• 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]

Nonsense. You can't judge yesterday's societal more's by today's hypersensitivities. Well, you can, if you want, but it's not intellectually honest to do so.

Yet, you want to continue to practice yesterday's societal mores just because of your personal dislike of same sex couples wanting to be viewed as married?

And are you trying to tell me that we shouldn't consider it shameful that people used to think that owning slaves was okay, or that married women couldn't claim rape by their husband, or that women were treated as property in the past by men, or that non-whites in many places in our country were viewed as "second class citizens"?
 
I know better than to buy YOUR spin that this is a "huge win". It's a win. But it's not what you wanted. I know it and you know it. I was talking and debating and arguing this a long time before the hearing and I know that you and your "community" going into this considered anything short of striking down DOMA in it's entirety, a loss. Your "community" felt that gay marriage was going to be the law of the land eventually and if the supreme court didn't make it happen the first chance it had, that it would be a sad day and a big loss. They had the chance and they made the narrowest rulings possible and I know this was a big disappointment despite the charade of major victory. It was a minor victory but a lot less than you hoped for and a lot less than you expected.

Don't worry--they are going to run the train off the rails. I have seen a few comments here and there on the web suggesting gays are now going to be wanting reparations because of all the financial benefits they were denied. The comments were along the lines of "Now they are going to have to pay me for all the money the government has cheated me out of."
 
Agreed.

Time will tell. I would certainly see the ruling as a victory for SSM though - not as big as it could have been (especially given the not-total-thrashing dealt to Prop 8), but certainly a step in the right direction.

It was a victory. A small victory. One that seemed inevitable. States get to define marriage and it seemed like a real hail mary to try to write a federal law undermining the states' rights to do that by refusing to accept the state certification of marriage however the state deemed it should be.
 
Yet, you want to continue to practice yesterday's societal mores just because of your personal dislike of same sex couples wanting to be viewed as married?

And are you trying to tell me that we shouldn't consider it shameful that people used to think that owning slaves was okay, or that married women couldn't claim rape by their husband, or that women were treated as property in the past by men, or that non-whites in many places in our country were viewed as "second class citizens"?

Don't tell me what I want or don't want. I want society to legislate marriage as it should. When the majority of people in each of the 50 states is ready for gay marriage, then those states will legislate gay marriage. As others pointed out quite correctly, the people are the state. The people will have to decide marriage has morphed from an institution designed to be the fundamental building block of society into something different - a consent-based agreement to cohabitate with shared property.
 
Don't tell me what I want or don't want. I want society to legislate marriage as it should. When the majority of people in each of the 50 states is ready for gay marriage, then those states will legislate gay marriage. As others pointed out quite correctly, the people are the state. The people will have to decide marriage has morphed from an institution designed to be the fundamental building block of society into something different - a consent-based agreement to cohabitate with shared property.

Why should we not use the Constitution to strike down laws that violate the Constitution and the protections it guarantees to its citizens? It is stupid to have a Constitution to protect the people from the majority/government if the people are not supposed to use it to do just that.

The individuals of the states should have more protections than the states, and that is a constitutional right enacted by the 14th Amendment.
 
Don't tell me what I want or don't want. I want society to legislate marriage as it should. When the majority of people in each of the 50 states is ready for gay marriage, then those states will legislate gay marriage. As others pointed out quite correctly, the people are the state. The people will have to decide marriage has morphed from an institution designed to be the fundamental building block of society into something different - a consent-based agreement to cohabitate with shared property.

So a persons only should have liberty if the majority votes to allow it?

That is an interesting opinion on freedom.
 
Wouldn't have always agreed with that, but I do now. It's what the social engineers want, not what the people want anymore.

People want liberty.

Slave owners were mad when they lost them the haters will be mad again.
 
Wouldn't have always agreed with that, but I do now. It's what the social engineers want, not what the people want anymore.

It is what the people want, particularly the younger generations. This isn't about "social engineering" but rather about changing beliefs in views on homosexuality and marriage that are much more in line with our country's ideals of freedom and rights.
 
So a persons only should have liberty if the majority votes to allow it?

That is an interesting opinion on freedom.

Wow, asking for liberty while endorsing that the government just effectively took away the will of the people. Good move.
 
Wow, asking for liberty while endorsing that the government just effectively took away the will of the people. Good move.

The government is supposed to take away "the will of the people" when that will violates the US Constitution and its guarantees to all citizens, whether the majority likes it or not.
 
Why should we not use the Constitution to strike down laws that violate the Constitution and the protections it guarantees to its citizens? It is stupid to have a Constitution to protect the people from the majority/government if the people are not supposed to use it to do just that.

The individuals of the states should have more protections than the states, and that is a constitutional right enacted by the 14th Amendment.

I've no conflict with any of that. I don't see homosexual marriage as an equal rights issue. It is a special rights issue. Homosexuals have always been able to get married. Just ask former New Joisey governor Jim McGreevey. It's the fact that homosexuals are treated just like everyone else that is actually the problem for them here. They don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else has always done. They want something different. Something special to them. It's not about equal rights at all.
 
It is what the people want, particularly the younger generations. This isn't about "social engineering" but rather about changing beliefs in views on homosexuality and marriage that are much more in line with our country's ideals of freedom and rights.

When the beliefs have changed sufficiently, homosexual marriages will be endorsed by states. Militant rhetoric probably won't speed that process up, though. It's actually hardened my position. The verbal bullying doesn't work with me.
 
It is what the people want, particularly the younger generations. This isn't about "social engineering" but rather about changing beliefs in views on homosexuality and marriage that are much more in line with our country's ideals of freedom and rights.

Bull****. Younger generations always want this or that radical, different. They stop wanting it when they grow the hell up and realize it's unrealistic. This decision is nowhere in line with our country's ideals and it is indeed precisely social engineering you are describing.
 
I've no conflict with any of that. I don't see homosexual marriage as an equal rights issue. It is a special rights issue. Homosexuals have always been able to get married. Just ask former New Joisey governor Jim McGreevey. It's the fact that homosexuals are treated just like everyone else that is actually the problem for them here. They don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else has always done. They want something different. Something special to them. It's not about equal rights at all.

It is an equal rights issue. Just as you would or other heterosexuals want to be able to marry the person of your/their choice and believe we should have that right, the same goes for homosexuals. There is no legitimate reason to restrict marriage based on sex/gender because marriage laws in the US are not gender specific.

Same sex couples enter into the same exact marriages that opposite sex couples are in. There is nothing special in that.
 
Bull****. Younger generations always want this or that radical, different. They stop wanting it when they grow the hell up and realize it's unrealistic. This decision is nowhere in line with our country's ideals and it is indeed precisely social engineering you are describing.

No, this is not true. Younger generations change their minds on fiscal issues, not generally on social issues.

Then I argue that trying to prevent same sex couples from marrying or even the acceptance of homosexuality to spread is just failed social engineering from a different group of people who would rather have things their way.
 
It is an equal rights issue. Just as you would or other heterosexuals want to be able to marry the person of your/their choice and believe we should have that right, the same goes for homosexuals. There is no legitimate reason to restrict marriage based on sex/gender because marriage laws in the US are not gender specific.

Same sex couples enter into the same exact marriages that opposite sex couples are in. There is nothing special in that.

I can see that it will eventually be this way, but it's not that way yet. That's why only a dozen states have gay marriage written into their marriage laws. Marriage, to most people is still a man and a woman joining together and raising kids. Two homosexuals living together and mimicking the homosexual model is not what most people see as marriage and it's not what most state's see as marriage.

Furthermore, it's not what homosexuals, for the most part, want out of their relationships. I don't know any with plans to marry and I know plenty that have told me heterosexuals are nuts for buying into the whole marriage thing. If homosexuals were going to be honest about this, it's not the rights that were ever really at issue, but the normalization of homosexuality that is the real goal.
 
People want liberty.

Slave owners were mad when they lost them the haters will be mad again.

What nonsense, comparing those against homosexual marriage with slavers. And no, people don't want liberty, in fact I'd say most abhor it. It's too much work. They'd rather just let some court decide for them.
 
I can see that it will eventually be this way, but it's not that way yet. That's why only a dozen states have gay marriage written into their marriage laws. Marriage, to most people is still a man and a woman joining together and raising kids. Two homosexuals living together and mimicking the homosexual model is not what most people see as marriage and it's not what most state's see as marriage.

Marriage to most people is not a man and a woman only, and certainly does not include raising kids. You yourself said that it is not right to look down on those married couples who are childless, so that shows that you don't think that marriages are only those that include children. And many don't feel that children are necessary for a marriage. They simply don't want same sex couples to marry and use procreation/raising children as an excuse.

Most people in the past did not see interracial couples living together as a valid relationship or marriage and wanted them prevented, particularly in the South.
 
No, this is not true. Younger generations change their minds on fiscal issues, not generally on social issues.

Not even close to true. It's been noted historically (the old quote attributed to Churchill).

Then I argue that trying to prevent same sex couples from marrying or even the acceptance of homosexuality to spread is just failed social engineering from a different group of people who would rather have things their way.

Then you'd argue wrongly. What you note was already the status quo.
 
Not even close to true. It's been noted historically (the old quote attributed to Churchill).

Then you'd argue wrongly. What you note was already the status quo.

It is true. Why do you think interracial marriage has become much more acceptable and in general, most of the opposition to such relationships is from older people? Young people for the most part, are much more likely to accept women as equal to men or accept changing gender roles. This does not change as people age.

You want an example, my own beliefs have been in place about same sex marriage and homosexuality for at least 18 years now, since I was in my mid-teens and old enough to even realize that homosexuals were treated differently for who they loved.

And that is still social engineering. Just because a group got its way and has maintained it for some time does not mean that it is not maintained via social engineering. The main way it is done in connection with same sex relationships/homosexuality opposition is through religions. Slowly though younger generations are rethinking their beliefs and accepting that perhaps those who taught them those things were wrong.
 
All that would make so much sense if I hadn't heard every last bit of it before, as has my mother when she was young, my grandparents and going all the way back. Young people think everything is new and they like change, that a given. Also a given, MOST of them grow up and head right on back to the values their parents taught them.
 
Most people in the past did not see interracial couples living together as a valid relationship or marriage and wanted them prevented, particularly in the South.

And because of that history, it's no surprise that homosexuals are trying to position themselves as a "race". If they can successfully convince people that their sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic like race, then they have a good legal argument for getting whatever they want up to and including affirmative action.
 
Back
Top Bottom