• 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]

Separate but equal. Why are men's and women's restrooms separate because that means that men and women aren't equal. You're not following the bouncing ball here. Separation does not prove inequality.

every time you bring this up it shows you clearly do not understand rights, laws and freedoms and nobody honest and educated on the matter falls for it, its laughable for you to think this has any meaningles

also not all restrooms are separate lol

peeping tom is breaking the law and infringe on the rights of others, your example fails
 
It pays to understand equal protection analysis at least a little. The Constitution does not prohibit differential treatment or even discrimination as long as the state has a legitimate or compelling or important reason for doing so (different levels of scrutiny apply depending on the class affected and the right infringed).

shhhhhhhhh dont use common sense and facts when they are just gonna be ignored
 
Some cultures recognized plural marriages, too. But the FACTS are that societies overwhelmingly adopted 1 man + 1 woman models as their fundamental societal building blocks. Just like it is in nature with species that mate for life. All of them, too, have a 1 male + 1 female model.

You are free to live in denial but that doesn't change these facts.

The fact is that humanity is starting to overthrow the oppressive weight of religion and religion is the only reason that the 1 male + 1 female model has persisted. In most countries where religiousity is falling, gay marriage is being legalized. This is a good thing. Religion is failing, reality is prevailing. That's as it should be.
 
The fact is that humanity is starting to overthrow the oppressive weight of religion and religion is the only reason that the 1 male + 1 female model has persisted. In most countries where religiousity is falling, gay marriage is being legalized. This is a good thing. Religion is failing, reality is prevailing. That's as it should be.

If that was true, then the 1 man and 1 woman model of marriage would only be found in cultures that have a strong religious framework and the fact is that 1 man and 1 woman has been pretty standard for virtually every culture, religious or not. Picts, Celts, Native Americans, Eskimos, Asians, Budhists, Hindus, Mayans...

There is no creature that mates for life that pairs for life in a homosexual bond. That probably has something to do with the reason why male and female has been the standard pairing for our species, too.
 
every time you bring this up it shows you clearly do not understand rights, laws and freedoms and nobody honest and educated on the matter falls for it, its laughable for you to think this has any meaningles

also not all restrooms are separate lol

peeping tom is breaking the law and infringe on the rights of others, your example fails

Again, what if he claims he's a woman trapped in a man's body. Where's the sympathy? Where's the love, my brutha?
 
Nope. Prop 8 was a state constitution issue. If the gays are going to win this fight they are going to have to do it state by state.

That's fine, they're already doing it and after this decision, there's no doubt that the other dominos will fall into place relatively quickly.
 
If that was true, then the 1 man and 1 woman model of marriage would only be found in cultures that have a strong religious framework and the fact is that 1 man and 1 woman has been pretty standard for virtually every culture, religious or not. Picts, Celts, Native Americans, Eskimos, Asians, Budhists, Hindus, Mayans...

Um... you don't think any of those groups were religious? Buddhism and Hinduism *ARE* religions. :roll:
 
Again, what if he claims he's a woman trapped in a man's body. Where's the sympathy? Where's the love, my brutha?

sympathy has nothing to do with it lol. Rights and laws. nice deflection but its another failure ;)
 
shhhhhhhhh dont use common sense and facts when they are just gonna be ignored

I know...it just always amazes me how many people on these political message boards don't understand the basics of Constitutional analysis.
 
Nope. Prop 8 was a state constitution issue. If the gays are going to win this fight they are going to have to do it state by state.

That's not what the court said at all. The court simply said that the proponents of prop 8 didn't have standing to bring the challenge.

As for your state by state claim.....do the basic math. In the Doma decision there are 5 (FIVE) justices saying that while states are free to define marriage, they must do so in a manner that does not violate 5th Amendment equal protection. Kennedy even indicated that there is no legitimate state interest in defining marriage for "straights only". In other words, they are signaling that they are prepared to strike down a "straight only" state law when a case is brought to them. Did you even take a look at Scalia's vitriolic dissent? He pretty much came right out and said the writing in on the wall...the days of straights only marriage are numbered.
 
Equal protection does not mean, nor involve, a great many things.

Equal protection also does not involve equal outcome, nor equal reward.

Equal protection does not involve equal outcome for groups or pairings, but rather only equal opportunity for individuals.

Equal protection also does not mean equal protection (or outcome) under different TERMS, but rather only equal protection under the SAME TERMS.

Blacks did not petition Woolworth's to eat at the counter at any hour of the day and night, nor to demand whatever they wanted to eat under their own terms, but rather to be able to eat at that counter under the same terms as everyone else.

Women did not petition for suffrage under their own terms, demanding to vote whenever they wanted, for whatever they wanted, but rather only the ability to vote under the same terms as everyone else.

The fact of the matter is that gays already have access to marriage under the same terms as heterosexuals, but choose to not avail themselves of that institution by the terms that have existed long before the foundation of this country, going back to the mankind's first civilizations. Instead gays want to dictate theirr own terms, then claim denial of rights under those terms, and then demand these terms are recognized as the equivalent in benefit to society of heterosexual marriage, to receive the same recognition and reward, which is untrue, a false equivalence, and thorough corruption of the Constitution's terms.



As shown above, the cases before the Supreme Court cannot be legally sound by the terms claimed.

Given that DOMA does not prohibit the states from making any laws, nor does DOMA itself create any definition of marriage, but rather only recognizes the definition that long precedes this country, and has long been recognized in this country, ...

..The only thing that DOMA actually does is prohibit the abuse of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution from compelling one state fabricating a new definition of marriage by legislative or judicial fiat, nowhere in that state's original authority, and wrongly compel that redefinition on each and every state, which is contrary to the intent of the clause, and the Constitution overall.

Imposing gay marriage by abuse of the Full Faith and Credit clause would create a precedent of ever-expanding anarchy in which each and every state would be compelled to recognize the most expansive and irresponsible definition of any one state on any matter. As example, by such precedent, one state might expand Driver's Licenses to include the ability to operate aircraft, thereby compelling every state to recognize anyone with a Driver's License to allow them to fly any plane. Such an expansive definition would very soon take us back to a time prior to the Wright brothers. Now that's "Progress".

We now know... as you have been told repeatedly, that this is inaccurate. DOMA was found unconstitutional based on the exact reasons that people have refuted your position with: it violates state's rights issues on regulating marriage. It is good to see that the correct decision was rendered.
 
Why do you think that any the Federal government, any state government, or even any populist majority has the authority to dictate something that long precedes this country's existence, and is founded on the biological fact of human reproduction?

Where do the states have the authority to define marriage, when they have no original jurisdiction over marriage, nor to alter the definition of words to alter outcomes?

Neither the states, nor the federal government, have any authority in dictating the terms of society, social engineering, by which false equivalences are created, and made to meet the whims of a populist majority.

The fact of the matter is that marriage is recognized to involve a man and a woman, because this is how human beings are created, and societies promoted and advanced. Societies have a vested interest in recognizing the the public commitment of heterosexual marriages, because these are the means by which offspring are able to mature over the prolonged period to adolescence in a stable environment, to be produced, well-developed citizens.

Procreation is not a requirement for marriage. You can be infertile and marry and you can choose to not have children and marry. The procreation argument is irrelevant.

Marriage is promoted for the rearing of children... and we know through research that children do just as well with gay parents as they do with straight ones.

Your position is refuted and irrelevant.

Marriage is not a compulsion or demand to procreate, but heterosexual reproduction are the only means that offspring are produced. Marriage is not a guarantee that the offspring will be well-developed and positive additions to society, but the biological home is the best guarantee of this.

Completely irrelevant since procreation is not required for marriage AS YOU JUST SAID. How offspring are produced is irrelevant, as one does not have to be married to produce offspring. How they are RAISED is relevant, and since we know that children are reared as well with gay parents as with straight parents, your position is refuted.

Society has no vested interest in whatever union, that cannot possibly produce offspring, and thereby does not promote its own offspring to habit society, and does not thereby advance society, and it is a false equivalence to insist that gay unions are the same as heterosexual unions.

Since procreation is not a requirement for marriage, AS YOU HAVE SAID, your point is refuted and irrelevant.

If homosexual unions do have children, it is only as a result of broken biological and social ties, thus making recognition of these homosexual unions contrary to the interest of society.

1) Incorrect. There are many ways for homosexual unions to have children.
2) Since we know that children, overall, do better in a loving 2 parent household, regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents, having them in a healthy two parents household, where the parents are gay is better for them then for them to be in a single parent household. Research proves this.

Therefore, it is in the interest of society for SSM unions to be legal. Your position is refuted.
 
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.

Wrong. Reproduction has zero to do with the state's interest. The state's interest is in rearing children successfully. This is why the government is so involved in adoption and education... and child protection, but not involved in sex or procreation. And since we know that gays rear parents as well as straights, it's benefit to society gives the government reason to sanction it. Your position is refuted.
 
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.

SCOTUS's decision demonstrates adherence to the Constitution along with process for society. Our society has been saved from death by stagnation.
 
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.

This false assertion of yours has been corrected many times. Procreation is irrelevant. Child rearing IS relevant. Gays do this as well as straights. Your position is refuted.
 
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.

And since it is proven that children ADOPTED by gays do as well as those ADOPTED by straights, you are incorrect and your position is refuted.
 
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.

What it demonstrates is that the definition of the word marriage did not meet the criteria to be considered a definition. It has now be corrected.
 
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.

Once you include couples who are infertile in your description and condemnation, you have a point. Until then, you don't. And... since we know that procreation is not a requirement for marriage, your point is refuted, anyway.
 
Facts proving they are not the same ...


Without any claim of my being Carnac the Magnificent, I can say with absolute certainty that you yourself are the product of a heterosexual relationship, and not at all the product of a gay union.

Which is irrelevant as to whether his parents were married. Your point is refuted.

Either that makes me absolutely clairvoyant, or I am relying on real, hard facts that have been around for a long, long time, and aren't about to change.

Actually, it makes what you said meaningless to the argument.
 
Biological fact isn't tradition.

It's biological fact.

Stating that women binding their feet in China is a good thing, because they always have done so, is an example of fallacy by appeal to tradition.

This does not involve any sort of appeal to tradition.

Actually it is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy. Here's the fallacy:

Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way."

Therefore, claiming that traditional marriage is right because it's always been that way is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy.

And so you are aware, the biology of procreation is different than the act of marriage. We are discussing the latter, not the former.
 
That's nonsense. We legislate based on tradition regularly and it ranges from Christmas being a national holiday to summer vacation for kiddies.

Legislating on tradition is not the issue. Claiming that something is right because it's always been that way is the fallacy.

But on a higher level, marriage really is about more than tradition. It's about establishing the fundamental building block of society and that's the family unit and the family unit starts is based on a mother and a father. Homosexuals have had to rely on claiming exceptional circumstances are the norm in order to rationalize that two men or two women living together and engaging in sexual relationshiops equates to "marriage".

What exceptional circumstances?
 
1.) no trouble at all you factually lies :shrug: but please proceed and i will further point out the facts

2.)did you think anybody would buy this? you know the thread is still here right? you keep talking about people coming from heterosexual relationships. see post776 this is meaningless and its you suggesting that it matters to marriage, it does not

You still have a problem with "lies", using it in a manner few adults actually would, and undoubtedly stemming from your problematic recognition of fact. Your failure to recognize Fact, does not constitute my own lie.

2) The statements I've made in other posts, or in other threads, are entirely irrelevant to what I said in that specific post in response to you, which is gave you a direct link to post #770, the relevant post, where I did my Carnac routine, stated noting whatsoever about people coming from heterosexual relationships.. The fact is your claim is wrong and irrelevant to my post.


3.) 100% false

No, its not 100% false. It is, in fact, 100% correct. Each and every person is the result of heterosexual relationships, even those that are using in vitro fertilization, are relying on heterosexual reproduction, a sperm and an egg, and that is heterosexually based, with the egg/ovum being called in ancient Greek, gamete γαμετή for "wife" , the sperm being recognized by the term "gametes", ancient Greek gametes γαμέτης for "husband". There's no getting around the fact, and you're wrong.


4.) see 3

See above.


5.) yep as proven in 1 your opinion is meanignless its not need, facts prove you wrong again
also as already mentioned somewhere early in this thread the bolded is 100% false

You haven't proven a thing, except your penchant to offer your own unfounded ramblings as truth, and your failed understanding to accuse lying.


6.) you can double down on this if you like but it already lost and was proven false

As shown in the link #770 above, I was referencing heterosexual relationships, not marriage, which shows your statement wrong, and your claim that I lost wrong.


I AGAIN ask you "do you have anything thats on topic to legal marriage and matters to the topic? anything?

Yes, and I want to thank you for proving, through your ignorance, the the definition and recognition of marriage comes form the fact that people can procreate outside of marriage, or any relationship at all, and this is why societies the world over, throughout mankind's history, have invariably recognized marriage to be a man and woman.

You can keep trying to spin, but your misrepresentations of fact, and this conversation, won't change either.
 
No, its not 100% false. It is, in fact, 100% correct. Each and every person is the result of heterosexual relationships, even those that are using in vitro fertilization, are relying on heterosexual reproduction, a sperm and an egg, and that is heterosexually based, with the egg/ovum being called in ancient Greek, gamete γαμετή for "wife" , the sperm being recognized by the term "gametes", ancient Greek gametes γαμέτης for "husband". There's no getting around the fact, and you're wrong.

As shown in the link #770 above, I was referencing heterosexual relationships, not marriage, which shows your statement wrong, and your claim that I lost wrong.

This is false. Every single person is not the result of a heterosexual "relationship". Many people are the result of an opposite sex booty call. Some are the result of some sperm being donated to a woman for her to get pregnant by. Some are the result of a rape. Some are the result of an egg being donated for use in conjunction with sperm and a surrogate mother in order to make a baby. "Relationship" generally implies much more than any of these things.

And none of this has anything to do with marriage. Children are not required for marriage. And blood relation is not required to raise a child well.
 
We now know... as you have been told repeatedly, that this is inaccurate. DOMA was found unconstitutional based on the exact reasons that people have refuted your position with: it violates state's rights issues on regulating marriage. It is good to see that the correct decision was rendered.

You should actually go read and understand the majority opinion before you pontificate on it.

DOMA was said in that majority opinion to be unconstituti0onal specifically because of a deprivation of equal liberty under the Due Process clause of 5th Amendment.

The only reference to states rights was the right of states to define the law under state sovereignty, which in fact was nowhere denied by DOMA, with the 10th Amendment "states rights" nowhere being cited as the principle for the holding.

Quotes from Kennedy's decision:
"Although Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

"DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities."​

The references above, and throughout the ruling, presumes same sex couples to be the equivalent of marriage, and ignores that the federal government's compelled recognition of same sex marriage forces other states to recognize that fabricated definition of marriage. That first quote actually shows that presumption of equality in its statement, while denying the intent and authority of Congress, presuming instead a unilateral right to redefine a word by the states. Strangely the same crew has disregarded the lack of authority of Congress to dictate health care, and that same States Rights, and the rights of the citizens therein, to not have their health care dictated.


In short, the majority opinion does nothing but presume what it wants to conclude, and uses states rights only to justify that redefinition of marriage by the state, which DOMA never denied. But the decision then compels that recognition of the state's definition, not by any states right to compel other states and the federal government to recognize that redefinition, which is your mistaken claim, but by the presumption of that false equivalence made by that state being valid outside the state, and under the Constitution, and then applies the 5th Amendment due process to reach its preordained conclusion, in disregard of the Constitution's intent and the fact of terminology.

The court sidesteps and ignores the entire interest of the Congress in making Doma, inclusive of a majority of Democrats in both houses, to prevent the abuse of the Full Faith and Credit clause, and prohibit any corrupt compulsion put on the other states by the whim of a few. This was nothing but an example of the corruption of the judiciary, and willingness to engage dictation and legislation from the bench, which is what Scalia and others recognized in their scathing dissent.

We are no longer a Republic ruled by law, but an aristocracy ruled by men.

And I'm done responding to you, as your behavior has shown a repeated lack of character, and abuse of your position in order to get an upper hand by inappropriate means. Your repetition of the same arguments and distortions of fact, converting the fact of reproduction originating from heterosexual relationship, into a compulsion to have children, which nowhere is relevant, and reversing cause and effect, have already been dealt with and were gutted elsewhere, hence your need to resort to abuse of position.
 
Last edited:
This is false. Every single person is not the result of a heterosexual "relationship". Many people are the result of an opposite sex booty call. Some are the result of some sperm being donated to a woman for her to get pregnant by. Some are the result of a rape. Some are the result of an egg being donated for use in conjunction with sperm and a surrogate mother in order to make a baby. "Relationship" generally implies much more than any of these things.

And none of this has anything to do with marriage. Children are not required for marriage. And blood relation is not required to raise a child well.

Uh, that "opposite sex booty call" is still heterosexual reproduction, and the term "relationship" does not necessitate nor imply any sort of ongoing relationship between people, but references the ongoing and immutable relation of the sperm and ovum necessary for reproduction, to those two heterosexual sexes.

Likewise, artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization also rely on that same heterosexual reproduction process, and rape as well.

Again, and quite obviously, the reference to "relationship" does not refer to any ongoing relationship between partners, much less a stable one, but the relationship of the reproduction process to that heterosexuality... and it really is an inane claim that it might be.
 
Back
Top Bottom