• 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]

afr0byte said:
I guess it sucks for you that definitions can change.
Click to expand...
The definition didn't change, obviously, from the SCOTUS rulings ..

.. And, it simply can't change any more than the definition of "dog" can change to include cats.
 
Ontologuy said:
The definition didn't change, obviously, from the SCOTUS rulings ..

.. And, it simply can't change any more than the definition of "dog" can change to include cats.
Click to expand...

It seems to have changed in California. But, anyways, yes the definition can change. Your arguments are silly. We could, if we wanted to, change what we define a cat to be and what we define a dog to be, clearly.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Wow, not only are children born out of wedlock a "harm to society", but so is the adoption of said children?
Click to expand...


You don't recognize children being born out of a committed parental union, as being a harm to society, and that broken social and biological commitments are both a harm to the offspring and society itself? That's curious. Ever read any sociology studies?

I did not mention the adoption of children, but yes, it is a harm to society for adoption agencies which are sworn to be operating solely for the best interests of the adoptive children, to engage in social engineering designs by awarding those children to unions from which those children could not have possibly originated.
 
afr0byte said:
It seems to have changed in California. But, anyways, yes the definition can change. Your arguments are silly. We could, if we wanted to, change what we define a cat to be and what we define a dog to be, clearly.
Click to expand...
No, not at all -- in California the definition of "marriage" is simply being violated, thus the violation won't stand the test of time, and remains invalid.

When you say that we can define a cat to be included in the subset of dogs, in effect, it is you who is being silly.

With respect to higher intelligece, a cat is simply not a dog, and an SS couple civil union domestic partnership is simply not a marriage.

No matter what dumbed-down ideological mindsets do in the political dualistic battle, that simply does not mean that redefinition occurred, obviously.

In this case it only means that violations of intelligence and definitive propriety occurred.
 
afr0byte said:
It seems to have changed in California. But, anyways, yes the definition can change. Your arguments are silly. We could, if we wanted to, change what we define a cat to be and what we define a dog to be, clearly.
Click to expand...

You can insist that a dog is your child but that doesn't mean that it's your child - or that you can claim it on your income taxes because a dog is a dog no matter what you want to call it or what you want to call the relationship between you and your dog. The same principle applies with homosexual marriage. Most of the world doesn't accommodate the perversity of sanctioning the relationship of two people of the same sex as "marriage".
 
Ontologuy said:
No, not at all -- in California the definition of "marriage" is simply being violated, thus the violation won't stand the test of time, and remains invalid.

When you say that we can define a cat to be included in the subset of dogs, in effect, it is you who is being silly.

With respect to higher intelligece, a cat is simply not a dog, and an SS couple civil union domestic partnership is simply not a marriage.

No matter what dumbed-down ideological mindsets do in the political dualistic battle, that simply does not mean that redefinition occurred, obviously.

In this case it only means that violations of intelligence and definitive propriety occurred.
Click to expand...

Yep, at least legally, the definition has changed, clearly. Two people of the same sex can get married in California, so clearly marriage has changed its definition there. You're free to disagree, but your disagreeing doesn't make a same sex couple any less married in California. Good for same sex couples, woo hoo!
 
Papa bull said:
Most of the world doesn't accommodate the perversity of sanctioning the relationship of two people of the same sex as "marriage".
Click to expand...

And they're wrong for not sanctioning it. But, someday we'll all get there hopefully. Love is love, after all.
 
Trip said:
You don't recognize children being born out of a committed parental union, as being a harm to society, and that broken social and biological commitments are both a harm to the offspring and society itself? That's curious. Ever read any sociology studies?

I did not mention the adoption of children, but yes, it is a harm to society for adoption agencies which are sworn to be operating solely for the best interests of the adoptive children, to engage in social engineering designs by awarding those children to unions from which those children could not have possibly originated.
Click to expand...
Though I agree that your perspective has merit, there is too much here that is subject to interpretation and perhaps unvalidated-by-study conjecture.

Thus, philosophically, there could be doubt, which is why I disagreed with that tack being taken in the argument for Prop 8.

The SCOTUS found the same thing to be true, 5-4, though 5-4 is hardly an across the board mandate.

Better would have been to appeal to the reality of the definitive propriety of marriage always having been "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", with isolated pocketed violations being simply that, powerless to redefine the word "marriage" any more than unjustified homicides by the mafia and totalitarian governments have the power to narrow and redefine "murder".

I thought the Prop 8 argument defense would fail the moment I read about it.

That the decision was so close and not along ideological lines is what surprised me.
 
afr0byte said:
Yep, at least legally, the definition has changed, clearly. Two people of the same sex can get married in California, so clearly marriage has changed its definition there. You're free to disagree, but your disagreeing doesn't make a same sex couple any less married in California. Good for same sex couples, woo hoo!
Click to expand...
No, obviously, not true.

No definitions have changed, obviously.

An error in respect to definitive propriety is what this is, and it only means that a definition has been improperly used, violated, nothing more.
 
Ontologuy said:
No, obviously, not true.

No definitions have changed, obviously.

An error in respect to definitive propriety is what this is, and it only means that a definition has been improperly used, violated, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Nope, not true. The people that are married/to be married in California will be married according to the state, which is the only thing that matters.
 
Trip said:
You don't recognize children being born out of a committed parental union, as being a harm to society, and that broken social and biological commitments are both a harm to the offspring and society itself? That's curious. Ever read any sociology studies?
Click to expand...
Possibly, but I know for a fact that there are huge numbers of "harmed" children that are the product of horrible "committed marriages". Nothing is perfect, and those situations exist OUTSIDE of gay marriage.

I did not mention the adoption of children,
Click to expand...
Yes, you did when you 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."



but yes, it is a harm to society for adoption agencies which are sworn to be operating solely for the best interests of the adoptive children, to engage in social engineering designs by awarding those children to unions from which those children could not have possibly originated.
Click to expand...
So let me understand this, if a gay couple relieve the state from having to support ward children, this is a harm?
 
afr0byte said:
Nope, not true. The people that are married/to be married in California will be married according to the state, which is the only thing that matters.
Click to expand...
That may matter to you utilitarianly.

But, it doesn't at all matter with respect to higher inteligence definitive propriety.

Thus the issue can still be revisted in the future .. and, hopefully, with a different more intelligent result, where SS couples have the civil union domestic partnership of equal treatment they deserve, just with a rightly different name, like "homarriage".
 
Interesting that in the DOMA 5-4 decision, Kennedy (who knows what his ideology is) sided with the four liberals on the court against the four conservatives.

Thus, in effect, now it's the liberals who are advocating states rights when usually it's the conservatives!

Clearly, the SCOTUS is merely an ideological extension of the other branches and the people.

And nothing dumbs down more completely than pre-conceived ideology.
 
Ontologuy said:
That may matter to you utilitarianly.

But, it doesn't at all matter with respect to higher inteligence definitive propriety.

Thus the issue can still be revisted in the future .. and, hopefully, with a different more intelligent result, where SS couples have the civil union domestic partnership of equal treatment they deserve, just with a rightly different name, like "homarriage".
Click to expand...

Nah. Definitions of words can change. After all, we just made up the definition originally. It's not as if you're some objective arbiter of proper definitions, either. For example, marriage used to exclude interracial marriages. Would you not think it silly for us to suggest calling them intermarriages, instead of just marriages? Of course you might say something like "but it was still between a man and a woman." That'd be irrelevant, though. The definition still changed.
 
Ontologuy said:
Though I agree that your perspective has merit, there is too much here that is subject to interpretation and perhaps unvalidated-by-study conjecture.[]

Thus, philosophically, there could be doubt, which is why I disagreed with that tack being taken in the argument for Prop 8.

The SCOTUS found the same thing to be true, 5-4, though 5-4 is hardly an across the board mandate.

Better would have been to appeal to the reality of the definitive propriety of marriage always having been "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", with isolated pocketed violations being simply that, powerless to redefine the word "marriage" any more than unjustified homicides by the mafia and totalitarian governments have the power to narrow and redefine "murder".

I thought the Prop 8 argument defense would fail the moment I read about it.

That the decision was so close and not along ideological lines is what surprised me.
Click to expand...


Subject to interpretation and conjecture? That children being born outside of a committed union is a bad detrimental to the children, and as a result, society overall? Curiously you don't state where this 'interpretation" comes into play.

We have entire cultures that can be compared in the same societies where the outcome of the offspring and the culture, is consistently recognized to be problematic when marriage is not held in esteem, but prositive for those cultures overall and in their advancement in society.

One cannot look at the 5-4 decision and fail to recognize it is along ideological lines. To eviscerate Kennedy's majority opinion indicated as, " the right to liberty and to equal protection for gay couples", the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment only deals with opportunity, not outcome, and certainly not any guarantee of recognition and reward by society, and not under different terms, which is the social engineering being promoted by the court's majority.

As far as Prop 8, it is hard to fathom that this country, and Court. might believe that a people do not have the authority to affirm their terms of society, and instead the government can dictate those terms to the people, which is precisely what is expressed by Kennedy:

The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government. The California initiative process embodies these principles and has done so for over a century.​

The actions of the court, and the government, have grossly undermined that freedom.
 
afr0byte said:
Nah. Definitions of words can change. After all, we just made up the definition originally. It's not as if you're some objective arbiter of proper definitions, either. For example, marriage used to exclude interracial marriages. Would you not think it silly for us to suggest calling them intermarriages, instead of just marriages? Of course you might say something like "but it was still between a man and a woman." That'd be irrelevant, though. The definition still changed.
Click to expand...
Your contention that a 5-4 SCOTUS decision "changed" the definition of marriage is just as ludicrous as saying if the decision had been 5-4 the other way that it would have upheld the definition of marriage.

Neither had the power to do either.

The SCOTUS action, activist ideologues, etc., none of these have the power to redefine a word that has meant "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" for over 12,000 years, as violations of the definition of "marriage" in no way redefine it.

What will happen as a result will be to increase hostility between homosexuals (2% of the population) and heterosexuals (92% of the population) (6% of the population are bisexuals, vastly not interested in domestic partnership civil unions).

The result will not be good for the 2%.

Better was to create civil union domestic partnerships for SS couples called "homarriage" or the like.

Then everyone gets what they truly deserve: SS copules get equal protection for their relationships, rightly named, and OS couples retain their rightly named civil union domestic partnership, marriage.

But these close ideological decisions, they in no way resolve anything, but simply increase understandable animosity in the 92% majority against those who would steal from them.

Eventually, this kind of injustice will politically waken the sleeping giant .. and then woe to those who disrespected this giant force.

A word to the wise.
 
Trip said:
Subject to interpretation and conjecture? That children being born outside of a committed union is a bad detrimental to the children, and as a result, society overall? Curiously you don't state where this 'interpretation" comes into play.

We have entire cultures that can be compared in the same societies where the outcome of the offspring and the culture, is consistently recognized to be problematic when marriage is not held in esteem, but prositive for those cultures overall and in their advancement in society.

One cannot look at the 5-4 decision and fail to recognize it is along ideological lines. To eviscerate Kennedy's majority opinion indicated as, " the right to liberty and to equal protection for gay couples", the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment only deals with opportunity, not outcome, and certainly not any guarantee of recognition and reward by society, and not under different terms, which is the social engineering being promoted by the court's majority.

As far as Prop 8, it is hard to fathom that this country, and Court. might believe that a people do not have the authority to affirm their terms of society, and instead the government can dictate those terms to the people, which is precisely what is expressed by Kennedy:

The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government. The California initiative process embodies these principles and has done so for over a century.​

The actions of the court, and the government, have grossly undermined that freedom.
Click to expand...
Has it been shown that homosexual romantic commitments have been less committed than heterosexual ones? I wasn't aware that it had.

I agree with you with respect to social issues and the people voicing their suffrage authority, as in California, to determine state policy in the matter. The problem is that the California constitution's relevant clause itself was not specifically challenged in the Prop 8 Califonia inititiative, and thus the SCOTUS couldn't grant the truly conjecturable pro-argument anything more than "go back to the drawing board" .. though I do find the mere 5-4 decision that way to mean that ruling was not all that cut and dried, especially considering it didn't fall along ideological lines.

The decision was more along the lines of legal protocol, not really anything more.

Those who write state initiatives simply need to do a better job of research and writing.
 
Ontologuy said:
Your contention that a 5-4 SCOTUS decision "changed" the definition of marriage is just as ludicrous as saying if the decision had been 5-4 the other way that it would have upheld the definition of marriage.
Click to expand...

Legally, this means people in California can marry people of the same sex. So clearly a definition of marriage has changed. You're free to have your own definition.
 
ill say the same thing i said in the other thread

WOOOOOWHOOOOOO!!!!!!
:2usflag::2party:

not the end, not a HUGE/FINAL step but a very important and great one!

Im very happy that freedom had a small victory today and this is just one stepping stone on the path to equality!

Would have been nice for a larger ruling but i figured SCOTUS would take the turtle approach on this but the sails are up and the wind is going in the right direction. This definitely sets up for future challenges that "seem" to be setting the way for equal rights and less discrimination in America.

A very good day! Americans that care about equality and freedom should be proud!
 
Ontologuy said:
That may matter to you utilitarianly.

But, it doesn't at all matter with respect to higher inteligence definitive propriety.

Thus the issue can still be revisted in the future .. and, hopefully, with a different more intelligent result, where SS couples have the civil union domestic partnership of equal treatment they deserve, just with a rightly different name, like "homarriage".
Click to expand...
LOL...you are not against homosexuals having the same union rights of traditional marriage, you just want copywrite on the word.

What a sad, pedantic argument.
 
Ontologuy said:
Your contention that a 5-4 SCOTUS decision "changed" the definition of marriage is just as ludicrous as saying if the decision had been 5-4 the other way that it would have upheld the definition of marriage.

Neither had the power to do either.

The SCOTUS action, activist ideologues, etc., none of these have the power to redefine a word that has meant "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" for over 12,000 years, as violations of the definition of "marriage" in no way redefine it.

What will happen as a result will be to increase hostility between homosexuals (2% of the population) and heterosexuals (92% of the population) (6% of the population are bisexuals, vastly not interested in domestic partnership civil unions).

The result will not be good for the 2%.

Better was to create civil union domestic partnerships for SS couples called "homarriage" or the like.

Then everyone gets what they truly deserve: SS copules get equal protection for their relationships, rightly named, and OS couples retain their rightly named civil union domestic partnership, marriage.

But these close ideological decisions, they in no way resolve anything, but simply increase understandable animosity in the 92% majority against those who would steal from them.

Eventually, this kind of injustice will politically waken the sleeping giant .. and then woe to those who disrespected this giant force.

A word to the wise.
Click to expand...

The numbers of people that are against SSM has been quickly dwindling. Your giant is turning into midget
 
afr0byte said:
Legally, this means people in California can marry people of the same sex. So clearly a definition of marriage has changed. You're free to have your own definition.
Click to expand...

Just in California. They left in place the part of the federal law that allows other states to refuse to recognize gay marriage, so it might have been more a legal defeat than SSM marriage people think if they are going to try to use the Courts to impose their will on the 29 states that have specifically banned recognition.

Just adding that I think this was a piss poor ruling in terms of the full faith and credit clause by splitting the baby in half.
 
Fisher said:
Just in California. They left in place the part of the federal law that allows other states to refuse to recognize gay marriage, so it might have been more a legal defeat than SSM marriage people think if they are going to try to use the Courts to impose their will on the 29 states that have specifically banned recognition.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I don't deny that the legal definition hasn't changed in other states. I was just commenting on Ontologuy's silly argument that definitions can't change, so we can't call homosexual unions "marriage."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom