• 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!

Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

We have about 10 thousand years of data... how many same sex cultures have survived out there again?

Oh yeah, none. Nada, zero, zilch.

Name a "same sex culture."

Then tell me how legalizing same-sex marriage makes America a "same sex culture."

And then explain how that will cause America to cease to exist.
 
What dream world are you living in?

Most of the states that have legalized same sex marriage have the lowest divorce rates in the country. And they have a higher median age for first marriage, meaning people are marrying more responsibly (at older ages when they are actually able to maintain responsible relationships).

Divorce Rates Lower in States with Same-Sex Marriage - US News

Now, marriage rates have been steadily declining since long before the issue of same sex marriage came up, even before Mass. legalized it. But there is no significant difference in that drop between states that have legalized same sex marriage, including even Mass. and states that still have bans in place.

And same sex couples have been raising children for generations and no parents raise children in a vacuum. Raising children also has very little to do with marriage but rather with stability of the relationship. Marriage helps the parents be more stable, despite their relative genders, and this in turn aids the children. But marriage itself is for the adults, not the children.
I live in the real world, so just because you are dreaming, don't imagine that all the rest of us are asleep.

Might you have lower divorce rates due to less people getting married? Hard to get divorced if you never married. And yes, the liberal agenda has been a constant assault on marriage, so SSM is only one of the many pronged attacks on marriage and American culture in general.

Marriage is for adults, but mainly for adults in which to have a structure that legally protects families [children ]. We can argue this back and forth all day. I would hazard the hypothesis that if adult heterosexuals did not/could not have children, I would surmise that marriage would soon go out of style completely. Even with it, and the onslaught of liberal attack on it from all directions, it is in serious decline.
 
No, you don't follow at all. Sorry, I cannot keep explaining all of life and every nuance of life to you. I was only explaining how race does not matter in marriage whereas gender does matter, that the arguments are not the same for each case and so using a same structured argument in the case of same sex does not hold any bearing on a race based case. And I am not here to re-argue every single case in every single state or federal court. Procreative abilities of opposite genders with one another are provable whereas the lack of same is provable in same sex couples. There is not a specific imperative to have children if one marries. However, one of the major reasons for marriage is to create strong family units for people who do procreate so that children are given some safeguards and should not simply be abandoned.

Family stability has been under attack for a long time as well, you folks may well have destroyed the idea of it, and its demise is resulting in much unnecessary harm, with much of poverty issuing from single parent families.

Stability of the institution of marriage and protection of children are sufficient state interests. No, we are not going to allow just anything and just anybody to get married. Sorry, there is no legitimate state interest in such.

You tried to "explain" by using the issue of procreation, saying that an interracial couple could procreate with each other while a same sex couple cannot. You are trying to tie marriage to a positive procreative ability, which it legally isn't.

Nothing about gender affects the actual legal requirements or issues within marriage. Legal marriage has nothing to do with the ability of those involved to have a child with each other. That is only your personal "requirement" of marriage. Meaningless to the actual legal marriage.

You cannot show how allowing those of same sex to marry will in any way affect the stability of marriage or the protection of children. In fact, I can show that there is no correlation of those at all. Your arguments fail. Unless you want to show some actual proof or evidence of what you are trying to assert, not simply making the assertion.
 
1.)I live in the real world
2.) so just because you are dreaming, don't imagine that all the rest of us are asleep.
3.)Might you have lower divorce rates due to less people getting married? Hard to get divorced if you never married.
4.)And yes, the liberal agenda has been a constant assault on marriage, so SSM is only one of the many pronged attacks on marriage and American culture in general.
5.)Marriage is for adults
6 .), but mainly for adults in which to have a structure that legally protects families [children ].
7.)We can argue this back and forth all day.
8.)I would hazard the hypothesis that if adult heterosexuals did not/could not have children, I would surmise that marriage would soon go out of style completely. Even with it, and the onslaught of liberal attack on it from all directions, it is in serious decline.

1.) but yet you ignore facts
2.) who is us? there is nobody honest, educated and objective on your side. Those are the people that have destroyed your posts.
3.) divorce is meaningless to equal rights
4.) as soon as one says liberal, conservative, right, left etc agenda the argument most times is over lol
5.) correct accept some states grant waivers
6.) this is just your OPINION and has nothing to do with law but the best part is gay marriage does what you require
7.) you havent presented a sound argument yet, Its just you posting lies, misinformation and throwing spaghetti at the wall while everyone else destories it.
8.)more meaningless opinion that has no impact on legal marriage or equal rights

your post fails again
 
Prove the harm of me marrying a tree. I, and many on my side, think it is absolutely insane that people of the same gender need marry one another... and was unthinkable not that long ago... just shows how the left can make insanity mask for sanity...just that quick.

I think I see the problem you don't see that letting a gay couple marry who can do anything we would ask of a hetero sexual couple to do or be able to do in a marriage is sane

so you cant tell the difference between

letting 2 consenting adults marry regardless of gender and marriage to tress who are not people and can not enter into a contract

your in this state of mind where if peel want to do something you think of as bad then they must allow anything you don't like just because

but that ignores the reasons why people demand gay marriage and why it would be made legal
 
I live in the real world, so just because you are dreaming, don't imagine that all the rest of us are asleep.

Might you have lower divorce rates due to less people getting married? Hard to get divorced if you never married. And yes, the liberal agenda has been a constant assault on marriage, so SSM is only one of the many pronged attacks on marriage and American culture in general.

Marriage is for adults, but mainly for adults in which to have a structure that legally protects families [children ]. We can argue this back and forth all day. I would hazard the hypothesis that if adult heterosexuals did not/could not have children, I would surmise that marriage would soon go out of style completely. Even with it, and the onslaught of liberal attack on it from all directions, it is in serious decline.

I pointed out how marriage rates are not affected by whether or not same sex couples are allowed to marry. Here's the proof.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/marriage_rates_90_95_99-11.pdf

Marriage rates in every state have been decreasing. Has nothing to do with whether same sex couples are allowed to marry.

Marriage is for adults to be protected from each other and from other adults. It has little to do directly with children. Children benefit because those protections put their parents in a better position of security.

If no one could have children, then there would be no need for marriage (although there would likely be few to actually get divorced if they were married) because we would be living in basically a "Children of Men" situation.

20+% of married people do not have children, many of those are childless by choice. Many others simply cannot procreate. People don't tend to automatically get divorced just because they cannot have children. Some choose other options (like same sex couples), while others simply are fine with being childless.
 
LMAO!! You really think we are on the wrong side of this issue? Remove the blinders.

Polling Tracks Growing and Increasingly Diverse Support for the Freedom to Marry | Freedom to Marry

Gay Marriage | Pew Research Center

"The public has gradually become more supportive of granting legal recognition to same-sex marriages over the past 15 years, with support increasing more steeply in recent years. Currently, 50% favor same-sex marriage, while 43% oppose."

And that is from last year. It has only increased since then. Our side won the last 4 votes (by the people) on this issue.
Good lord girl, you think I would be arguing with you if I DID NOT THINK YOU WERE ON THE WRONG SIDE. And just because you are gaining support, how would this argument fly if you were the parent, "Hey mom, there seems to be growing support for heroin use, you can see it in the numbers... so its okay for me to use it, right mom?" I mean, how silly can one be and expect others to value the opinion.

Consensus does not make one right. If you think so, nobody would be on your side of the SSM debate now as it would have already been "decided" years, centuries, millenniums ago.

Wow.
 
Good lord girl, you think I would be arguing with you if I DID NOT THINK YOU WERE ON THE WRONG SIDE. And just because you are gainging support, how would this argument fly if you were the parent, "Hey mom, there seems to be growing support for herioine use, you can see it in the numbers... so its okay for me to use it, right mom?" I mean, how silly can one be and expect others to value your opinion.

Consensus does not make one right. If you think so, nobody would be on your side of the SSM debate now as it would have already been "decided" years, centuries, millenniums ago.

Wow.

We are gaining support and we have the arguments that involve actual values established by the US Constitution, equal protection, fair treatment, individual rights, etc. You have nothing except attempting to maintain a faulty belief about homosexuality/same sex couples, discriminating against them without any legitimate legal reason for doing so, but rather simply because you don't like/approve of them being married.

The irony of your post here is that you were earlier arguing that you were in the majority.
 
Good lord girl, you think I would be arguing with you if I DID NOT THINK YOU WERE ON THE WRONG SIDE. And just because you are gaining support, how would this argument fly if you were the parent, "Hey mom, there seems to be growing support for heroin use, you can see it in the numbers... so its okay for me to use it, right mom?" I mean, how silly can one be and expect others to value the opinion.

Consensus does not make one right. If you think so, nobody would be on your side of the SSM debate now as it would have already been "decided" years, centuries, millenniums ago.

Wow.

translation: you still have nothing and can only offer more failed deflections
 
Hardly the same... if a majority race or minority race person inseminates a majority or minority person of the opposite sex, there might result a pregnancy, a continuance of the race of humanity... if the same were to occur in that situation with the same sex couple, it will never result in a pregnancy... so perhaps you may see how different the situation is actually is? One is within the laws of nature, the other is outside, deviant and therefore the same rules do not apply in the unnatural situation. You can try to fit the outsized square peg into the appropriate round hole, but it neither fits nor works.

Society is not mandated, required to force the square peg through the round hole just to momentarily coincide with your current sensibilities.

By the way, what makes it okay for you to discriminate against my viewpoint, have it excluded? If my side becomes the minority, we then get our way, right?

we don't require people to have kids or to be able to have kids so yes your using the exact same argument as racists did you wont allow people who meet every requirement for a marriage marry one another and you pretend that's fair because they can marry who you would like them to and not who they want to just like with mixed race marriages

marriage is not natural being gay or being hetero sexual is so your still treating people in the same relevant circumstances differently for no reason and again you mirror racists I mean races lived apart it not natural to combine them that kind of lie

your viewpoint is only discriminated against because your reasoning is terrible and leads to an injustice that's why its in decline
 
Well, does not take an Einstein to figure out that you will not be able to stop it, especially if you keep lowering the standards until there are none.

it only takes a fool not to see that the slippery slope of yours can and will be stopped gay marriage is gaining ground because it meats standards and because the restriction makers no sense again like interracial marriage

standards are not being done away with or lowered their being refined with reason

kind of like how are voting rights are no longer limited to white mails with land, restriction have been dropped but kids dogs and tress still don't have the vote because of it
 
So what if you have been around longer. That in no way makes you better, wiser, more educated, or even more experienced on this or any other issue than me. It simply makes you older.

And there are many more conservatives/Republicans that support same sex marriage than there are liberals/Dems or even Independents that oppose it.
In this case its rather obvious that it does mean that, and older too, sure.

Let me see the hard numbers on that, if you would. And please do not link me to another liberal source. There are good reasons people do not trust those types of sources.
 
In this case its rather obvious that it does mean that, and older too, sure.

Let me see the hard numbers on that, if you would. And please do not link me to another liberal source. There are good reasons people do not trust those types of sources.

the desperation of clinging to opinions on a rights issue is always funny
 
We have about 10 thousand years of data... how many same sex cultures have survived out there again?

Oh yeah, none. Nada, zero, zilch.

Roman Empire became Christian.

Roman Empire no longer exists.

QED?
 
And one who knows the constitution knows that the Ulimate power held by the people is the amendment process. The amendment process over-rides all laws and all Supreme Court rulings. It is the ultimate democracy.

If you and like minded Americans wish to block SSM, all you have to do is propose and pass a constitutional amendment making marriage between One Male Human Being and One Female Human Being...and you and like minded Americans have exercised the ultimate democratic power.
That is about the most rational thing said by your side so far.

While the amendment process was put in place by the founders to have a way, a saftey valve, for changing things they want changed...but even then if that does not stop the Federal Government from acting in ways in defiance of the people's will, the people need to take action, as did the patriots in our Revolution against a national government not understanding its limits. Hope that doesn't have to happen again.

But we also do not have to accept where the government is overstepping its boundaries as it is in this situation, not at all. If the federal government is interpreting things away from what is allowed/what is desired, is making up constructs that do not fit and do not comport with what the people want, we have a right to refuse to allow it. We do not need a constitutional amendment to call the Federal government on overstep.

And conversely, if your side truly wants marriage to be any different than the traditional one man one woman, YOUR side can obtain that amendment.
 
Last edited:
That is about the most rational thing said by your side so far.

While the amendment process was put in place by the founders to have a way, a saftey valve, for changing things they want changed...but even then if that does not stop the Federal Government from acting in ways in defiance of the people's will, the people need to take action, as did the patriots in our Revolution against a national government not understanding its limits. Hope that doesn't have to happen again.

But we also do not have to accept where the government is overstepping its boundaries as it is in this situation, not at all. If the federal government is interpreting things away from what is allowed/what is desired, is making up constructs that do not fit and do not comport with what the people want, we have a right to refuse to allow it. We do not need a constitutional amendment to call the Federal government on overstep.

And conversely, if your side truly wants marriage to be any different than the traditional one man one woman, YOUR side can obtain that amendment.

this is where all your posts fail to pieces and fail the government isnt doing that :shrug:
there is no "overstep"

ZERO new amendment, the amendment, laws and rights already exists. it simply need protected. The protection of individual rights is whats going on, hence why your side is losing and equality is winning :)
 
In this case its rather obvious that it does mean that, and older too, sure.

Let me see the hard numbers on that, if you would. And please do not link me to another liberal source. There are good reasons people do not trust those types of sources.

You demand hard numbers but have never provided them yourself.
 
Wrong. You have nothing. There have never been solely same sex or solely opposite sex cultures. Every culture in history has had same sex couples.

Of course, no culture in history has survived that is not around today period and many of the oldest are either free and embracing same sex marriage or they are oppressive to their people in the first place.
We understand your reluctance to answer the question in a straightforward manner.

So, let me ask it this way: how many predominantly same sex marriage cultures have survived vs opposite sex cultures? Same answer that you cannot bring yourself to admit. All the surviving cultures are predominantly hetero, none [zero ]are predominantly same sex.

That means they, gay people/same sex couples survive at all only due to the having a dominant opposite sex culture. So they obviously live within the dominant culture and thus are subject to the rules of the dominant culture. Only if they were a tyrant would same sex folks get to legitimately determine the rules of the dominant culture.

So if we are a tolerant nation, and we are, it should be understood that there have been eras and many, if not most, cultures that have not been very tolerant of what has been, and still is, a deviant/not normal conduct/behavior. Tolerance is no doubt how it should be, but that broadmindedness and forbearance should also be appreciated, be respected. With the additional provision, through means guaranteed through our Constitution, of minority rights, everyone has the right to do their best to convince a sufficient number of us in order to potentially become the wielder of the majority opinion. I agree with that, understanding that, without an amendment, all that has been adopted can also then be changed... if the people so decide.

If that method is found insufficient by your side and then finds their only real resort is to use a court system that has been, preloaded with a canned approach, rigged in such a way that there is only one way the referee [ SC ] can make the call, no matter the will of the people, well, lets just say we have a real problem there.

Now, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez and their likes would probably be on your side, the founders more on ours. That Government and its allied systems trump the people was not their mantra at all. Our founders would leave this up to us.

We have different ideas on a government or culture being oppressive. Hard to be overly oppressive if you have the majority on your side... much easier to be oppressive if those making the decision has been limited to a few people making the decisions for all the rest of us.
 
In this case its rather obvious that it does mean that, and older too, sure.

Let me see the hard numbers on that, if you would. And please do not link me to another liberal source. There are good reasons people do not trust those types of sources.

So, tell me, what source would you prefer I show since you refuse to provide any of your own sources, ever?
 
The equal protection clause only applies to humans. Therefore there is no "state interest" test for a tree. Stop being ridiculous.
Well then, just apply it the individual man, he is entitled to equal protection. So what now, where is the harm? Oh, I ll stop being ridiculous when you stop asking for the height of ridiculousness, SSM.

Touche'. Now you kinda know what it feels like to argue with your side.
 
We understand your reluctance to answer the question in a straightforward manner.

So, let me ask it this way: how many predominantly same sex marriage cultures have survived vs opposite sex cultures? Same answer that you cannot bring yourself to admit. All the surviving cultures are predominantly hetero, none [zero ]are predominantly same sex.

That means they, gay people/same sex couples survive at all only due to the having a dominant opposite sex culture. So they obviously live within the dominant culture and thus are subject to the rules of the dominant culture. Only if they were a tyrant would same sex folks get to legitimately determine the rules of the dominant culture.

So if we are a tolerant nation, and we are, it should be understood that there have been eras and many, if not most, cultures that have not been very tolerant of what has been, and still is, a deviant/not normal conduct/behavior. Tolerance is no doubt how it should be, but that broadmindedness and forbearance should also be appreciated, be respected. With the additional provision, through means guaranteed through our Constitution, of minority rights, everyone has the right to do their best to convince a sufficient number of us in order to potentially become the wielder of the majority opinion. I agree with that, understanding that, without an amendment, all that has been adopted can also then be changed... if the people so decide.

If that method is found insufficient by your side and then finds their only real resort is to use a court system that has been, preloaded with a canned approach, rigged in such a way that there is only one way the referee [ SC ] can make the call, no matter the will of the people, well, lets just say we have a real problem there.

Now, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez and their likes would probably be on your side, the founders more on ours. That Government and its allied systems trump the people was not their mantra at all. Our founders would leave this up to us.

We have different ideas on a government or culture being oppressive. Hard to be overly oppressive if you have the majority on your side... much easier to be oppressive if those making the decision has been limited to a few people making the decisions for all the rest of us.

Name a predominantly same sex culture that has existed.

I have never claimed that homosexuality is a ever a majority of any culture. However, there is a difference between treating people who are attracted to those of the same sex equally and those who are attracted to the same sex being the majority. Pretty sure no culture has ever been predominantly gay. However, no culture has ever been predominantly geniuses or predominantly over 6 feet tall or predominantly left-handed either.

Actually all those people you mentioned would kill homosexuals (in all likelihood). So that would place them pretty fairly on your side. As for the founders, if they lived in our current society, the majority would be on my side. Freedom of the people was the mantra of the founders, including freedom from the whims of any majority.

Again, you keep contradicting yourself. I show you that the majority is on my side at this moment, and you say the majority doesn't matter. Then you go back to your same old mantra of you having the majority on your side. So which is it? Does the majority only matter when it is on your side or does it not matter at all, making your attempted view on being "oppressive" completely pointless?
 
It's a good thing nobody has suggested it means equality of everything. Is there a reason you attack this same straw man over and over? Do you think it's any more convincing now?

Constitutional scrutiny and levels of state interest are not specifically mentioned in the constitution. Doesn't matter. SCOTUS makes decisions on how these things work, and that's what they've decided.
Perhaps one needs to hit that same nail over and over again since it never seems to get into your head, yano?

Sure they do. That's all good and well until they start tearing down institutions as important as family and marriage. When they use in one case an expedient to come to a decision thus painting themselves, and society, into a corner with some silly judicial rationale that worked in one or other area but now only handcuffs us where we need flexibility... well, then they have effed up and we just don't have to accept that.

Not when its this important.
 
Name a "same sex culture."

Then tell me how legalizing same-sex marriage makes America a "same sex culture."

And then explain how that will cause America to cease to exist.
Thought we had covered that, there isn't one. Nada, zilch, none...zero.

Never said it was, oh man of straw.

Never said that either oh man of second straw.
 
You tried to "explain" by using the issue of procreation, saying that an interracial couple could procreate with each other while a same sex couple cannot. You are trying to tie marriage to a positive procreative ability, which it legally isn't.

Nothing about gender affects the actual legal requirements or issues within marriage. Legal marriage has nothing to do with the ability of those involved to have a child with each other. That is only your personal "requirement" of marriage. Meaningless to the actual legal marriage.

You cannot show how allowing those of same sex to marry will in any way affect the stability of marriage or the protection of children. In fact, I can show that there is no correlation of those at all. Your arguments fail. Unless you want to show some actual proof or evidence of what you are trying to assert, not simply making the assertion.
I never said that you have to specifically prove positive procreative ability, at least not on an individual basis.

However you are wrong, one of the issues for which marriage is a part of the solution is procreation. There was no reason to have checked in the past for positive procreative powers, it had already been confirmed since before written history in gender opposite couples... there was no need to make it a perquisite or state the obvious for the group... we have seven billion people on the planet as proof, I think we get how it works.

Legal requirements are the codification of our rules and requirements set down by our law makers to fit a culture for themselves. In England, in Chile, in Vietnam, each culture is different... they make up their own rules. As do we. All cultures have had legal marriages between males and females and why do you think this might be? If it were just for love, not for the creation of families requiring procreation, why would they not have had same sex couple marriages abundant in the past? Perhaps it was because there would be no lineal descendents issuing from such a barren situation and no need to establish legal claim? Another reason was to safeguard families from abandonment, establishing a legal bond between each parent and to the children... this is not really necessary as with couples not procreating children.

What are your facts on marriage... why was it established in your opinion...or can you tell me factually? What has it been for here in the United States? Solely to join two lovers?

And gender does actually affect the legal requirements if the legal requirements only allow different sex marriages, so you are wrong just on the face of it. My personal requirement? Are you serious, its been a national requirement that it be one man one woman, generally and universally understood to have procreative powers. Its your personal requirement that it doesn't have to be that way.

You cannot show how the marriage of a man to a tree will in anyway affect the stability of marriage, or of their saplings, either. You cannot show me anything of the sort regarding whether it same sex marriage hurts the institution of marriage or of children. You are simply prevaricating. For one thing, SSM has not been around long enough to have sufficient longitudinal studies... besides, who is conducting these studies, what were the metrics...

Takes a long long time to see if things work out for the better or worse. Example, the Head Start Program, so heralded by liberals. Its been around since LBJ and yet we just are finding out that for those going in at age 4, any gains are erased by first grade. Liberals just have such a poor record of improving much of anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom