• 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

Mr.Nick said:
I'm looking at marriage as a historical anthropological idea and you're throwing me western religious ideas..
Click to expand...
Note to Nick:

Western religions.....are a subset of Human Anthropology.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I'm sorry but we're not even on the same page here...

I'm looking at marriage as a historical anthropological idea and you're throwing me western religious ideas.

I don't disagree with you, but I can't agree either.
Click to expand...

And that last link shows the origins of marriage. It did not involve religion. For many thousands of years, it did not involve religion. Religion became involved where religion was basically involved in the everyday lives of the members of the society. But not all societies had this major interference of their religion. And even some that did, left marriage as a family affair, that had no need for religious involvement.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I don't have to show you - your proof is here in the present - if I was wrong we wouldn't be having these debates now would we?
Click to expand...
Wait, you don't seriously propose that those here are civil law scholars OBJECTIVELY debating aspects of gay marriage within civil law.....do you?

You are evading the question, show where marriage in civil law is subjectively defined.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I'm going after you because you claimed, believed, that these examples of (civil) rights (involving marriage) were "a long way away from each other".
Click to expand...


Marriage isn't a "civil right."
 
tres borrachos said:
Oh. Oh well. Can't help you, sorry. I don't consider marriage the "most basic of human rights". You do. We disagree.
Click to expand...
It is not me, it is a finding of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is an established fact of law.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Wait, you don't seriously propose that those here are civil law scholars OBJECTIVELY debating aspects of gay marriage within civil law.....do you?

You are evading the question, show where marriage in civil law is subjectively defined.
Click to expand...

"Subjectively defined" is an oxymoron hence the debate.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
It is not me, it is a finding of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is an established fact of law.
Click to expand...

No, actually, they didn't define it as "the most basic of human rights". They defined it as "one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival".

I don't consider marriage fundamental to our existence and survival. I also don't agree with every definition that SCOTUS has handed down. Eminent domain takes away my basic human right to keep what's mine.

We disagree on the importance of marriage certificates. You won't change my opinion and I have no interest in changing yours or anyone else's. I have opinions that are my own and not what some judges on SCOTUS tell me to think.

Are we finished now?
 
Mr.Nick said:
Marriage isn't a "civil right."
Click to expand...

Yes it is, see Loving v Virginia (1967), but, as usual, the SCOTUS ruling was quite narrow and did not say that any two consenting adults could marry, only that racial difference could not prevent one man from marrying one woman.
 
roguenuke said:
And that last link shows the origins of marriage. It did not involve religion. For many thousands of years, it did not involve religion. Religion became involved where religion was basically involved in the everyday lives of the members of the society. But not all societies had this major interference of their religion. And even some that did, left marriage as a family affair, that had no need for religious involvement.
Click to expand...

I clearly stated that marriage was spiritual/religious - spiritualism is religion and religion is spiritualism - marriage is the result to two individuals (without question man and woman) with the same spiritual or cult/religious beliefs... But like I said there were times where marriage was used as a union to bond families and empires...

Marriage is a very interesting subject but the way the peons use the concept today as a political tool takes all the interesting out of the idea...

Marriage to my generation is politics and nothing else.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yes it is, see Loving v Virginia (1967), but, as usual, the SCOTUS ruling was quite narrow and did not say that any two consenting adults could marry, only that racial difference could not prevent one man from marrying one woman.
Click to expand...

Yup (from Chief Justice Warren's opinion):

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

 
Mr.Nick said:
I clearly stated that marriage was spiritual/religious - spiritualism is religion and religion is spiritualism - marriage is the result to two individuals (without question man and woman) with the same spiritual or cult/religious beliefs... But like I said there were times where marriage was used as a union to bond families and empires...

Marriage is a very interesting subject but the way the peons use the concept today as a political tool takes all the interesting out of the idea...

Marriage to my generation is politics and nothing else.
Click to expand...

Except that isn't what it started as. It was merely pair bonding in order to raise children with a higher chance of survival. That is what it started out as. And it wasn't even permanent. It was a temporary arrangement for the first few years of a child's life, to ensure they reached a more survivable age. Then it became more longterm when more people were needed to work the farms. Still, was about practicality, not spirituality nor religion.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yes it is, see Loving v Virginia (1967), but, as usual, the SCOTUS ruling was quite narrow and did not say that any two consenting adults could marry, only that racial difference could not prevent one man from marrying one woman.
Click to expand...

Really?

And see the numerous SCOTUS' that sought to ban or limit every Amendment 1-10..... Not to mention Loving V Virginia deals with blacks and whites and NOT GAYS - GAY PEOPLE ARE NOT BLACK...

Do you not realize that legally that blacks have been ILLEGALLY been discriminated against since the Bill of Rights was ratified????

Seriously, quit using illogical pseudo legislation to make an argument..... You may as well attempt to argue a mouse with an ear attached to its back has the same rights as a man because the ear could be surgically implanted on a man.....
 
Fenton said:
1.)No, the traditional and fundamental definition of a marriage is centered around a Family unit that includes a Mother and Father and Children.
2.) Two Gay men deprive a child of a Mother,two Gay women deprive a child of a Father.
3.)Sorry, but there is a Good reason Gay Marriage hasn't been Socially acceptable for much of Recorded human history and then some.
4.)Your Opinions are meaningless.
5.) Oh and 30 activist Judges disagree with me. So what ?
6.) You're rights aren't being denied if its currently ILLEGAL to marry someone of the same Sex.
7.) You dont like the Law ? Tough cookies.
Click to expand...

1.) your opinion is noted and its meaningless to equal rights and legal marriage
2.) your opinion is noted and its meaningless to equal rights and legal marriage
3.) you dont have to apologize for your meanignless opinions you are free to have them
4.) i havent given any only facts
5.) this is the second most fastest way to not have a argument taken seriously, anytime somebody blames activist judges and there's 60+ of them (30+ federal) nobody honest and educated will take your argument seriously. Theres no reason to because it instantly proves how dishonest and full of hyperbole it is LMAO
The first way is comparing equal rights to bestiality and pedophilia.
6.) correct cause im straight but gays are 60+ judges agree on this
7.) exactly this is why nobody cares about your opinions, especially the fed who are protecting peoples rights

you can keep trying to deny people rights though but your side is losing and losing big.
 
Last edited:
tres borrachos said:
No, actually, they didn't define it as "the most basic of human rights". They defined it as "one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival".

I don't consider marriage fundamental to our existence and survival.
Click to expand...
Hon, the most basic of civil rights.....is a human right protected by law.

First you argued that "it's a long long long way from gay marriage rights to the civil rights movement."

Now you cite Loving where it is shown that "marriage is the most basic of civil rights"

So you should be able to see that the civil rights movement, the fight for basic human rights protected by law....is not that far away from gay marriage rights.....especially when Loving is cited in Judge Walker's decision.

But no, instead you decide to distract with "I don't consider marriage fundamental to our existence and survival."

So I would say....yes, you are done, by default.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) your opinion is noted and its meaningless to equal rights and legal marriage
2.) your opinion is noted and its meaningless to equal rights and legal marriage
3.) you dont have to apologize for your meanignless opinions you are free to have them
4.) i havent given any only facts
5.) this is the second most fastest way to not have a argument taken seriously, anytime somebody blames activist judges and there's 60+ of them (30+ federal) nobody honest and educated will take your argument seriously. Theres no reason to because it instantly proves how dishonest and full of hyperbole it is LMAO
The first way is comparing equal rights to bestiality and pedophilia.
6.) coorect cause im straight but gays are 60+ judges agree on this
7.) exactly this is why nobody cares about your opinions, especially the fed who are protecting peoples rights

you can keep trying to deny people tights though but your side is losing and losing big.
Click to expand...

Denying people tights? :shock:
 
roguenuke said:
Except that isn't what it started as. It was merely pair bonding in order to raise children with a higher chance of survival. That is what it started out as. And it wasn't even permanent. It was a temporary arrangement for the first few years of a child's life, to ensure they reached a more survivable age. Then it became more longterm when more people were needed to work the farms. Still, was about practicality, not spirituality nor religion.
Click to expand...

Really?

So you're arguing survival of the fittest??

Then why don't stray cats or dogs get married?

Oh yeah because everything you just said makes no damn sense whatsoever.

Also, you may as well argue against selective breeding to boot.
 
vesper said:
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.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry Vesper, if you think "Civil Unions" are going to fix the issue of Public Accommodation laws - you are mistaken.

Sweetcakes by Mellisa (Oregon) - There was no Civil Marriage at the time in Oregon, the baker ran afoul of Public Accommodation for failure to provide service to a homosexual couple even though their was no Civil Marraige in the State.

Elane Photography (New Mexico) - There was no Civil Marriage at the time in New Mexico, the photographer ran afoul of Public Accommodation for failure to provide service to a homosexual couple even though their was no Civil Marraige in the State.

Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado) - There was no Civil Marriage at the time in Colorado, the baker ran afoul of Public Accommodation for failure to provide service to a homosexual couple even though their was no Civil Marraige in the State.​


Even if the State offers "Civil Unions" individuals are still free to call their ceremony a wedding and, under the laws in such states, would be in violation of the law for not providing full and equal services.


>>>>
 
tres borrachos said:
Yup (from Chief Justice Warren's opinion):

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Click to expand...
But ....but...you said:

"it's a long long long way from gay marriage rights to the civil rights movement."
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Hon, the most basic of civil rights.....is a human right protected by law.

First you argued that "it's a long long long way from gay marriage rights to the civil rights movement."

Now you cite Loving where it is shown that "marriage is the most basic of civil rights"

So you should be able to see that the civil rights movement, the fight for basic human rights protected by law....is not that far away from gay marriage rights.....especially when Loving is cited in Judge Walker's decision.

But no, instead you decide to distract with "I don't consider marriage fundamental to our existence and survival."

So I would say....yes, you are done, by default.
Click to expand...

"Hon"?

You think not getting a piece of paper is a tragedy. I don't. You agree with SCOTUS judges almost 50 years ago that society needs marriage to exist survive. I don't. I think Imminent Domain is a threat to my basic rights. You don't.

Isn't America wonderful that we can have our own opinions without having to justify them for fear of being tossed in a gulag?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom