• 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]

I think it's being pushed in the direction of "two people who want to have sex with each other and get government benefits for it". And that's even scarier, in my opinion, for the future of society.
Or three people. Or one living person and one dead person in a couple. Or one human and one non-human in a couple. Marriage is a right, for all, ya know. And, according to the law, one can't define marriage.
 
I think it's being pushed in the direction of "two people who want to have sex with each other and get government benefits for it". And that's even scarier, in my opinion, for the future of society.

Are you married? If so, did you get married just because you liked sex and wanted government benefits? Or did you do it for love?
 
Who do you love? You see, SSCs that decree marriage for all don't distinguish this. No, that would be discrimination.
 
Last edited:
Are you married? If so, did you get married just because you liked sex and wanted government benefits? Or did you do it for love?

Why I married is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that love isn't really an essential part of marriage and never has been. People get married for convenience all the time. Arranged marriages have been around forever. What is being proposed now is marrying the whatever the object of your sexual attraction might be and that is a new meme because prior to this, marriage was man and woman otherwise unecumbered... love or sex wasn't part of the description.
 
Why I married is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that love isn't really an essential part of marriage and never has been. People get married for convenience all the time. Arranged marriages have been around forever. What is being proposed now is marrying the whatever the object of your sexual attraction might be and that is a new meme because prior to this, marriage was man and woman otherwise unecumbered... love or sex wasn't part of the description.

Haha, so you're not only arguing gays don't deserve marriage, you're arguing marriage has nothing to do with love. Classic.

I'm also enjoying your comparison of marrying a human being with marrying an object.
 
Haha, so you're not only arguing gays don't deserve marriage, you're arguing marriage has nothing to do with love. Classic.

I'm also enjoying your comparison of marrying a human being with marrying an object.

It was actually my fearmongering about possibly marrying an object. So, what's the definition of marriage, then?
 
In 2012, two women filed a law suit in New Jersey court because a Methodist Church prevented their SS civil union ceremony from being performed in a pavilion owned by said NJ Methodist Church. The pavilion had been rented out only for marriages because
it's a religious structure of that NJ Methodist Church, and SS civil unions are not recognized according to the United Methodist Church Book of Disipline.

Due to the NJ Methodist Church's refusal to rent the pavilion for SS union, New Jersey punished the NJ Methodist Church, and revoked its tax free status in NJ.

Respondent argues that it didn’t need a Green Acres tax exemption for the
Pavilion; it could at any time have obtained the same benefit by applying for a tax
exemption as a religious organization. Indeed, after these events that is exactly what it
did. We are, however, bound by the facts that were, not those that might have been, or
that came to pass in the aftermath of petitioners’ application. Respondent accepted a
particular form of tax exemption that required it to keep the Pavilion open to the public
1
The term “place” can extend beyond fixed locations, but that discussion is unnecessary here.
4OAL DKT. NO. CRT 6145-09
on an equal basis, N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.64; N.J.A.C. 7:35-1.4. Neptune Township was
skeptical that this could be achieved, but respondent persuaded the DEP and renewed
that promise every three years. Thus, it not only interacted with government, it
acknowledged the very thing that the interaction test seeks to assess.

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-BernsteinRuling.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1#page=3
 
Haha, so you're not only arguing gays don't deserve marriage, you're arguing marriage has nothing to do with love. Classic.

I'm also enjoying your comparison of marrying a human being with marrying an object.

Nope. I'm arguing that gays can get married in all 50 states. There is no exclusion based on "no homosexuals allowed". Ask Jim McGreevy. Homosexuals can absolutely get married. They might not be able to marry whoever they lust after the most, but pedophiles can't marry who they lust after the most, either. What you lust after isn't part of the definition.
 
Nope. I'm arguing that gays can get married in all 50 states. There is no exclusion based on "no homosexuals allowed". Ask Jim McGreevy. Homosexuals can absolutely get married. They might not be able to marry whoever they lust after the most, but pedophiles can't marry who they lust after the most, either. What you lust after isn't part of the definition.

So now you're comparing consentual gay sex with child rape? Ok, I see we won't be going anywhere productive.
 
:shrug: SCOTUS was wrong. Rights are negative, not positive in nature. You do not have the right to a marriage license from your state of residence.



Which in and of itself is fine - the state has a rock solid interest in the items I described.



Ah. Yes, of course, I see it now. Thank you so much for the mountain of evidence presented.

Kinda like all the evidence you presented, right?
 
Nope. I'm arguing that gays can get married in all 50 states. There is no exclusion based on "no homosexuals allowed". Ask Jim McGreevy. Homosexuals can absolutely get married. They might not be able to marry whoever they lust after the most, but pedophiles can't marry who they lust after the most, either. What you lust after isn't part of the definition.

So you admit it's a gender based classification, which falls under intermediate scrutiny. What important state interest is served by banning same sex marriage?
 
So you admit it's a gender based classification, which falls under intermediate scrutiny. What important state interest is served by banning same sex marriage?

First we'd have to try to figure out what important state interest was served by creating marriage as it exists. Then we would be able to ascertain whether or not redefining marriage to create the novel concept of "homosexual marriage" would further those goals. So why was state sanctioned marriage created in the first place?
 
First we'd have to try to figure out what important state interest was served by creating marriage as it exists. Then we would be able to ascertain whether or not redefining marriage to create the novel concept of "homosexual marriage" would further those goals. So why was state sanctioned marriage created in the first place?

It promotes stability. Limits conflicts over such parings, and encourages monogamy.
 
It promotes stability. Limits conflicts over such parings, and encourages monogamy.

In other words it is the oppostite of giving welfare to mothers of out-of-wedlock children. ;)
 
In other words it is the oppostite of giving welfare to mothers of out-of-wedlock children. ;)

Not really. I don't really care for linking the two. Historically women have had to stay in bad marriages and women were at the mercy of men dumping them. One reason the divorce rate has increased is due to more equal rights between men and women. But it still helps to encourage stability where you can, even among homosexuals. They may be one population who still actually wants to get married.
 
Not really. I don't really care for linking the two. Historically women have had to stay in bad marriages and women were at the mercy of men dumping them. One reason the divorce rate has increased is due to more equal rights between men and women. But it still helps to encourage stability where you can, even among homosexuals. They may be one population who still actually wants to get married.

That is the ultimate appeal of welfare - having "Uncle Sugar" as the family breadwinner. No arguments, no layoffs, no second opinion on the dinner menu, no "you can't just let the kids just run wild" and no extra laundry in the wash - just a steady paycheck to make it through those "hard times".
 
It promotes stability. Limits conflicts over such parings, and encourages monogamy.

Stability I agree with, although "stability" in and of itself doesn't explain the value. Stability of what? And why is that stability a value for the state?

Conflicts over pairings and monogamy? I think it would be hard to make an argument that the state is affected by these things one way or another and it would be even harder to argue that marriage reduces conflicts over "pairings". If anything, marriage increases conflict. Nothing uglier than divorce court. Although I can see some special appeal in the antics that would be highlighted in a new TV series called "Gay Divorce Court".
 
Not really. I don't really care for linking the two. Historically women have had to stay in bad marriages and women were at the mercy of men dumping them. One reason the divorce rate has increased is due to more equal rights between men and women. But it still helps to encourage stability where you can, even among homosexuals. They may be one population who still actually wants to get married.

You don't really understand the gay population if you think many of them actually want to get married. This isn't a big issue for them because so many of them want to get married. It's a big issue because it would establish that homosexuality was just as normal as heterosexuality, at least per their argument. But then again, that's the male homosexual population. I think the female homosexual population might be more inclined to commit to monogamy. Men simply aren't inclined to monogamy and the chance of a homosexual relationship remaining monogamous for long is very, very slim.
 
That is the ultimate appeal of welfare - having "Uncle Sugar" as the family breadwinner. No arguments, no layoffs, no second opinion on the dinner menu, no "you can't just let the kids just run wild" and no extra laundry in the wash - just a steady paycheck to make it through those "hard times".

Nonsense. By and large, there s no real appeal to welfare. Sure, you can find a small percentage of almost anything, but the overwhelming majority doesn't want to be in welfare.
 
Stability I agree with, although "stability" in and of itself doesn't explain the value. Stability of what? And why is that stability a value for the state?

Conflicts over pairings and monogamy? I think it would be hard to make an argument that the state is affected by these things one way or another and it would be even harder to argue that marriage reduces conflicts over "pairings". If anything, marriage increases conflict. Nothing uglier than divorce court. Although I can see some special appeal in the antics that would be highlighted in a new TV series called "Gay Divorce Court".

SoCal stability. Married people tend to settle down, buy homes, work jobs, build a life. Stability.
 
You don't really understand the gay population if you think many of them actually want to get married. This isn't a big issue for them because so many of them want to get married. It's a big issue because it would establish that homosexuality was just as normal as heterosexuality, at least per their argument. But then again, that's the male homosexual population. I think the female homosexual population might be more inclined to commit to monogamy. Men simply aren't inclined to monogamy and the chance of a homosexual relationship remaining monogamous for long is very, very slim.

How long have you been gay?
 
How long have you been gay?

As long as you've been wise. Since you think you must be something to understand something, your wisdom and my gayness are exactly the same. Non-existent.

But it's always a good question. Like you, apparently, I don't think anyone is actually born gay, either, so "how long" is always pertinent when it comes to someone's history of homosexual behavior.
 
Nonsense. By and large, there s no real appeal to welfare. Sure, you can find a small percentage of almost anything, but the overwhelming majority doesn't want to be in welfare.

Welfare pays more than an $8/hour job in 40 states, more than a $12/hour job in 7 states and more than the salary of a teacher in 9 states. That should give you some indication of the generousity of that welfare "lifestyle".

Welfare Statistics | Statistic Brain
 
As long as you've been wise. Since you think you must be something to understand something, your wisdom and my gayness are exactly the same. Non-existent.

But it's always a good question. Like you, apparently, I don't think anyone is actually born gay, either, so "how long" is always pertinent when it comes to someone's history of homosexual behavior.

Well, if you reading the literature, and not an insider, you're reading it wrong. They are no more promiscuous than heterosexuals, but only lack the same encouragement. But homosexuals are fighting for marriage, heterosexuals are either avoiding marriage or divorcing in large numbers.
 
Welfare pays more than an $8/hour job in 40 states, more than a $12/hour job in 7 states and more than the salary of a teacher in 9 states. That should give you some indication of the generousity of that welfare "lifestyle".

Welfare Statistics | Statistic Brain

Which means little to what I said. Though it does suggest underpaid teachers.
 
Back
Top Bottom