• 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]

And your only point in this debate, Cardinal, is that a plurality of ideological state judges decided marriage should be for everybody.
 
cabse5 said:
Or when 1st amendment rights are violated when, IMO, SSM laws infringe upon religions in america. upon religions.
Click to expand...

No, they aren't. You cannot justify this at all. No religion has any right to insist that marriage be a certain way in accordance with their religious beliefs.
 
What happens to tax free status for church organizations of churches who don't believe in SSM? Have you heard of the IRS scandal? Who's being discriminated against there?
 
cabse5 said:
I'm a chimin'. That's what the religion part of the first amendment is about... Read it more closely. Gov't shall not set up a gov't religion, and gov't shall not impede religions from the practice of their religion.
Click to expand...

And marriage is not a religious institute, not the civil marriage. It is a secular contract that recognizes two people as legal family. It is not religious, so there is no religion or impediment to the practice of any religion in allowing same sex couples to marry.
 
cabse5 said:
What happens to tax free status? Have you heard of the IRS scandal?
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with same sex couples being allowed to marry.

Religions have been allowed to deny ceremonies, including wedding ceremonies to anyone for any reason since our country started and there is no rational reason to believe this will change by allowing same sex couples to marry.
 
cabse5 said:
And your only point in this debate, Cardinal, is that a plurality of ideological state judges decided marriage should be for everybody.
Click to expand...

Your opinion on what is and is not "ideological" has no bearing on the debate. If you stuck to factual statements instead of trying to interpret the motives of people's actions you'd have a much stronger position.
 
roguenuke said:
And marriage is not a religious institute, not the civil marriage. It is a secular contract that recognizes two people as legal family. It is not religious, so there is no religion or impediment to the practice of any religion in allowing same sex couples to marry.
Click to expand...

Marriage was a religious institution before the state got a hold of it. Before,IMO, gov't broke the first amendment.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Your opinion on what is and is not "ideological" has no bearing on the debate. If you stuck to factual statements instead of trying to interpret the motives of people's actions you'd have a much stronger position.
Click to expand...

You're being ideological to try to prove I'm ideological. Look up the word.
 
cabse5 said:
Marriage was a religious institution before the state got a hold of it.
Click to expand...

Not originally.

Even the during the beginning of our country, both a religious and secular option was available for marriage.

Religion holds no rights to marriage. No religion. Society, aka "the state", has much more of a right to marriage than religions.
 
cabse5 said:
Marriage was a religious institution before the state got a hold of it.
Click to expand...

Even though the fact of what was what first is entirely irrelevant, I'd really like to see you prove that marriage as a religious institution came first.

You know, just for my own personal entertainment.
 
roguenuke said:
Not originally.

Even the during the beginning of our country, both a religious and secular option was available for marriage.

Religion holds no rights to marriage. No religion. Society, aka "the state", has much more of a right to marriage than religions.
Click to expand...

How many 'original' marriages were SSM?

EDIT: and when I post state, I mean the US gov't. Don't care about Sweden, for example.
 
cabse5 said:
You're being ideological to try to prove I'm ideological. Look up the word.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you were being ideological. I said that you interpreting the motives of other people was not a good argument.
 
Cardinal said:
Your opinion on what is and is not "ideological" has no bearing on the debate. If you stuck to factual statements instead of trying to interpret the motives of people's actions you'd have a much stronger position.
Click to expand...

Means ideological. Look it up.
 
cabse5 said:
Means ideological. Look it up.
Click to expand...

You don't understand what the constitution is, you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion, and you don't know the definitions of English words.

Just...stop.
 
Cardinal said:
I didn't say you were being ideological. I said that you interpreting the motives of other people was not a good argument.
Click to expand...

Interpreting the motives of other people is a great argument. I can show dishonesty!
luv your avatar, so cool, so tough looking! is that that fallen guy? what's your favourite ice cream?
 
cabse5 said:
How many 'original' marriages were SSM?

EDIT: and when I post state, I mean the US gov't. Don't care about Sweden, for example.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. Almost every state had laws at one time or another against interracial marriages. And every state at one time or another had laws against women voting. Times change.

This in no way changes the fact that religions do not own marriage, so it is not adopting a religion nor infringing on any religion's rights for the government to allow same sex couples to marry. <---This was your contention. Bringing up what the government originally had as marriage does not change the counter to this contention.
 
Michael66 said:
Interpreting the motives of other people is a great argument. I can show dishonesty!
luv your avatar, so cool, so tough looking! is that that fallen guy? what's your favourite ice cream?
Click to expand...

Bowler hats are cool.


edit: "fallen"?
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
You don't understand what the constitution is, you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion, and you don't know the definitions of English words.

Just...stop.
Click to expand...

Still being ideological. This is boring. Good by.
 
roguenuke said:
It doesn't matter. Almost every state had laws at one time or another against interracial marriages. And every state at one time or another had laws against women voting. Times change.

This in no way changes the fact that religions do not own marriage, so it is not adopting a religion nor infringing on any religion's rights for the government to allow same sex couples to marry. <---This was your contention. Bringing up what the government originally had as marriage does not change the counter to this contention.
Click to expand...

Personally, this debate has become so absurd that I'm waayyyyy over the fact that the appeal to tradition is a fallacy. I just want to see him prove that marriage was a religious institution first.
 
cabse5 said:
Still being ideological. This is boring. Good by.
Click to expand...

This word you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
It doesn't matter. Almost every state had laws at one time or another against interracial marriages. And every state at one time or another had laws against women voting. Times change.

This in no way changes the fact that religions do not own marriage, so it is not adopting a religion nor infringing on any religion's rights for the government to allow same sex couples to marry. <---This was your contention. Bringing up what the government originally had as marriage does not change the counter to this contention.
Click to expand...

Incidentally, there are churches that have been marrying gay couples for years if not decades. So to the extent that governmental recognition of SSM has any impact whatsoever on religious practice, it would amount to the government being more inclusive re: recognizing religious practice than it currently is.
 
cabse5 said:
What happens to tax free status for church organizations of churches who don't believe in SSM? Have you heard of the IRS scandal? Who's being discriminated against there?
Click to expand...

Did someone from one of those "pro-family" groups tell you that this might change? It's sad that people calling themselves Christians would stoop to this sort of fearmongering.
 
cabse5 said:
This is the ONLY argument for SSM: Some ideological plurality of judges decided marriage should be for everyone. Not a democracy. Heck, not even a representative republic. The decision was made by oligarchists - the decision was made by a few. Kinda think the Constitution was drawn up to prevent things like this from happening in US government.
Click to expand...

1. Loving v Virginia was 9-0. That's not a plurality. 2. Can you think of a compelling reason why marriage should NOT be for everyone? 3. Those justices were constitutionally appointed to their position and given jurisdiction over the issue properly according to Article 3. Or do you have some other definition for "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States..." The mantra that the court "made up" judicial review is inaccurate. James Madison made it quite clear in the Federalist Papers that it was an intended use of the supreme court, and even if you disagree, how else would one assert that the congress and president erroneously enacted a law that violates the constitution? Or would you have no check on their power? I think having a body that can strike down unconstitutional laws (which state courts of course can do with state laws) that cannot enact laws of its own is a fantastic idea. But by all means, offer us a better alternative.

Do supreme court judges show supreme judgement at all times? I refer you to the middle 1850's Dred Scott decision where the SCOTUS decided a slave owner had the legal right to recapture a fugitive slave no matter how long the slave had been a freeman in a free state. Actually, at that time, SCOTUS used the US Constitution more to make their decision on Dred Scott than the original plurality of state supreme court judges who used 'out of the box' thinking, decreed marriage was a right for everyone, and set the precedent. You can't even say these ideological oligarchists were particularly bright. Just ideologues.
Click to expand...

Dred Scott was a political question as well, and was a very "federal over state" move. It extended slavery even into free states and removed the ability of those states to truly abolish slavery in their own territory. That it was (frighteningly) a sound constitutional argument at the time shows us that it is a very good thing that such arguments (as well as the constitution itself) can change.

There are many issues which could be considered unfair in american society. Advocates of SSM aren't phased with this unfairness in other institutions of american society. SSM is not about fairness. Its political.
Click to expand...

This tripe again? In what demented universe does anyone actually think that a move towards progress cannot occur unless all progress happens simultaneously? Tell me, was it wrong to extend voting to blacks in 1870 because it did not also extend voting to women? No? I thought not.

cabse5 said:
Or when 1st amendment rights are violated when, IMO, SSM laws infringe upon religions in america. upon religions.
Click to expand...

How, exactly? And please include why prohibiting SSM does not therefore infringe on the religious rights of members of a faith that think SSM is great.

cabse5 said:
Marriage was a religious institution before the state got a hold of it. Before,IMO, gov't broke the first amendment.
Click to expand...

So what claim does an anti-SSM religion have to determine the law for everyone that a pro-SSM religion does not?

Cardinal said:
Bowler hats are cool.
Click to expand...

It looks like Michael Fassbender. Who is, I would add, extremely cool.

We can, of course, cleanly discard the appeals to tradition, and the attempts to discredit the supreme court. I am always tickled by how conservative Christians suggest that disallowing them to set the rules for everyone is somehow an infringement of their religion, but allowing them to set those rules is not an infringement of anyone else's. Reform Judaism, for example, is extremely pro-SSM. Why are Reform Jews' religious liberties not infringed when conservative Christians get to make the rules, but the conservative Christians' liberties would be infringed upon when Reform Jews make the rules? Obviously, the real answer is that no one's religious liberties entitle them to make the rules for anyone else, but I always chuckle at how ethnocentric that kind of argument is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom