• 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!

SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

head of joaquin said:
Yep, people of any sexual orientation can actually have children. Que mirabile dictu! What does that biological fact have to do with sexual orientation?
Click to expand...

They can't unless they CHOOSE to have heterosexual intercourse; which hamstrings the "no choice" argument.
 
Papa bull said:
I agree with that. Too many of us old people consider marriage to be a fundamental social structure that's not subject to change by fashion or whim. I'd much rather "civil union" be implemented as the sanctioned unit of legal pairing. Let marriage be what it is "off the record" and let the government sanctioned version be changed to "civil union" and everyone should be satisfied.
Click to expand...

Well, we agree on something.

If churches want to have any restrictions or qualifications for marriage rights, that's fine with me -- so long as they have no legal force. The only legally recognized union should be civil unions, and they should be applicable to all consenting adults.
 
Papa bull said:
They can't unless they CHOOSE to have heterosexual intercourse; which hamstrings the "no choice" argument.
Click to expand...

Actually that's not true in the modern world for obvious reasons, but more to the point your premise that having intercourse with another gender is impossible to gays is false. If people want children they can do all sorts of things. What does that have to do with sexual orientation?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You are getting pedantic since "widespread" is totally subjective.....and even though you recognize it is more "widespread" than SSM, I was never arguing that SSM was or was not "widespread".
Click to expand...

You were the one arguing that polygamy was "wide spread". I agree with you that your argument was purely subjective, which means that could never be anything but a pissing match. It make a good introduction to the point that polygamy has a much more "widespread" history than homosexual marriage, though.

You skipped over the argument that polygamy was and more than likely will be argued on the basis of religious rights, not social rights.
Click to expand...

We saw how this worked with homosexual marriage.

I just find it funny that those arguing against SSM bring up polygamy (something that was outlawed long before SSM was an issue in the US) which was recognized as assault on monogamy. Here we have SSM advocates arguing FOR monogamy and not for polygamy, while those who are against SSM bring up polygamy as being the next step......towards LESS monogamy.
Click to expand...

Polygamy is a more tried and true marital model than homosexual marriage. It's a no-brainer that it's going to be the next challenge once homosexuals have achieved homosexual marriage in all 50 states.
 
Tucker Case said:
Here's my prediction/paraphrase of Scalia's dissent: "Big government bad, unless, of course, it's to keep them pesky fags in their place."
Click to expand...
Didn't you mean caricature?
 
head of joaquin said:
Actually that's not true in the modern world for obvious reasons, but more to the point your premise that having intercourse with another gender is impossible to gays is false. If people want children they can do all sorts of things. What does that have to do with sexual orientation?
Click to expand...

Yes, through modern technology, sex isn't necessary, but your argument predates that technology. It is and has been a choice and your argument supported that fact.
 
Papa bull said:
So homosexual men can choose to have sex with women. Fine. That means that homosexuality is a behavior and a choice rather than an immutable characteristic. Since it is not an immutable characteristic they can't be a suspect class for judicial scrutiny.
Click to expand...
You will have a hard (snark) time showing that a sexual act is dependent upon "immutable characteristics". One act does not define oneself.


And of course it ignores artificial insemination.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

davidtaylorjr said:
This is a sad day for the nation.
Click to expand...




I will agree that it's a sad day for the losers who want to get the government off of Wall Street's back and into every Americans bedroom.

It's a sad day for those who want to deny other Americans the same rights that they have. They have lost, now and forever.

For the winners, it's a happy day.




"Better day's are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You will have a hard (snark) time showing that a sexual act is dependent upon "immutable characteristics". One act does not define oneself.
Click to expand...

And that is the real dilemma for the "equal rights"/discrimination argument. You can't prove that sexual acts are dependent upon immutable characteristics.
 
Redress said:
Full Faith and Credit clause.
Click to expand...

As I understand it the full faith and credit clause has not ever been applied to marriage. Afaik a state can refuse to acknowledge a marriage that would not be legal in that state - for example if one of the partners is under aged under that state's laws.

Should it apply - i think it should, but based on my limited reading it doesn't appear to.
 
Papa bull said:
You were the one arguing that polygamy was "wide spread".
Click to expand...
I did not bring it up, I responded to your claim that it was not. It is completely subjective and relative.
I agree with you that your argument was purely subjective, which means that could never be anything but a pissing match. It make a good introduction to the point that polygamy has a much more "widespread" history than homosexual marriage, though.
Click to expand...
It is pointless....but go on...



We saw how this worked with homosexual marriage.
Click to expand...
Huh? SSM was not based on religious argument. Try and apply your response to the quote...OK?



Polygamy is a more tried and true marital model than homosexual marriage.
Click to expand...
No, it is NOT, which is why it was outlawed....and just to note, you are getting close to admitting it was "widespread".


It's a no-brainer that it's going to be the next challenge once homosexuals have achieved homosexual marriage in all 50 states.
Click to expand...
And yet you continue to fail to recognize the basis of the arguments (social v religious) and the differences that it negatively impacts heterosexual marriage. It is a strike AGAINST monogamy.
 
Papa bull said:
Yes, through modern technology, sex isn't necessary, but your argument predates that technology. It is and has been a choice and your argument supported that fact.
Click to expand...

Your argument makes no sense. Having sex is obviously a "choice". Sexual orientation isn't. Why would you deny that and what does it go to?
 
Isn't it interesting how the touted 'libertarians' of the SC (Roberts and Thomas) voted against repealing DOMA.
 
Papa bull said:
And that is the real dilemma for the "equal rights"/discrimination argument. You can't prove that sexual acts are dependent upon immutable characteristics.
Click to expand...

Sexual orientation has to do with identity and is basically established by the time you enter puberty. It has a genetic and environmental component. It is no more a choice than saying lefthandedness is.
 
Papa bull said:
And that is the real dilemma for the "equal rights"/discrimination argument. You can't prove that sexual acts are dependent upon immutable characteristics.
Click to expand...
Of course you can establish a characteristic by repeated actions. That is self evident.


And just to add, our rights are not limited to "immutable characteristics", ie one can choose their religion, one can adopt a cultural identity.
 
Last edited:
Geoist said:
Isn't it interesting how the touted 'libertarians' of the SC (Roberts and Thomas) voted against repealing DOMA.
Click to expand...




Interesting, but not surprising.

They are what they are.
 
Papa bull said:
So homosexual men can choose to have sex with women. Fine. That means that homosexuality is a behavior and a choice rather than an immutable characteristic. Since it is not an immutable characteristic they can't be a suspect class for judicial scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Having sex is not actually all about attraction. Just because someone has sex with someone else, particularly with the sole intent of procreation, does not mean they are attracted to or want to be in an intimate relationship with that person. There have been several cases where straight couples have gone outside their marriage to have sex with someone (jointly agreeing to do so) in order to procreate with someone else when either the husband or wife could not produce children.
 
Geoist said:
Isn't it interesting how the touted 'libertarians' of the SC (Roberts and Thomas) voted against repealing DOMA.
Click to expand...

It's not that surprising, if you take it as an intent to limit the expansion of government involvement into marriage.
 
Papa bull said:
And that is the real dilemma for the "equal rights"/discrimination argument. You can't prove that sexual acts are dependent upon immutable characteristics.
Click to expand...

So you must be saying that Mr. and Mrs. Loving did not deserve the equal right to marriage as same race couples since they could have chosen to have sex with someone of their own race rather than each other.
 
CanadaJohn said:
It's not that surprising, if you take it as an intent to limit the expansion of government involvement into marriage.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how one "takes it". It was not a limit on the expansion of govt involvement into marriage; it was a refinement in the balance between the states and the fed (with respect to marriage)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom