliers, most allow it only through court decision and in opposition of the will of the electorate.
Click to expand...

Not going one direction doesn't mean it hasn't been redefined. And it has been define in other ways: as a business deal, unifying families, for reasons other than love, etc.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Have I stated a State recognized marriage should not?
Click to expand...

What would be the point of a state not allowing gays to marry, then? They ould just get married in a state that does.

Do you understand how much you undermine yourself when you do this.

In the econ forum you made some apparently good points. But now I have to assume your info came from the same place your views on equality do.
 
roguenuke said:
I've never said it wasn't the benefits as a part of the reason. That is a major part of it and nothing to be ashamed of. One group of people should not be able to get those benefits while they are denied to another group just on the basis of their relative genders.

I got married out of love and commitment to my husband and the BENEFITS too (legitimizing my children is in no way a priority to me, I would love them just as much if their father and I weren't married and they would be no less legitimate either). I want others to be able to get those same benefits I have no matter what their relative sexes are and there is no legitimate reason to deny those benefits to them in the form of legal marriage.
Click to expand...

Why should the government bestow benefits to an individual or couple because of their life choices?
 
What if...? said:
What would be the point of a state not allowing gays to marry, then? They ould just get married in a state that does.

Do you understand how much you undermine yourself when you do this.

In the econ forum you made some apparently good points. But now I have to assume your info came from the same place your views on equality do.
Click to expand...

I take it you're placing me on ignore...
 
wbcoleman said:
No, you've studiously ignored it. Do you think laws defining marriage as between men and women have been unconstitutional since 1868, or is it some more recent date?
Click to expand...

Have homosexuals been marrying since the Amendment? If not, yes. What don't you understand?
 
Mr.Nick said:
Yeah well a pet cant consent to being adopted now can they? obviously a table cant consent to being purchased.... So what is the damn difference???

You can adopt a pet but not marry a pet?

You can buy a table but not marry a table?

And if you don't think people DON'T want to marry pets or inanimate objects then you would be totally wrong.
Click to expand...

Are you really going to compare marriage to adoption? That's sillier than usual. Marriage requires consent.
 
roguenuke said:
Not protected by the Constitution they don't. Animals have rights protected by our laws, only. There is a difference. In giving animals a right under our laws, we agree by only a simple majority to grant them certain rights, such as not treating them cruelly. Those can also be taken away by a simple majority as well.
Click to expand...

And there is no FEDERAL LAW that grants gay marriage, just like there is no FEDERAL LAW that grants rights to pets....

In short - congress would have to amend the constitution to legalize gay marriage at the federal level - other than that states can utilize the Tenth Amendment and use that liberty in the appropriate manner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom