• 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]

Trip said:
Having sex is indeed not any society's business, nor of real interest to society, but what is the society's business and interest is society itself, and that involves the production of introduction of proto-members into society - offspring, which invariably occurs by heterosexual unions, and this is how societies the world over are populated.
Click to expand...

Anyone ever call you a drama queen.

I hardly think we have worry about people reproducing.
 
roguenuke said:
And it doesn't matter whether it was rare or not, it still existed. And even that doesn't matter because all that matters is how we, as a nation, recognize marriage, and that is done in how it works, not what restrictions are placed on it. The restrictions should be based in how the laws work, not an arbitrary trait like race, sex/gender, or religion.
Click to expand...

Marriage involving a man and a woman is no more an irrelevant "restriction" to marriage, than biological fact is an irrelevant "restriction" to reproduction.


"How the law works" is actually based on the fact of human interaction in society, not how people want society to be, or want people to interact, dictated by law. The latter of which are known as "Social Engineering" dictate, and is rejected by our free society, and is not a legitimate authority of government under the Constitution.
 
Papa bull said:
You're right. What matters is what the state decides it will sanction and that's exactly what we have now; as it should be. And the decision today does not change that. There's nothing arbitrary about defining marriage as 1 man and 1 woman. It is the standard model around the world and through virtually all cultures despite claims that there were some deviances at one time or another. Exceptions don't make the rule.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The state is held to the standard of the Constitution, which means they must show a legitimate state interest is furthered by restricting same sex couples from getting married. The restriction is on gender, not sexuality.

But yes, it is just as arbitrary to define marriage as "one man and one woman only" as it is to define it as "two people of the same race" or "two people of the same religion", because those things have no affect on how marriage functions within the laws, nor does removing those restrictions cause harm to anyone. No legitimate state interest furthered, which is the responsibility of the state to show in any restriction in a law.
 
Trip said:
Marriage involving a man and a woman is no more an irrelevant "restriction" to marriage, than biological fact is an irrelevant "restriction" to reproduction.


"How the law works" is actually based on the fact of human interaction in society, not how people want society to be, or want people to interact, dictated by law. The latter of which are known as "Social Engineering" dictate, and is rejected by our free society, and is not a legitimate authority of government under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

In the law, it is irrelevant. Such a restriction does not further a state interest.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Lets assume for a split second that you are right, that it is a birth defect even though there is no evidence that it actually is. Mentally handicapped people, which is considered a birth defect, are allowed to marry so obviously birth defects are not a pre-requisite for not allowing someone to marry. The same goes for any other birth defect out there. So your point fails as a reason to not allow them to marry.
Click to expand...
You're arguing against a strawman, as I never once said the nature of homosexuality is grounds for disallowing SS marriage.

The grounds for disallowing SS marriage is that it violates definitive propriety of terms, as an SS couple is simply not "a man and a woman as husband and wife", which is what a "marriage" is and has been for over 12,000 years since the argicultural revolution, isolated tiny pockets of violation notwithstanding and, of course, invalid and powerless in their ability to redefine "marriage" any more than unjustified homicides gotten away with by the mafia or horrific governments had the power to broaden redefine "murder", obviously.

Any decision regarding DOMA will be rightly decided solely on states v. federal, not on whether DOMA violates equal protection.

Any decision on Prop 8 will be rightly decided based upon the actual arguments brought before the court, and Prop 8 argument was strangely strained, not at all an appeal to historic reality of definitive propriety of terms, so again, whatever the court decides here will not at all be a statement of SS couples should be allowed "marriage".

SS couples do deserve equal protection in their civil union domestic partnerships.

They just can't rightly call them "marriages".

I suggest the win-win term homarriage for them.

Most people support equal protection for them, just not the ridiculous oxymoronic use of the term "marriage", obviously and understandably.

Create homarriage civil union domestic partnerships for SS couples and everyone wins.
 
Trip said:
Marriage involving a man and a woman is no more an irrelevant "restriction" to marriage, than biological fact is an irrelevant "restriction" to reproduction.


"How the law works" is actually based on the fact of human interaction in society, not how people want society to be, or want people to interact, dictated by law. The latter of which are known as "Social Engineering" dictate, and is rejected by our free society, and is not a legitimate authority of government under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

You have a warp sense of freedom. Our society just became a little bit freer today.
 
winston53660 said:
Any ever call you a drama queen.

I hardly think we have worry about people reproducing.
Click to expand...


This isn't about people reproducing, or worrying about people reproducing, this is about the fact of human reproduction, the fact that it can occur outside of a stable committed familial unit, and the fact that such reproduction is contrary to the interest of societies throughout mankind's history, hence the reason these societies have invariably, without exception, recognized the public commitment that is heterosexual marriage.

You yourself are undeniably a byproduct of those heterosexual unions, making your dismissal of their importance to society somewhat ironic.

Anyone ever call you.. naa ... never mind.
 
Trip said:
Those cultures did not recognize marriage to be something other than heterosexual union, and did not recognize gay marriage universally, but specifically, ancient Greece and Rome only recognized gay unions among some select few, and did so only shortly before the collapse and overthrow of these sociheterosexual unions, and this is how societies the world over are populated.
Click to expand...

Almost precisely the opposite is true, in fact: homosexual marriages had been known since the days of the Sacred Band of Thebes in antiquity, and were not done away with (and were, in fact, normalized by the Romans upon their absorption of the Persians with their homosexual temple weddings) until the ascension of Constantine and Christianity almost a thousand years later - and near the end of the Roman Empire.

Judeo-Christianity and its undermining of traditional Latin values (including the liberal policy of allowing converted Goths to serve in the Empire's military) had a far more deleterious effect on Rome than homosexuals ever did.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
You have a warp sense of freedom. Our society just became a little bit freer today.
Click to expand...

Our society was just condemned today to its own painful death.


Scalia nailed it in his dissent, indicating "Diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this court in American democratic society". That diseased root is reference not only to a diseased tree, but the eventual demise of that tree. And we have the ancient Greeks and Romans before us as proof.

That's not freedom; it's utter stupidity.
 
Trip said:
This isn't about people reproducing, or worrying about people reproducing, this is about the fact of human reproduction, the fact that it can occur outside of a stable committed familial unit, and the fact that such reproduction is contrary to the interest of societies throughout mankind's history, hence the reason these societies have invariably, without exception, recognized the public commitment that is heterosexual marriage.

You yourself are undeniably a byproduct of those heterosexual unions, making your dismissal of their importance to society somewhat ironic.

Anyone ever call you.. naa ... never mind.
Click to expand...
The overturning of Prop 8, or in the larger context gay marriage, has no effect on stopping heterosexual marriage.
 
Trip said:
This isn't about people reproducing, or worrying about people reproducing, this is about the fact of human reproduction, the fact that it can occur outside of a stable committed familial unit, and the fact that such reproduction is contrary to the interest of societies throughout mankind's history, hence the reason these societies have invariably, without exception, recognized the public commitment that is heterosexual marriage.

You yourself are undeniably a byproduct of those heterosexual unions, making your dismissal of their importance to society somewhat ironic.

Anyone ever call you.. naa ... never mind.
Click to expand...


Heterosexual marriage is still recognized by the State. And Im fairly sure people will still get married.
 
Trip said:
Our society was just condemned today to its own painful death.


Scalia nailed it in his dissent, indicating "Diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this court in American democratic society". That diseased root is reference not only to a diseased tree, but the eventual demise of that tree. And we have the ancient Greeks and Romans before us as proof.

That's not freedom; it's utter stupidity.
Click to expand...

I repeat: per Edward Gibson, it was the imposition of an alien ideology of levelling disguised as a monotheistic religion upon the polyglot, panpaganistic Roman Empire that destroyed it, not homosexuality, which ceased to be tolerated officially after the Edict of Milan.
 
Last edited:
Trip said:
Our society was just condemned today to its own painful death.


Scalia nailed it in his dissent, indicating "Diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this court in American democratic society". That diseased root is reference not only to a diseased tree, but the eventual demise of that tree. And we have the ancient Greeks and Romans before us as proof.

That's not freedom; it's utter stupidity.
Click to expand...

Homosexuality is not a disease. And homosexuals have made massive positive contributions to society. Alan Turing who was literally tortured and eventually committed suicide is most often considered the father of the computer. They also form family units and raise well adjusted children.
 
Einzige said:
Almost precisely the opposite is true, in fact: homosexual marriages had been known since the days of the Sacred Band of Thebes in antiquity, and were not done away with (and were, in fact, normalized by the Romans upon their absorption of the Persians with their homosexual temple weddings) until the ascension of Constantine and Christianity almost a thousand years later - and near the end of the Roman Empire.
Click to expand...


They not only were done away with, but were outlawed, often under penalty of death.

They were not universally normalized by the Romans, but it was only recognized among a select few, along with the abandonment of Republican principles, the dissolution of the rule of law, and the creation of the deified Caesars, and this was right before the collapse of the Roman empire.

We've already created our own deified Caesars today, a select few dictating the terms of society, in disregard to the law of the land, and haphazardly dolling out the rule of law according to various subjective standards, such as "Social Justice". And not so long ago we were told by a 5-4 decision, made by a last minute vote-flip, that indicated the federal government has de facto ownershp of each and every citizens body, and is able to dictate the most fundamental terms of their existence. That's wonderful freedom.

We've not deviated at all from that very worn path of those Greeks and Romans, and much of this is due to the fact that our federal education system does not actually teach history, much less encourage independent thought.
 
winston53660 said:
Homosexuality is not a disease. And homosexuals have made massive positive contributions to society. Alan Turing who was literally tortured and eventually committed suicide is most often considered the father of the computer. They also form family units and raise well adjusted children.
Click to expand...

The reference to 'diseased root" is not calling homosexuality a disease!

And while Homosexuals have made 'massive positive contributions to society", these contributions have not come as a result of them being homosexuals, which is the context of the discussion and Society's vested interest in heterosexual marriage.

They also do not form family units with their own children born of that relationship, but rather the children are only the result of severed social and biological ties, hence a harm to society.
 
Trip said:
They also do not form family units with their own children born of that relationship, but rather the children are only the result of severed social and biological ties, hence a harm to society.
Click to expand...

Yeah orphans is a much better option:roll:
 
Trip said:
They not only were done away with, but were outlawed, often under penalty of death.

They were not universally normalized by the Romans, but it was only recognized among a select few, along with the abandonment of Republican principles, the dissolution of the rule of law, and the creation of the deified Caesars, and this was right before the collapse of the Roman empire.
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you, but you are factually, objectively incorrect.

To begin with, Roman marriages included homosexual couplings as early as 120 B.C - a century and a half before the declaration of Empire by Augustus. We have among the written records of this era a certificate of marriage between one Lucius Dextrus, a Roman envoy in Carthage, and his manservant Homer (ref. Sailing The Wine Dark Sea).

Moreover, it's factually incorrect to claim the Empire became more tolerant of homosexuality, rather than less, particularly after the imposition of Christianity upon the Empire. The death penalty had never applied to homosexuals until the Edict of Milan.
 
Trip said:
The reference to 'diseased root" is not calling homosexuality a disease!

And while Homosexuals have made 'massive positive contributions to society", these contributions have not come as a result of them being homosexuals, which is the context of the discussion and Society's vested interest in heterosexual marriage.

They also do not form family units with their own children born of that relationship, but rather the children are only the result of severed social and biological ties, hence a harm to society.
Click to expand...
Wow, not only are children born out of wedlock a "harm to society", but so is the adoption of said children?
 
Ontologuy said:
You're arguing against a strawman, as I never once said the nature of homosexuality is grounds for disallowing SS marriage.

The grounds for disallowing SS marriage is that it violates definitive propriety of terms, as an SS couple is simply not "a man and a woman as husband and wife", which is what a "marriage" is and has been for over 12,000 years since the argicultural revolution, isolated tiny pockets of violation notwithstanding and, of course, invalid and powerless in their ability to redefine "marriage" any more than unjustified homicides gotten away with by the mafia or horrific governments had the power to broaden redefine "murder", obviously.

Any decision regarding DOMA will be rightly decided solely on states v. federal, not on whether DOMA violates equal protection.

Any decision on Prop 8 will be rightly decided based upon the actual arguments brought before the court, and Prop 8 argument was strangely strained, not at all an appeal to historic reality of definitive propriety of terms, so again, whatever the court decides here will not at all be a statement of SS couples should be allowed "marriage".

SS couples do deserve equal protection in their civil union domestic partnerships.

They just can't rightly call them "marriages".

I suggest the win-win term homarriage for them.

Most people support equal protection for them, just not the ridiculous oxymoronic use of the term "marriage", obviously and understandably.

Create homarriage civil union domestic partnerships for SS couples and everyone wins.
Click to expand...

I guess it sucks for you that definitions can change.
 
Ah yes!

Nothing like waking up to the disgruntled nonsense of the American extremist far right.

It's going to be a great morning.

Freedom and justice has prevailed... On to prop 8!!!!
 
Papa bull said:
This decision does not strike that part of DOMA down and that part of DOMA is not unconstitutional. If Ohio does not (and it does not) want to recognize same-sex couples as married, it should not be required by the federal government to do so. That would merely be a back-door (no pun intended) to gay marriage in all 50 states and would further create the precedent that once the first state allows incest marriage (which is actually being debated as something that should be done in some circles) then all states would have to recognize that, too.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've noticed (and avoided) the "incest issue" in here. I doubt I'll be seeing a big push for that here in the states during my life-time, although I guess anything is possible.

However, I haven't had a chance to completely read the actual decision so I can't comment with certainty. But I believe what I did read cited the Equal Protection clause and I assumed it referred not only to Federal benefits but the whole acceptance of marital rights awarded by another state even if same-sex marriage itself did not exist in the state the couple moved to. When I get a chance I'll read the whole decision and find out what is really what.
 
National Journal writes of Scalia's dissent:

In another seperate dissent, Justice Samuel Alito argues that the federal government did not violate the Constitution by defining marriage. "It leaves the choice to the people, acting through their elected representatives at both the federal and state levels," he writes. Taking a strict view of the Constitution, he continues, "the Constitution does not guarantee the right to enter into a same-sex marriage. Indeed, no provision of the Constitution speaks to the issue."


Alito also writes that the issue of same-sex marriage is so new to the country, there is no knowing of the broader implications of allowing such an institution, citing the "ancient and universal human institution" of family." The justice made a similiar point during oral arguments for the case in March.


"At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment."
​

In 1794 Samuel Williams wrote The Natural and Civil History of Vermont, and JSTOR author Ralph N Miller writes of its importance, indicating "Its superiority consists in Williams largely successful attempt to arrive at an understanding of the cirumstances and of the historical forces which made Vermont and the other AMerican states, the amazingly effective social organisms they were" which is "tempered by Williams' acceptance of ... the significance of Nature to the student of all human affairs."

Williams wrote in History of Vermont:

It is not necessary to enumerate the many advantages, that arise from this custom of early marriages. They comprehend all the society can receive from this source; from the preservation, and increase of the human race. Every thing useful and beneficial to man, seems to be connected with obedience to the laws of his nature, the inclinations, the duties, and the happiness of individuals, resolve themselves into customs and habits, favourable, in the highest degree, to society. In no case is this more apparent, than in the customs of nations respecting marriage.​

Undeniably marriage was recognized even then, as a result of its importance in the preservation and increase of the human race - procreation. However at this point we have disregarded the relevance of human nature to society, so as to advance a corrupt social engineering based on entitlement, rather than that nature and benefit to society itself, to result in our own destruction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom