• 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 throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

Lursa said:
Yes. The institution of Western marriage has changed in a huge way in the past few hundred years....HUGE. Women used to basically be the property of their husbands. Period. Property. Not even able to consent fully on their own behalf.

Women gained more personal recognition and liberty in society and that is reflected in marriage today.

Gays have gained more personal recognition and liberty in society and that is being reflected in marriage today.

Institutions change.

And you know what...there are religious people, and alot of men in general, that believe things would still be better if women were completely subordinate, legally, to their husbands. And blame society today on that change. Does that mean the change was wrong? Or was it the right thing for women, the right thing to do?
Click to expand...

Don't pose a question of wrong or right, those are morals which all vary per person.

Unless.... If you're speaking from an ethical viewpoint then the answer is already in front of you.

Point in case, no need for these kinds of questions.
 
roguenuke said:
Which is pointless. It does nothing but make things more complicated, and only to appease some people who don't want to share. Whiners who don't want same sex couples being called "married".
Click to expand...

I dont see anything more complicated about it. For legal things people get civil unions instead of marriages. Not complicated at all.
 
vesper said:
Nope it wouldn't cause major issues for our family laws. There would still be mothers and fathers and heads of household. Every relationship with a civil union would be treated equally under the law no matter how you define your relationship because marriage no longer means the same thing to all people.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would. And as I've said many times, it serves no real purpose but appeasement of discriminators. Most people who are for this action are against same sex marriage but recognize that it is going to be legal soon across the US. Very few that are currently for same sex marriage being legal actually support changing the name to civil unions. (Although there are certainly some that support removing government from personal relationships altogether, but that is not the same as changing the name.)

Those currently in a civil union do not want to be treated as married, that is why they entered into civil unions and not marriages (with the only exception being where civil unions are for same sex couples rather than anyone).
 
tres borrachos said:
I have no idea why, because to me the civil rights movement wasn't about interracial marriage. I thought my examples in my post would have made it clear.
Click to expand...
Horse before the cart, interracial marriage is all about basic human rights.

How would legalizing SSM change any prejudice against gay people?
Click to expand...
No law changes a feeling a person holds, a law can stop them from ACTING on those feelings. You got it backwards and inside out.
 
Amandi said:
I dont see anything more complicated about it. For legal things people get civil unions instead of marriages. Not complicated at all.
Click to expand...

The change is where the complication comes in. We already have civil unions as a legal institution, which is used on a state level for those couples who want a legal recognition that is different than marriage.
 
tres borrachos said:
I have no idea why, because to me the civil rights movement wasn't about interracial marriage. I thought my examples in my post would have made it clear.

How would legalizing SSM change any prejudice against gay people?
Click to expand...

THe civil rights movement wasnt about interracial marriage, legalization of interracial marriage in the South was an offshoot of that...it was enabled by the greater movement.

And the civil rights movement wasnt about changing prejudice...it was about giving *people*...blacks...equal rights, making sure they were no longer treated like 2nd class citizens and had *equal protection under the law.*

Just like this step in SSM is one piece of recognizing the same for gays.
 
roguenuke said:
Yes, it would. And as I've said many times, it serves no real purpose but appeasement of discriminators. Most people who are for this action are against same sex marriage but recognize that it is going to be legal soon across the US. Very few that are currently for same sex marriage being legal actually support changing the name to civil unions. (Although there are certainly some that support removing government from personal relationships altogether, but that is not the same as changing the name.)

Those currently in a civil union do not want to be treated as married, that is why they entered into civil unions and not marriages (with the only exception being where civil unions are for same sex couples rather than anyone).
Click to expand...

That is incorrect from my experience. In the LGBT groups I am a member of there is strong support for this.
 
tres borrachos said:
With all due respect (don't you hate when someone says that before a thought?), it's a long long long way from gay marriage rights to the civil rights movement.
Click to expand...
No, not at all, Judge Walker cited Loving v Virginia which established that marriage is one of our most basic human rights.
tres borrachos said:
That's nice, but it has nothing to do with my post that you quoted.
Click to expand...
Really....to you civil and humans rights have nothing to do with each other?

How does that work?
 
Amandi said:
That is incorrect from my experience. In the LGBT groups I am a member of there is strong support for this.
Click to expand...

I have not seen that support. Can you provide actual polls or research and not just anecdotal evidence?
 
roguenuke said:
The change is where the complication comes in. We already have civil unions as a legal institution, which is used on a state level for those couples who want a legal recognition that is different than marriage.
Click to expand...

But, on a state level, there is no difference between civil unions and marriage except in name. If there is, I might rethink my stance.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No, not at all, Judge Walker cited Loving v Virginia which established that marriage is one of our most basic human rights.Really....to you civil and humans rights have nothing to do with each other?

How does that work?
Click to expand...

Ha! Trick question it doesn't.
 
roguenuke said:
No, it wasn't. Even the Christian religion did not get involved in marriage until after about the 11th Century or so. And there are religions that may bless marriages, but they don't really have rules for marriages.

Religion was not the main bond in marriage for most of its existence. It may have been involved in some small ways in many cultures, but the main bond was the family.

Society/communities/families had the majority of control over family. However, there also wasn't the same concerns back in those cultures as we now have. Identity theft wasn't really a big issue. Who made medical care decisions didn't really come up. And so many other things that we now face that they didn't back in the past.
Click to expand...

That is epic bull**** but, since you said it I will go with it? so who did go with marriage? 11th century governments?

The truth is marriage has been a spiritual bond/religious bond for the last 10,000 years..

Marriage ritualistic artifacts have been found that are over 10,000 years old -- and none of these rituals have anything to do with government(s), and everything to do with the spiritual/religious.

Governments had NOTHING to do with any of these "unions" unless they were to "unify" families for political or wealth reasons.

Sorry, but sharing common spiritual beliefs in the name of a bond of marriage constitutes "religious" to me.
 
Mr.Nick said:
That is epic bull**** but, since you said it I will go with it? so who did go with marriage? 11th century governments?

The truth is marriage has been a spiritual bond/religious bond for the last 10,000 years..

Marriage ritualistic artifacts have been found that are over 10,000 years old -- and none of these rituals have anything to do with government(s), and everything to do with the spiritual/religious.

Governments had NOTHING to do with any of these "unions" unless they were to "unify" families for political or wealth reasons.
Click to expand...

I'm sure, then, that you agree Christianity has no specific authority to claim the word "marriage."

Side note/fun fact:
The terrible, activist judge in PA that overturned the ban was endorsed by none other than social conservative hero Rick Santorum!
 
Amandi said:
But, on a state level, there is no difference between civil unions and marriage except in name. If there is, I might rethink my stance.
Click to expand...

There is a difference in some places. Plus, not everyone wants the federal recognition. Others do. There is a reason that some opposite sex couples would prefer to have a civil union vice just getting married when the state allows them to. (What their reasoning is, I don't know. But they wouldn't exist at all for opposite sex couples if they didn't want something other than marriage.)

Civil union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Amandi said:
But, on a state level, there is no difference between civil unions and marriage except in name. If there is, I might rethink my stance.
Click to expand...
There is, the rights and benefits are not the same.

Marriage, as defined in law, is a civil matter, not religious.
 
roguenuke said:
Yes, it would. And as I've said many times, it serves no real purpose but appeasement of discriminators. Most people who are for this action are against same sex marriage but recognize that it is going to be legal soon across the US. Very few that are currently for same sex marriage being legal actually support changing the name to civil unions. (Although there are certainly some that support removing government from personal relationships altogether, but that is not the same as changing the name.)

Those currently in a civil union do not want to be treated as married, that is why they entered into civil unions and not marriages (with the only exception being where civil unions are for same sex couples rather than anyone).
Click to expand...

You call them discriminators when it was you that redefined marriage for them and now you are going to squawk about making all civil unions? That's choice. It is what you support that has brought about accommodation laws that force people to violate their own conscience to make a friggin living due to redefining marriage. So no, civil unions would end the conflict and protect the 1st amendment rights of all. Eventually people will come to realize it.
 
Lursa said:
THe civil rights movement wasnt about interracial marriage, legalization of interracial marriage in the South was an offshoot of that...it was enabled by the greater movement.

And the civil rights movement wasnt about changing prejudice...it was about giving *people*...blacks...equal rights, making sure they were no longer treated like 2nd class citizens and had *equal protection under the law.*

Just like this step in SSM is one piece of recognizing the same for gays.
Click to expand...

And as I said before, here is where we differ. I see the treatment of blacks until the civil rights movement as horrible. I don't see not getting a marriage certificate as "horrible". I also don't see married people as being "first class citizens" in order to get the notion of gays being "second class citizens", but that's just my opinion.

The reason I'm for gay marriage is that I'm just not against it, to be honest. Maybe if I thought this was truly a tragedy that gay couples don't get that peice of paper, I'd be more active in my support of it. I know a lot of people who never married, but were very happy.

I just think people should be able to marry who they want and that's that.

You still haven't said how legalizing SSM will make the prejudices against gays go away, or them being able to get jobs and houses they are not getting today.
 
Amandi said:
But, on a state level, there is no difference between civil unions and marriage except in name. If there is, I might rethink my stance.
Click to expand...


It's called taxation.
 
vesper said:
You call them discriminators when it was you that redefined marriage for them a
Click to expand...

Stop. Stop right there.

Explain to me how your marriage, my marriage, or anyone else's marriage has been "redefined."
 
Amandi said:
But, on a state level, there is no difference between civil unions and marriage except in name. If there is, I might rethink my stance.
Click to expand...

There are literally hundreds of differences in laws that handle marriage vs. civil unions. Those who claim to support civil unions as a separate but equal status have yet to even attempt to deliver that.
 
Deuce said:
I'm sure, then, that you agree Christianity has no specific authority to claim the word "marriage."

Side note/fun fact:
The terrible, activist judge in PA that overturned the ban was endorsed by none other than social conservative hero Rick Santorum!
Click to expand...

Santorum endorsed him because he was a good and smart legislator. Santorum surprisingly enough isn't a one issue person.
 
Deuce said:
I'm sure, then, that you agree Christianity has no specific authority to claim the word "marriage."

Side note/fun fact:
The terrible, activist judge in PA that overturned the ban was endorsed by none other than social conservative hero Rick Santorum!
Click to expand...

The word "marriage" is highly subjective to the English language.
 
tres borrachos said:
And as I said before, here is where we differ. I see the treatment of blacks until the civil rights movement as horrible. I don't see not getting a marriage certificate as "horrible".
Click to expand...
Straw...again. The denial of basic human rights, denying the right to choose who you want to marry, is not constitutional.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No, not at all, Judge Walker cited Loving v Virginia which established that marriage is one of our most basic human rights.Really....to you civil and humans rights have nothing to do with each other?

How does that work?
Click to expand...

I was talking about the treatment of blacks before the civil rights movement versus gays not getting a marriage license. So what the judge cited in his ruling isn't relevant to the context of my post that you quoted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom