• 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]

MINO - marriage in name only. :mrgreen:
 
clownboy said:
MINO - marriage in name only. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

See - look at that. Government recognition of same sex marriage doesn't force you to change your definition at all. I guess all that anti-ssm rhetoric was as empty as I've always thought it to be.
 
disneydude said:
. Blacks could also quench their thirst by drinking out of drinking fountains that were "reserved" for them....they didn't have to drink out of "white only" drinking fountains.

See how ridiculous your argument is?
Click to expand...

You're the ideologue! The guy that has, IMO, 48 pt. font in the signature! You don't care about fairness. You don't care about equality. You don't care about justice. You only care about marriage for all. And gosh, all those flags!

Your analogy between the inequality of no SSM and the inequality of blacks only water fountains is valid only if no SSM results in the same 'lack of quality' as the blacks only water fountain. Blacks only water fountains had unsanitary water (water that didn't have the same quality as whites' water) in 'nasty' locations that were apart from whites. I've already pointed out that, in some states, unions have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. NOT a ludicrous simile like no SSM is like unsanitary water in a 'nasty' location apart from whites. Your rhetoric, however, flies sky high.
 
Last edited:
afr0byte said:
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."
Click to expand...

People can call it whatever they want--the semantics are of no concern to me. That said, gays would face a lot less political headwind if they were advocating for civil unions instead of "marriage". It comes across like they are trying to force themselves onto others and dilute religious institutions to a lot of people calling it "marriage". If it were just about rights, civil unions work just as well legally.
 
disneydude said:
Blacks could also quench their thirst by drinking out of drinking fountains that were "reserved" for them....they didn't have to drink out of "white only" drinking fountains.

See how ridiculous your argument is?
Click to expand...

yes those arguments are always ridicules and easily defeated, they make no sense and history already proves them wrong
separate but equal is not equal as history proves and if this fact wasnt already true and civil unions and domestic partnerships have already been proven not to be equal hell until today it was factually impossible
 
Fisher said:
People can call it whatever they want--the semantics are of no concern to me. That said, gays would face a lot less political headwind if they were advocating for civil unions instead of "marriage". It comes across like they are trying to force themselves onto others and dilute religious institutions to a lot of people calling it "marriage". If it were just about rights, civil unions work just as well legally.
Click to expand...

people that feel that was are idiots
it has ZERO factual impact on them
it is about rights and civil unions do not work just as well, thats just being uneducated about the topic at hand.
 
Fisher said:
People can call it whatever they want--the semantics are of no concern to me. That said, gays would face a lot less political headwind if they were advocating for civil unions instead of "marriage". It comes across like they are trying to force themselves onto others and dilute religious institutions to a lot of people calling it "marriage". If it were just about rights, civil unions work just as well legally.
Click to expand...

Well, by that argument one could say that the blacks were forcing themselves onto whites when they were coming out against segregation. Besides, the government shouldn't worry about offending religions. No one is saying that a religion has to perform gay marriage ceremonies.
 
Dude, figure it out, even the courts have decided that separate but equal institutions are allowable. States. Grades. Public restrooms. Give it up.
 
Last edited:
AGENT J said:
people that feel that was are idiots
it has ZERO factual impact on them
it is about rights and civil unions do not work just as well, thats just being uneducated about the topic at hand.
Click to expand...

If calling it a civil union gives you all the rights of calling it marriage, how does it not work as well if rights are what you are interested in?
 
Fisher said:
People can call it whatever they want--the semantics are of no concern to me. That said, gays would face a lot less political headwind if they were advocating for civil unions instead of "marriage". It comes across like they are trying to force themselves onto others and dilute religious institutions to a lot of people calling it "marriage". If it were just about rights, civil unions work just as well legally.
Click to expand...

+1000
 
afr0byte said:
Well, by that argument one could say that the blacks were forcing themselves onto whites when they were coming out against segregation. Besides, the government shouldn't worry about offending religions. No one is saying that a religion has to perform gay marriage ceremonies.
Click to expand...

I am just saying there is an easier path to take. That gays are taking the harder one is their choice, but an unnecessary one.
 
AGENT J said:
people that feel that was are idiots
it has ZERO factual impact on them
it is about rights and civil unions do not work just as well, thats just being uneducated about the topic at hand.
Click to expand...

Rights that some plurality of state judges deemed on their state. Just what was the ideology of those state supreme court judges? Were some of them atheists?
 
Fisher said:
If calling it a civil union gives you all the rights of calling it marriage, how does it not work as well if rights are what you are interested in?
Click to expand...

because you are talking about a made up fantasy that doesnt exists and spereate but equal is not equal, its factually impossible at the moment and history and legal precedence fights against it
 
Fisher said:
I am just saying there is an easier path to take. That gays are taking the harder one is their choice, but an unnecessary one.
Click to expand...

facts disagree with you its not easier and its currently impossible
 
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...

The definition of the word isn't 'changing', it is being changed, by legislative and judicial fiat, which involves the gross corruption of fundamental terms in the Constitution such as "rights", and "equal protection". This is not the terms of this country, which is a Republic and not an oligarchy.

Words cannot simply "change", and particularly not when they are tied to the fact of human biology, and recognition of definitive value to society as a whole, and they have not changed. They have been changed, but illegitimately changed by decree of a few.

Scalia wrote a scathing dissent which is unlike any other dissent ever produced, indicating that the majority was filled with venom and discord, essentially indicating that the Court had denigrated to a barroom brawl, not the rule of law, and this is the result of social engineering and progressive ideology, the dictate of a few, in disregard for that rule of law.

Scalia wrote that Kennedy and the majority regarded those in opposition as "enemies of the human race":

But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "disarage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.​

And this is from a Court Justice!

Quite obviously, neither the court, nor the federal government overall, were created for the purpose of "imposing change", but were rather instituted in the Constitution with limited powers to specifically prohibit any legitimacy to that sort of dictate.

Scalia even references the "majority" of Congress that voted for DOMA, and how the court is assuming the same enmity to the human race by them as well, despite the fact it was passed by 85–14 in the Senate, and 342–67 in the House, and signed by Clinton. Not only that, but Democratic Senators voted for the bill 32 to 14, and Democratic Representatives voted for it 118 to 65.

Scalia writes of the opinion,:

"Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament."​

The problem here is obviously what is being exhibited is not at all "judicial temperament", not at all judicial restraint, not thoughtful resolve, but rather the arrogant superiority of those who imagine they are entitled to dictate the terms of society, even when that authority is not provided them, not even this Court -- Liberal fascism.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
Rights that some plurality of state judges deemed on their state. Just what was the ideology of those state supreme court judges? Were some of them atheists?
Click to expand...

their personal ideology and religion or lack there of it is meaningless :shrug:
 
AGENT J said:
because you are talking about a made up fantasy that doesnt exists and spereate but equal is not equal, its factually impossible at the moment and history and legal precedence fights against it
Click to expand...

He's wobbling...
 
AGENT J said:
facts disagree with you its not easier and its currently impossible
Click to expand...

Then share those facts that make it impossible because I don't believe they exist at all......
 
AGENT J said:
because you are talking about a made up fantasy that doesnt exists and spereate but equal is not equal, its factually impossible at the moment and history and legal precedence fights against it
Click to expand...


Gay marriage is not equal. It is not the same as marriage, and demonstrably not given the fact that the entirety of humanity is produced by heterosexual reproduction, and gay unions are utterly incapable of producing said offspring, which never go on to populate society, which has no vested interest in the recognition of gay unions.

The argument against "separate but equal" only applies when the equality is in fact, not when a false equality is being fabricated and forced by the dictate of a few.
 
Trip said:
Gay marriage is not equal. It is not the same as marriage, and demonstrably not given the fact that the entirety of humanity is produced by heterosexual reproduction, and gay unions are utterly incapable of producing said offspring, which never go on to populate society, which has no vested interest in the recognition of gay unions.

The argument against "separate but equal" only applies when the equality is in fact, not when a false equality is being fabricated and forced by the dictate of a few.
Click to expand...

Procreation does not require marriage to occur (now it doesn't even require sex). And marriage does not require procreative ability between those involved to be legally recognized.
 
Fisher said:
Then share those facts that make it impossible because I don't believe they exist at all......
Click to expand...

well hell until today gay marriage and civil unions and domestic partnership could even get the federal protections, rights and benefits LOL that was easy

and currently no civil unions/domestic partnerships do get those federal protections, rights and benefits

also based on legal precedence domestic partnerships / civil unions are not as legally binding as marriage and in many cases need filed multiple times to even have SOME rights of marriage (state, county, city etc)

like i said you are talking about a fantasy situation that doesnt exist and facts disprove.
 
Trip said:
The definition of the word isn't 'changing', it is being changed, by legislative and judicial fiat, which involves the gross corruption of fundamental terms in the Constitution such as "rights", and "equal protection". This is not the terms of this country, which is a Republic and not an oligarchy.

Words cannot simply "change", and particularly not when they are tied to the fact of human biology, and recognition of definitive value to society as a whole, and they have not changed. They have been changed, but illegitimately changed by decree of a few.

Scalia wrote a scathing dissent which is unlike any other dissent ever produced, indicating that the majority was filled with venom and discord, essentially indicating that the Court had denigrated to a barroom brawl, not the rule of law, and this is the result of social engineering and progressive ideology, the dictate of a few, in disregard for that rule of law.

Scalia wrote that Kennedy and the majority regarded those in opposition as "enemies of the human race":

But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "disarage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.​

And this is from a Court Justice!

Quite obviously, neither the court, nor the federal government overall, were created for the purpose of "imposing change", but were rather instituted in the Constitution with limited powers to specifically prohibit any legitimacy to that sort of dictate.

Scalia even references the "majority" of Congress that voted for DOMA, and how the court is assuming the same enmity to the human race by them as well, despite the fact it was passed by 85–14 in the Senate, and 342–67 in the House, and signed by Clinton. Not only that, but Democratic Senators voted for the bill 32 to 14, and Democratic Representatives voted for it 118 to 65.

Scalia writes of the opinion,:

"Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament."​

The problem here is obviously what is being exhibited is not at all "judicial temperament", not at all judicial restraint, not thoughtful resolve, but rather the arrogant superiority of those who imagine they are entitled to dictate the terms of society, even when that authority is not provided them, not even this Court -- Liberal fascism.
Click to expand...

So, let me get this straight. They've changed, but they haven't? OK. Just say you don't want the definition to change. Don't claim that it hasn't changed.
 
AGENT J said:
because you are talking about a made up fantasy that doesnt exists and spereate but equal is not equal, its factually impossible at the moment and history and legal precedence fights against it
Click to expand...

So basically you have nothing. This is not comparable to separate but equal. If it gives you the exact same rights and privileges then it is exactly the same. The SCOTUS more or less just gave the SSM side of the argument a big black eye by allowing those 29 states that have banned gay marriage to keep their bans. Legal Precedence that you allege fights against it just established it today--this very day--and the ink is still drying........
 
Trip said:
1.)Gay marriage is not equal.
2.)It is not the same as marriage,
3.)and demonstrably not given the fact that the entirety of humanity is produced by heterosexual reproduction, and gay unions are utterly incapable of producing said offspring, which never go on to populate society, which has no vested interest in the recognition of gay unions.

The argument against "separate but equal" only applies when the equality is in fact, not when a false equality is being fabricated and forced by the dictate of a few.
Click to expand...

1.) I agree thats why its discrimination and we are chaining it
2.) your opinion is meaningless on this issue
3.) procreation/off spring is meaningless to legal marriage

thanks for your opinion in 2 and 3 but they have no barring on the debate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom