• 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!

Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

Divorce is not objectively harmful.
Then SSM is not objectively beneficial, and so there's no reason to support SSM.

Yet SSM is objectively beneficial, and that's why gays are pursuing SSM in the first place. SSM provides more stable homes for children (many gay couples already have children, believe it or not), and marriage itself, the simple act of being committed, supports stable relationships, which in turn is good for everyone.

Therefore divorce is objectively harmful and should be avoided.
 
so jerry thinks divorce is harmful and that harmful marriages should not be aloud an that divorce is a part of the rights associated with marriage

therefore he opposes all marriage?
50-60% of them, yes.
 
Then SSM is not objectively beneficial, and so there's no reason to support SSM.

Yet SSM is objectively beneficial, and that's why gays are pursuing SSM in the first place. SSM provides more stable homes for children (many gay couples already have children, believe it or not), and marriage itself, the simple act of being committed, supports stable relationships, which in turn is good for everyone.

Therefore divorce is objectively harmful and should be avoided.

You're wrong. One of the benefits of marriage is divorce, which legally recognizes the individual roles spouses play within individual marriages. It allows for a more fair division of assets when one or both parties in a relationship no longer want to be together. This increased protection helps to keep some people off of public support that would likely be there if not for their ability to legally divorce.

The problem is that you are viewing divorce from only a certain view. If everyone only got married, never lived together in intimate relationships outside of marriage, then there would be only divorce as an option for legally dissolving a relationship, since only marriage would be considered a lawful relationship. All other intimate relationships between people would be done outside the law, so not legally recognized in any manner. However, here in the real world, there are many other relationships out there that do lawfully exist. These relationships however are not recognized as legally the same as marriages, so they do not come with the same legal protections for dissolution of these relationships.

One of the recognized benefits of marriage is in fact divorce, or at least the results of divorce.

"Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce."

Marriage Rights and Benefits | Nolo.com
 
100 percent if divorce is harmful and a part of marriage itself

This is far from true. The first thing that springs to mind is divorce to get an abused spouse out of a marraige with their abuser.
 
This is far from true. The first thing that springs to mind is divorce to get an abused spouse out of a marraige with their abuser.

that's true.
 
As in literally? They sign the divorce papers.


Not when divorce is don to reduce conflict, it isn't. Many parents can get along better when they aren't living together.

an individual marriage is not the same as the right to marry

and having equal rights calls for the option of divorce in this case

your not making divorce seem objectively harmful at all
 
an individual marriage is not the same as the right to marry

and having equal rights calls for the option of divorce in this case

your not making divorce seem objectively harmful at all
Equality but only for certain groups is not equality. Coin the phrase "some people are more equal than others". SSM is not about equal rights, it's about gays having rights, and the right in question is the the right to let the State infringe on their privacy, which isn't much of a legitimate 'right' at all anyway. If SSM were about equal rights then we would be talking about all harmless unions, such a polygamy.

I trust you're intelligent enough to not buy into the 'equality' meme.
 
Equality but only for certain groups is not equality. Coin the phrase "some people are more equal than others". SSM is not about equal rights, it's about gays having rights, and the right in question is the the right to let the State infringe on their privacy, which isn't much of a legitimate 'right' at all anyway. If SSM were about equal rights then we would be talking about all harmless unions, such a polygamy.

I trust you're intelligent enough to not buy into the 'equality' meme.

its equality with hetero sexual couples
 
Equality but only for certain groups is not equality. Coin the phrase "some people are more equal than others". SSM is not about equal rights, it's about gays having rights, and the right in question is the the right to let the State infringe on their privacy, which isn't much of a legitimate 'right' at all anyway. If SSM were about equal rights then we would be talking about all harmless unions, such a polygamy.

I trust you're intelligent enough to not buy into the 'equality' meme.

I trust you're not dumb enough to buy into the "attacking states rights" meme.

SSM IS about gays having rights. equal rights.
 
I trust you're not dumb enough to buy into the "attacking states rights" meme.

SSM IS about gays having rights. equal rights.

If it were about equality under the law then we would be talking about all groups, not just those which distract the public from obama selling terrorists modern arms.
 
If it were about equality under the law then we would be talking about all groups, not just those which distract the public from obama selling terrorists modern arms.

No, because equal protection is not a silver bullet that applies to any and all perceived inequalities. Unequal treatment from the government is acceptable given sufficient justification. Not living in a black and white universe helps.

So, no, equal protection doesn't mean people get to marry dogs and furniture.
 
I don't know. Why?

I am trying to understand the limits of what a sanctioned marriage should look like in your estimation. I then plan to test for logical consistency in your position.

In your previous post you said the state had an interest in promoting stable marital relationships (which I'm not sure I agree to this point, with the exception of procreative and child rearing purposes), so I need to know how to define stable relationships.

Will your definition be arbitrary? or will there be consistency and a principled reason that designates the boundaries of those relationships.
 
I am trying to understand the limits of what a sanctioned marriage should look like in your estimation.
Well here ya go....
SSM is objectively beneficial, and that's why gays are pursuing SSM in the first place. SSM provides more stable homes for children (many gay couples already have children, believe it or not), and marriage itself, the simple act of being committed, supports stable relationships, which in turn is good for everyone.
When the relationship is otherwise harmfull, such as incest. Same-sex relationships are not otherwise harmfull and thus should be afforded access to marriage.

In your previous post you said the state had an interest in promoting stable marital relationships (which I'm not sure I agree to this point, with the exception of procreative and child rearing purposes), so I need to know how to define stable relationships.
I define words by looking them up in the dictionary. I do not use personal definitions since I did not invent the language. Therefore, using the dictionary, a "stable relationship" is the consistent and change resistant way in which two or more spouses talk to, behave toward, and deal with each other. The state in which the relationship exists when they marry is thought to be the starting point, and any change to that should occur slowly and with careful consideration so as to be constructive.

Will your definition be arbitrary? or will there be consistency and a principled reason that designates the boundaries of those relationships.
My definitions are as arbitrary as the dictionary.
 
Last edited:
No, because equal protection is not a silver bullet that applies to any and all perceived inequalities.
Right, exactly. Just because you think a SSM ban sucks, doesn't mean the 14th applies. That's just a surrogate argument used to get SSM. It is not a valid way to enact policy.
 
Well here ya go....




I define words by looking them up in the dictionary. I do not use personal definitions since I did not invent the language. Therefore, using the dictionary, a "stable relationship" is the consistent and change resistant way in which two or more spouses talk to, behave toward, and deal with each other. The state in which the relationship exists when they marry is thought to be the starting point, and any change to that should occur slowly and with careful consideration so as to be constructive.


My definitions are as arbitrary as the dictionary.

Good non answer. I can use a dictionary just fine.
The context of my questions were, if you remember, why limit it to two? I want to know if you would personally be in favor of limiting in some fashion the parties in a sanctioned marriage. Must a stable relationship be limited to two? Are there any other possible relationships that might be considered stable, yet appropriately be limited and stand outside sanctioned marriage by law? If so what is the distinction in those relationships that makes it so?
 
Good non answer.
It was a direct answer.


I can use a dictionary just fine.
Then you don't need to ask for definitions.

The context of my questions were, if you remember, why limit it to two?
I have no reason why marriage should be limited marriage to 2. Do you?


I want to know if you would personally be in favor of limiting in some fashion the parties in a sanctioned marriage.
Yes. I literaly just answered that question for you. When the relationship is otherwise harmfull, such as incest, marrying minors or anyone else who cannot consent.


Must a stable relationship be limited to two?
Not IMO.

Are there any other possible relationships that might be considered stable, yet appropriately be limited and stand outside sanctioned marriage by law?
Incest, again. That relationship may be stable but it's otherwise harmfull.

****
Ive already answered these questions so Im thinking you dont read all the words in a post.
 
It's a fair question. Aren't you concerned that every single time this goes to court bans against ssm are shot down? Even accounting for the dreaded "activist" judge, if bans against ssm are not, in fact unconstitutional, then even you have to admit that this defies the laws of odds. Maybe, you know...you just don't really understand what this whole Constitution thing is about and how it works?

OR it could be that YOU don't understand how our courts function as opposed to how they are supposed to function. SCOTUS abandons their oath, makes a decision that is basically rewriting the Constitution. That decision becomes precedent from which a number of lower court decisions derive. Some of them even interpreting in their own rewrites thusly.

That's the problem when you allow the courts to do what the people should be doing.
 
I guess, in the end, some people are just afraid of the precedent of a court expanding individual liberty. That's fair, clownboy. We can agree to disagree.

The only fear I have in this has already come to pass. That people will forget they must maintain their Constitution because the courts are more than willing to take that over for them.
 
Right, exactly. Just because you think a SSM ban sucks, doesn't mean the 14th applies. That's just a surrogate argument used to get SSM. It is not a valid way to enact policy.

No, that's not why the 14th applies.

The 14th applies because classifications of gender require intermediate scrutiny under the 14th amendment, the test being that the measure is "substantially related to an important state interest."

Name the interest.
 
OR it could be that YOU don't understand how our courts function as opposed to how they are supposed to function. SCOTUS abandons their oath, makes a decision that is basically rewriting the Constitution. That decision becomes precedent from which a number of lower court decisions derive. Some of them even interpreting in their own rewrites thusly.

That's the problem when you allow the courts to do what the people should be doing.

The "problem" of expanding individual liberty. Shaking in my boots.
 
It was a direct answer.



Then you don't need to ask for definitions.

I have no reason why marriage should be limited marriage to 2. Do you?



Yes. I literaly just answered that question for you. When the relationship is otherwise harmfull, such as incest, marrying minors or anyone else who cannot consent.



Not IMO.


Incest, again. That relationship may be stable but it's otherwise harmfull.

****
Ive already answered these questions so Im thinking you dont read all the words in a post.

Given your answers I might guess that you are in favor of polygamy, yes? Further it is discriminatory to pass laws against it, yes?
 
Back
Top Bottom