• 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

It is my position that the Supreme Court of the United States of America cannot base its ruling on the repercussions it might have on someone's afterlife. Outside their jurisdiction, you see.

So yes, you need something in the mortal realm that I can actually assess.

Please answer the question.
 
Yes people are objecting to a specific form of discrimination, and in so doing are calling into question the character of those who oppose their point of view. Using terms like "bigot" to impugn the character of advocates of traditional marriage. Meanwhile, others are undergoing discrimination without anyone giving it a second thought. Why? Because as you said all discrimination is not equal. How do we decide? Social norms. Therefore the traditionalist is no more bigoted than the social liberal that does not believe that polygamy should be allowed. The courts are not ruling on the discriminatory nature of excluding consenting parties from marrying. The courts are actively working to adjust social norms for the benefit of a certain class of individuals.

Advocates of traditional marriage use all sorts of awful words to describe homosexuals and those who support them. My concern is not for namecalling or who is bothered by it.

The courts are working to uphold the constitution.
 
Last edited:
Please answer the question.

I will, when you name a specific, tangible impact same-sex marriage has on your life. I asked first, you still haven't answered.

"I am unable to answer" is an acceptable response. At that point I will answer your question.
 
Because the government doesn't have the authority to define marriage as between a man and a woman without indicating that doing so is "substantially related" to an "important state interest," else the measure in question is unconstitutional. The same would hold true for a business contract or a prenuptial agreement or a will.

The government has traditionally deferred to the judgement of the church in social matters finding that the church should be a nontaxed entity because of the "important state interest" in allowing the church to serve the people as it sees fit.
 
I will, when you name a specific, tangible impact same-sex marriage has on your life. I asked first, you still haven't answered.

"I am unable to answer" is an acceptable response. At that point I will answer your question.

I am unable to come up with an answer meeting your criteria (which does not mean that one doesn't exist, it may or may not). Although I challenge the need for those criteria, thus my question.
 
Advocates of traditional marriage use all sorts of awful words to describe homosexuals and those who support them. My concern is not for namecalling or who is bothered by it.

The courts are working to uphold the constitution.

Where in the constitution does it address marriage?
 
I am unable to come up with an answer meeting your criteria (which does not mean that one doesn't exist, it may or may not). Although I challenge the need for those criteria, thus my question.

The reason for the criteria is that human judges cannot use the supernatural to decide the law. That which humans cannot observe, the law cannot dictate. And America is built upon a foundation of individual liberty. My personal, moral disapproval of someone else's actions is not enough reason to restrict their freedom to that action. Our government is hamstrung by the constitution. It is not allowed to restrict our freedom without sufficient justification. It is not allowed to classify its citizens differently without sufficient justification. Such justifications have to come from something identifiable. To restrict someone's freedom, you need to demonstrate why. I don't approve of Scientologists. Their beliefs are reprehensible. In my opinion, it's a cult that tricks people to get their money. But my disapproval is not enough to prevent Bob from joining them, or believing what they believe.

I want tighter gun control. But the government can't do that without a good enough reason. And because gun ownership is a right stipulated in the constitution, the bar for this is quite high. The need must be great, and the measure must be the least restrictive measure possible. Well, marriage is also a fundamental right. Marriage is a basic component of the family unit, which is the building block of a society. The right is so fundamental that we cannot even deny it to a criminal. Someone currently in jail still must be allowed to get married, and those are people who have undergone due process, those are people who have had the most basic rights imaginable stripped from them. Any restriction on who can marry who has to be met with a powerful justification.

While you might personally believe that this family unit must be based on a man and a woman, the government doesn't have the luxury of leaning on belief alone. If the legal contract exists, any private citizen must be allowed to enter into it barring a sufficient state interest in preventing it. Because the government is hamstrung by our constitution, and we made it that way to preserve individual freedom. Under the 14th amendment, a distinction of gender must be justified by an "important state interest" that the measure is "substantially related" to furthering. That's it. That's the test. Marriage contract, business contract, speed limits, doesn't matter. That's the test you need to pass for the state to sanction a distinction of gender.



As for your question, I believe that if it's not measurable, or empirical, "truth" will always be subjective to some degree. Your belief in God's will may be absolute, and that a particular reading of his word is absolute. Thing is, there's another guy who has a different reading of the same words, and he believes that to be absolute. A while back, people said similar things about Zeus. A mortal court system can't judge these things. Robbery causes specific, measurable harm to the victim. A wiccan casting a blood curse upon you does not. So the wiccan gets to chant their words over a bowl of newts, or whatever it is they do.
 
Last edited:
Where in the constitution does it address marriage?

The constitution addresses equal protection under the law, and due process of law. I've already mentioned the mechanics of this several times.
 
Well for one, pushing for marriage. That is part of the agenda that contributes to the "lifestyle". I didn't know I had to explain that. It seems pretty self explanatory.

It's not self-explanatory or I wouldnt be asking. Straight couples desire marriage so that is a SIMILARITY in 'lifestyle,' not a difference.

Yes, please do tell us how the 'gay lifestyle' is different from the 'straight lifestyle,' aside from being the same gender.

Straight people buy houses, cars, go on vacation, raise families, go to PTA, take their kids to soccer and dance class, mow their lawns, take out the garbage, go to church, do community service, etc etc etc.

Can you please tell me how the 'gay lifestyle' differs?
 
Wanting a right and having a right are two different things. No "right to marry" ever was to include men marrying men. Or women marrying women.

Women werent 'meant' to have the vote either. Or black people.

Funny how society's forward strides and fairness and equality finally surface when enough people stand up and demand it.
 
Google is your friend.

It makes their being unfulfilled.

I'm curious about this. My brother is gay, and so far as I can see he has three options.

1) Live a life alone
2) Pretend to be straight and live a lie
3) Be gay, hopefully spend his life with someone he loves.

Now you're saying the third option is the one that would result in his life being 'unfulfilled?' I don't understand how you'd believe that. Maybe you think there is a fourth option, become straight? It's the only thing that might sense in this context, but of course it's not an actual option.
 
My "socially unacceptable" comment was not directed at ssm only. I think you missed the point of my post. The point is that there are arbitrary limits to what is acceptable as marriage. It is no more discriminatory to exclude gay marriage than it is to exclude polygamy, or any other arrangement that people could consent to. Therefore allowing SSM does NOTHING to remedy discrimination, it only moves the line between acceptable and unacceptable.

Not allowing SSM is gender discrimination. Some states also recognize sexual orientation as a protected class, so then they would be discriminated against as well.

If other consenting adults (the only ones who can enter into contract in this country) want the right to marry, then they need to make their case Constitutionally.

For the record, I am not against polygamy (altho I think it's a dumb move for women) or incestuous marriage (because I dont believe many people would petition for this NOR that it would stop the actual results which are the reason it is illegal).
 
I'm not morbidly self-centered. As such I don't restrict my concern to matters which directly affect me.

Who or what does SSM negatively affect?
 
Encouraging people in grave immorality is harmful to them, as such impedes their fulfillment of their telos.

No it doesnt. Prove it.

LOL
 
Straight people buy houses, cars, go on vacation, raise families, go to PTA, take their kids to soccer and dance class, mow their lawns, take out the garbage, go to church, do community service, etc etc etc.

Can you please tell me how the 'gay lifestyle' differs?

Sounds about right from the gay lifestyle I've seen in action! But to be fair, they are a pretty fit bunch, at least my brother's friends.
 
Does it (the term marriage) belong to polygamists? Does it belong to straight males who want to marry one another for monetary benefit? Does it really belong to everyone for any reason?

It already does (see bold).

There are no 'qualifications' for ANYONE of opposite gender in this country to marry, except age. So there's an obvious discrimination right there based on gender. Felons in jail that beat their previous wives to death can still marry any woman over 18 and younger if she has her parents' permission in some states.

Edit: SOrry, I misread what I bolded. I thought it referred to opposite genders. Because it doesnt make sense to me as written. Because until recently...and still not in every state...males could not/cannot marry males for ANY reason. Because no reasons are required for opposite gender couples to marry at all.
 
two words: Societal norms. You are making my point. Arbitrary lines for socially acceptable behavior exist everywhere including in law. The push for SSM is not a push to remedy discrimination, it is a push to change social norms. If it were about discrimination all non traditional ideas of marriage would be in play, not just ssm.

Societal norms have reached a tipping point and have changed/are changing. THat should be pretty obvious.

Societal norms made a huge shift during Jim Crow too....was still about discrimination. They tend to drive each other to gain the momentum to do what's right.
 
Last edited:
Why not? Why is it wrong to recognize the traditional role that the church plays in marriage? The vast majority of Americans believe marriage to be a church / God ordained activity.

However NO straight Americans, atheist, agnostic, pagan, ANY belief or no belief, are denied engaging in that contract. And it's not so vast a majority anymore. Not vast at all, esp. when many gay couples are indeed religious and believe in the sanctity of marriage in the eyes of God too. And many churches/religions are happy to marry them.
 
Last edited:
Is it your position that only those statements of fact which can be empirically measured or tested, are true?

Is it your position that opinions based on faith or philosophy (that do not directly infringe on the rights of others) should be made law and/or forced on people who do not believe the same?
 
Yes people are objecting to a specific form of discrimination, and in so doing are calling into question the character of those who oppose their point of view. Using terms like "bigot" to impugn the character of advocates of traditional marriage. Meanwhile, others are undergoing discrimination without anyone giving it a second thought. Why? Because as you said all discrimination is not equal. How do we decide? Social norms. Therefore the traditionalist is no more bigoted than the social liberal that does not believe that polygamy should be allowed. The courts are not ruling on the discriminatory nature of excluding consenting parties from marrying. The courts are actively working to adjust social norms for the benefit of a certain class of individuals.


The 'character of traditional marriage?' Impugn it?

Moreso than all the adulterers, wife beaters, child abusers, divorcees, swingers, that already have? How will gays marrying harm it more than that? THose are all intentional acts that do actual harm to others. Gay marriage does NO harm....no one here has shown any at all.
 
Not everywhere. And I am sure you will say "yet". So you don't have to, I am sure the continued circling of the drain for America is for us to be come the next Sodom and Gomorrah.

I know its not legally possible every where but it is possible every where and is the case in some places same gender couples can get married and marriage has been defined to include them

so marriage can be between homosexual couples
 
Not everywhere. And I am sure you will say "yet". So you don't have to, I am sure the continued circling of the drain for America is for us to be come the next Sodom and Gomorrah.

Are you basing US laws on the Bible?
 
More clear thinking. Wow.

clear yes wow worthy no the pore dammed souls on hear who go for that slippery slope bitch about the inevitability of such horrible things as bestiality and pedophilia and that the 2 of those must be involved in legal marriage if we have gay marriage

but they have to then pretend that there's something wrong with those things to squish any objections sane people point out

its like those people cant see the difference between 1 things they consider evil/yucky and another

also if other forms of marriage could become legal you don't need gay marriage to be legal 1st

as all the gay mage arguments boil down to how there equivalent to marriages we allow already
 
Not everywhere. And I am sure you will say "yet". So you don't have to, I am sure the continued circling of the drain for America is for us to be come the next Sodom and Gomorrah.

you mean all of us will become gay for some reasons and we will then all try to gang rape angels even though you offer us your virgin daughters

after we reject all of us god blind and your wife will be turned into something savory

and after that your kids will get you drunk and rape you to have baby's?


if your going to say the place will become a fairy tale could you pick a better one
 
Back
Top Bottom