• 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]

But isn't this whole discussion really about change? I'm telling you what marriage was and why I and so man others think it is what it is. You are telling me what you think it should be. This is the dynamic of change. You are probably younger than I am and eventually the youth will win this one, for better or worse we do not know yet. As Alito said, we are not in a position to know that we are making the right judgment on this if we change it. We won't know for years and years. I do, however, accept that it is inevitable. And I think active and vehement debate is part of the process.

We are in a position to know that this is the right thing to do now because you have no evidence that allowing same sex couples to marry will cause any sort of harm. Change is not harm in itself. Harm can come from change, but change itself isn't harmful.
 
Yeah, gee whiz.... how could such a clever trap as the one you thought you had set have been found out. ;)
I have no idea what this means, how does you possibly looking up the subject under debate between us.....constitute a "trap"?

you dropped the argument, I supposed it was due to your looking up the criteria for suspect class.
 
A marriage license is required to enter into a marriage contract. This is the problem that comes with calling it a "marriage license". Once the license is filed, unlike other state issued licenses, the marriage license becomes a contract. It is no longer a license at all. It is now a contract and contracts act much differently than licenses and there are no obligations in the state laws pertaining to a marriage contract for procreation.

Marriage was the license for having children. Have a bastard and the child is illegitimate. I know you really want to argue your way around this but that much is true. Marriage was the de facto license for bearing children and doing it any other way was illegitimate.

Since the tack is disingenuous, let me help by offering the definition of illegitimate. Maybe that will help put this into perspective.

il·le·git·i·mate
/ˌiləˈjitəmit/
Adjective
1) Not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules: "an illegitimate exercise of power by the military".
2) (of a child) Born of parents not lawfully married to each other.
 
We are in a position to know that this is the right thing to do now because you have no evidence that allowing same sex couples to marry will cause any sort of harm. Change is not harm in itself. Harm can come from change, but change itself isn't harmful.

Nor do we know that this will not be detrimental to society as a whole. There are arguments that it is. And I think we ignore them at our peril.
 
Yes. If you do something without a license, it is illegitimate.

Nope. If you do something without a license, it is illegal.

Like having a child out of wedlock. Like operating a business without a license. Like operating a car without a license.

Let's play "one of these things is not like the other," shall we?

What does the government do if you operate a business without a license? It takes you to court, issues fines, possibly causes you to spend some time in prison (depending on jurisdiction and details).

What does the government do if you operate a car without a license? It takes you to court, issues fines, possibly causes you to spend some time in prison (if you're a repeat offender, depending on jurisdiction and details).

What does the government do if you have a child out of wedlock?

Absolutely nothing. Not one single thing. Not in any jurisdiction in the country.

Get it yet or are you still going to ply the disingenuous angle?

Oh I get it just fine. As usual you're engaging in fuzzy thinking and pretending that's a substitute for reason. Now, apparently, pointing out the factual state of the law is disingenuous. That's just adorable.

By the way, do you know what would happen if the government tried to issue a procreation license?
 
Marriage was the license for having children. Have a bastard and the child is illegitimate. I know you really want to argue your way around this but that much is true. Marriage was the de facto license for bearing children and doing it any other way was illegitimate.

Since the tack is disingenuous, let me help by offering the definition of illegitimate. Maybe that will help put this into perspective.

il·le·git·i·mate
/ˌiləˈjitəmit/
Adjective
1) Not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules: "an illegitimate exercise of power by the military".
2) (of a child) Born of parents not lawfully married to each other.

No, it wasn't. Not even when the Catholic Church was in charge of it. It was a license for having sex, but not for having children.

Currently though, it isn't even a license for having sex. And it hasn't been for a while.
 
Nor do we know that this will not be detrimental to society as a whole. There are arguments that it is. And I think we ignore them at our peril.

Yes we do, because it has been legal in many places for over a decade.

But your argument is not good enough because we do not base whether people are given equality on a possibility (especially small) that it could be "detrimental to society". Giving women or blacks the right to vote could have been detrimental to society. We had no way of actually knowing truly if it would have been without doing it. Allowing interracial marriages could have been detrimental to society. We could not know for sure until it happened. In fact, for all of these things, anyone could argue that either enough time has not passed to truly judge or that they actually have been (some people do argue this, especially for women having the right to vote).
 
No, it wasn't. Not even when the Catholic Church was in charge of it. It was a license for having sex, but not for having children.

Currently though, it isn't even a license for having sex. And it hasn't been for a while.

For all intents and purposes, it was, in fact, a license to have children..... sex was for the sake of procreation. You brought the Catholic Church into it, so there it is.

Your second remark, however, I tend to agree with. Marriage has mutated into something rather irrelevant and I think something good has been lost. It's too late to do anything about that, I think, but we'll see. Marriage today is struggling for meaning and it's more like the carcass of marriage being pulled and tugged by vultures. I wonder if the government will finally dispense with it once it has lost all true social value as it is on it's way to doing. When there's nothing left to it but tax breaks, why would the state want to support it at all?

When it was enacted, I thought DOMA was not just a silly name for what they were doing but an unnecessarily silly thing to do. Now it turns out that it was probably very aptly named and although it was a nice try, I think it will have failed to accomplish it's named goal when all is said and done.
 
For all intents and purposes, it was, in fact, a license to have children..... sex was for the sake of procreation. You brought the Catholic Church into it, so there it is.

Your second remark, however, I tend to agree with. Marriage has mutated into something rather irrelevant and I think something good has been lost. It's too late to do anything about that, I think, but we'll see. Marriage today is struggling for meaning and it's more like the carcass of marriage being pulled and tugged by vultures. I wonder if the government will finally dispense with it once it has lost all true social value as it is on it's way to doing. When there's nothing left to it but tax breaks, why would the state want to support it at all?

When it was enacted, I thought DOMA was not just a silly name for what they were doing but an unnecessarily silly thing to do. Now it turns out that it was probably very aptly named and although it was a nice try, I think it will have failed to accomplish it's named goal when all is said and done.

Would you marry if you couldn't have kids? I would. Having kids was not the reason I married my wife. And homosexuals can care for kids. Can and do. Good reason to encourage they settle down, btw.
 
For all intents and purposes, it was, in fact, a license to have children..... sex was for the sake of procreation. You brought the Catholic Church into it, so there it is.

Your second remark, however, I tend to agree with. Marriage has mutated into something rather irrelevant and I think something good has been lost. It's too late to do anything about that, I think, but we'll see. Marriage today is struggling for meaning and it's more like the carcass of marriage being pulled and tugged by vultures. I wonder if the government will finally dispense with it once it has lost all true social value as it is on it's way to doing. When there's nothing left to it but tax breaks, why would the state want to support it at all?

When it was enacted, I thought DOMA was not just a silly name for what they were doing but an unnecessarily silly thing to do. Now it turns out that it was probably very aptly named and although it was a nice try, I think it will have failed to accomplish it's named goal when all is said and done.

And the Church said that even if a couple could not have children, they could not get divorced (at least in the past). The Church has changed its position on sex many more times than people may think. Those who can't have children are not expected to remain celibate. The whole "sex is only for procreation" thing has not been as universally a rule of the church as is purported.

The only thing that matters now is what marriage is now. It doesn't matter what it was like in the past because very few wish to go back to how it was in the past. There were a lot of major issues with marriage in the past. Like most things, we change things that don't work. As a "license" to have sex, marriage didn't work.

Even at 15, I knew DOMA was bad. I was arguing back then (and I actually did argue about this in an English class debate) that it was wrong to deny marriage to same sex couples. And my mother is Catholic, father Methodist, and I have 5 younger siblings. It took some time for me to realize that DOMA was a necessary evil of the time that prevented an FMA. Marriage has been for a long time, much longer than 17 years, about the couple/the spouses, not the children. DOMA, even at the time of its enactment, was only "protecting" a definition of marriage that was outdated then.
 
license = permission. Marriage licences WERE, in fact, societal permission to have children. It was the very purpose of marriage. And not just here. My wife is Irish and it was that way in her country, too.

Then post something from any license application that denotes something about procreation. Links are required. If you cannot, then admit you are wrong.
 
Refusing to accept that marriage was license to raise a family is also moronic.

Firstly, it is incorrect to accept that marriage is anything but a license to marry. Each person's purpose for marrying is about THEM and has nothing to do with the licence process. If you think otherwise, then again, show proof of where on the license application anything to do with procreation of the couple appears. Secondly, RAISING a family is an important component of societal sanctioning of marriage. RAISING a family, not procreating. Gays can do the former just as well as straights.

Operating a motor vehicle without a license is merely a misdemeanor. Operating on a patient without a license is a felony. Having children without a license wasn't punishable by law but it rendered the child illegitimate. You can't argue against this without looking truly ignorant.

False equivalency, Comparing legal violations to the morals of SOME is an invalid comparison and makes your position look foolish.
 
Yes. If you do something without a license, it is illegitimate. Like having a child out of wedlock. Like operating a business without a license. Like operating a car without a license. Like anything you do without a license.... illegitimate. Get it yet or are you still going to ply the disingenuous angle?

YOU are the one being disengenuous. Operating a business without a license is ILLEGAL. Operating a car without a license is ILLEGAL. Having a kid without a marriage license is NOT illegal. You cannot compare two things that are dissimilar and claim that you've made a point. The only point you've made is proving yourself wrong.
 
I'm serious. When the states are required to defend their definition and requirements for marriage, you can bet your ass the intent and design of marriage as a state sanctioned institution will be the bulk of that defense. This case wasn't about that, which is why you didn't hear those arguments. This was all about whether the federal government could refuse to accept the definition of marriage that the states decided upon. The fact that the supreme court ruled that they couldn't isn't the silver bullet you may think it is. It actually strengthens the state's rights to define marriage even if it's not the definition you want it to be.

and you and your proponents would be laughed right out of the court. Did you even pay attention to the anti-marriage equality groups. They rejected those arguments outright...and I would bet that they know a wee bit more about what will fly and what would be considered completely and utterly ridiculous...than you do.
 
Marriage was the license for having children.

No it wasn't. If you think it was, prove it by showing anywhere, past or present, on a licensing application, the need for procreation.

Have a bastard and the child is illegitimate.

That's a moral statement, irrelevant to the legal issue we are discussing.

I know you really want to argue your way around this but that much is true. Marriage was the de facto license for bearing children and doing it any other way was illegitimate.

Since the tack is disingenuous, let me help by offering the definition of illegitimate. Maybe that will help put this into perspective.

il·le·git·i·mate
/ˌiləˈjitəmit/
Adjective
1) Not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules: "an illegitimate exercise of power by the military".
2) (of a child) Born of parents not lawfully married to each other.

Since there is and never has been a law prohibiting having a child out of wedlock, the ONLY part of your definitions that fit is "not in accordance with accepted standards or rules" which is a moral issue and therefore irrelevant to our discussion. Your point is negated.
 
No it wasn't. If you think it was, prove it by showing anywhere, past or present, on a licensing application, the need for procreation.



That's a moral statement, irrelevant to the legal issue we are discussing.



Since there is and never has been a law prohibiting having a child out of wedlock, the ONLY part of your definitions that fit is "not in accordance with accepted standards or rules" which is a moral issue and therefore irrelevant to our discussion. Your point is negated.

Incredible isn't it.

This argument has failed for years.

The right wing bubble has collapsed in regards to this issue.

And they simply cannot mentally comprehend that the game is over.
 
Late to the party, but I wanted to chime in on this very sensitive issue anyway.

First up, this Wikipedia link on marriage licenses in the U.S. with a brief but very good history behind the requirements. It should be noted, however, that prior to formal requirement of a marriage license as we know it today, cohabitation via "common-law" was the accepted norm among the states in this country. In fact, common-law marriages are still accepted in many states. For that reason, I find it very fascinating that so many people - politicians, as well as ordinary citizens - got so wrapped up over this marriage issue. Now, to the heart of the matter...

The Supreme Court ruling really wasn't about divining marriage contrary to how some are and have framed the argument. It really was about equal protection under the law. Yes, I know some folks who have posted to this thread think otherwise, but that only illustrates how they aren't thinking the matter through. The case that was before the Supreme Court dealt with a very simple matter:

"How is that a couple who has been lawfully web in a state where gay marriage is legal not be allowed to their spouse's death benefits under Social Security since DOMA does not recognize marriage between two members of the same sex?"

As most folks know, DOMA - the Defense of Marriage Act - stipulates that the federal government will only recognize marriage between a man and a woman. However, marriages are neither "licensed" nor "sanctioned" at the federal level. Their legality takes place as the state level (licensing). Moreover, with the exception of common-law marriages, most if not all are sanctioned by the church (regardless of religious affiliation). So, what you really have here is a state's rights issue combined with a "separation of church and state" issue. With this in mind, the Supreme Court had no other choice but to declare DOMA unconstitutional because:

1. Marriage legality has long been "licensed" by the states;

2. Under federal law, the surviving spouse is legally entitled to claim the survivor's benefits of their deceased spouse (Social Security); and,

3. Most marriages are sanctioned by the church, not the federal government.

It really is that simple.
 
Do I need to provide you links that say "homosexuality is a behavior"? Probably not. We can find links to say anything we want, and it's superfluous since it's obvious that homosexuality is a behavior. Lusting is a behavior. If you lust after or engage in sex with someone of the same sex, you are a homosexual. It's defined by behavior and you can shout "bull****" from dusk till dawn and it won't change that.

You do not know the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. This is a major reason why your arguments keep failing. Sexual orientation is a state of being. Sexual behaviors are ACTIONS. Firstly, one is a noun and the other is a verb. Secondly, sexual behaviors that gays do, straights can do... and do. You cannot define someone by their sexual behaviors, only by their orientation. There, now you know. Hopefully, this will assist you in not making this error again.
 
If someone can choose to have sex with someone they are not attracted to, how can you say they have no control over their attractions?

You just contradicted yourself, all in one sentence.
 
Papa bull said:
license = permission. Marriage licenses WERE, in fact, societal permission to have children.

I couldn't help but :lamo when I read this post. I'm thinking to myself, "Man, if that where the case we need to build a whole lot more jails because there has to literally be hundreds of bastard (illegitimate) children born in this country every day!"

You've been fed a bogus lie, my friend, from the talking heads out there. You don't need a marriage license to have children; never have. You do, however, need a marriage license for your "union" to be recognized in the state where you reside. Perhaps you should read the Wikipedia article I posted earlier. I should straighten you out on the myth you've been fed.
 
I couldn't help but :lamo when I read this post. I'm thinking to myself, "Man, if that where the case we need to build a whole lot more jails because there has to literally be hundreds of bastard (illegitimate) children born in this country every day!"

You've been fed a bogus lie, my friend, from the talking heads out there. You don't need a marriage license to have children; never have. You do, however, need a marriage license for your "union" to be recognized in the state where you reside. Perhaps you should read the Wikipedia article I posted earlier. I should straighten you out on the myth you've been fed.

People don't go to prison for having a dog without a license. This is a strawman argument. The fact that marriage gave permission and approval by society for a couple to start a family does not and did not mean that you can't have as many bastards as you would like or that you go to prison for doing it. Is have thought reasonably intelligent people would understand this. I am thinking this is more just the dishonest argumentation that is a defining characteristic of the progressives than it is stupidity, though. I don't think anyone capable of logging onto a computer is too stupid to understand this.

I will add one thing as an aside. Those ignorant mouthpieces among you that want to rant about haters and call anyone that opposes homosexual marriage a bigot merely harden the position against it. After all the venom I've seen from the pinko left after this, I'll go out of my way to vote against it. Funny that I never was a hater but all the name-calling, vitriol and nastiness from the punk left may end up making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Everyone that disagrees with the progressive agenda today gets called a racist, bigot and hater. And every time that happens, the chasm between the right and left widens. It makes it damned hard to be sympathetic to "the cause".
 
People don't go to prison for having a dog without a license. This is a strawman argument. The fact that marriage gave permission and approval by society for a couple to start a family does not and did not mean that you can't have as many bastards as you would like or that you go to prison for doing it. Is have thought reasonably intelligent people would understand this. I am thinking this is more just the dishonest argumentation that is a defining characteristic of the progressives than it is stupidity, though. I don't think anyone capable of logging onto a computer is too stupid to understand this.

I will add one thing as an aside. Those ignorant mouthpieces among you that want to rant about haters and call anyone that opposes homosexual marriage a bigot merely harden the position against it. After all the venom I've seen from the pinko left after this, I'll go out of my way to vote against it. Funny that I never was a hater but all the name-calling, vitriol and nastiness from the punk left may end up making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Everyone that disagrees with the progressive agenda today gets called a racist, bigot and hater. And every time that happens, the chasm between the right and left widens. It makes it damned hard to be sympathetic to "the cause".

so you didn't hate before, but now you do? I don't buy it. You always were a hater.
 
Back
Top Bottom