• 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!

South Carolina Supreme Court Halts Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

Papa bull said:
It's not about religion for me. It's about recognizing that male female bonded pairs are what nature intended and I don't see any purpose to sanction unnatural relationships. We could quibble for pages now about what's "natural", but I think it's plenty clear enough.
Click to expand...

Actually you just lost from a debate perspective. You just used what is called an "appeal to nature" which is a logical fallacy where you argue something is good or bad based on just whether it is natural. Cars and computers are not natural but are neither good or bad based on that state. Cannibalism, war, and rape exist in nature but are not good because they are natural. Same-sex pair bondings do exist in various species in nature but that does not mean same sex marriage is good or bad.

What you really wanted to do was use a teleological definition of "nature" which Paul used to argue that God designed the world where all things serve a purpose and anything outside that design is immoral, sinful, and wrong. But that argument is theological in nature, and the very reason you do not want to discuss the definition of natural. You need to be honest with yourself and acknowledge your feelings on this topic are entirely religious and not based on secular logic. There is nothing wrong or diminishing about having religious objections to same-sex marriage. All it means is you cannot impose those views without being theocratic.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Actually you just lost from a debate perspective. You just used what is called an "appeal to nature" which is a logical fallacy where you argue something is good or bad based on just whether it is natural. Cars and computers are not natural but are neither good or bad based on that state. Cannibalism, war, and rape exist in nature but are not good because they are natural. Same-sex pair bondings do exist in various species in nature but that does not mean same sex marriage is good or bad.

What you really wanted to do was use a teleological definition of "nature" which Paul used to argue that God designed the world where all things serve a purpose and anything outside that design is immoral, sinful, and wrong. But that argument is theological in nature, and the very reason you do not want to discuss the definition of natural. You need to be honest with yourself and acknowledge your feelings on this topic are entirely religious and not based on secular logic. There is nothing wrong or diminishing about having religious objections to same-sex marriage. All it means is you cannot impose those views without being theocratic.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken. It's not a judgement of good or bad. It's a judgement of purpose and there is no purpose for society to sanction homosexual pairings.
 
Papa bull said:
You are mistaken. It's not a judgement of good or bad. It's a judgement of purpose and there is no purpose for society to sanction homosexual pairings.
Click to expand...

You actually need to show a state interest in preventing it. This has never been demonstrated and is one of the main reasons anti-ssm arguments fail repeatedly in courts. That's actually what I meant earlier when I told you that all your arguments have failed -- they have all failed in arguments in Federal courts -- and why I asked if you had anything new to present. The repeated and failed arguments aren't getting you anywhere.
 
Papa bull said:
You are mistaken. It's not a judgement of good or bad. It's a judgement of purpose and there is no purpose for society to sanction homosexual pairings.
Click to expand...

maintain equal rights

giving benefits to family's
 
Cardinal said:
You actually need to show a state interest in preventing it. This has never been demonstrated and is one of the main reasons anti-ssm arguments fail repeatedly in courts. That's actually what I meant earlier when I told you that all your arguments have failed -- they have all failed in arguments in Federal courts -- and why I asked if you had anything new to present. The repeated and failed arguments aren't getting you anywhere.
Click to expand...

I disagree and so do a number of the supreme court justices. That's why homosexual marriage is still not legal in most of the United States.
 
Papa bull said:
I disagree and so do a number of the supreme court justices. That's why homosexual marriage is still not legal in most of the United States.
Click to expand...

Correction: a minority of the United States. 31 states currently legal with 7 more on the way in the immediate future (you may recognize a state in yellow very familiar to you in the map below). And it's obvious you disagree, but this doesn't translate into successful arguments before a court. You need to come up with something new. Simply repeating the old, failed ones isn't doing anything for your side.

Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_United_States.jpg
ssmkey.jpg
 
Last edited:
Seriously, PapaBull, if you're going to hold a staunch position in a debate at least know the basic facts surrounding the discussion. Being rigidly against ssm and not even being aware, even in a general sense, of how many states currently have legal ssm, is just sort of...bizarre.
 
Papa bull said:
You are mistaken. It's not a judgement of good or bad. It's a judgement of purpose and there is no purpose for society to sanction homosexual pairings.
Click to expand...

ROFL. You just confirmed my argument. I am guessing you did not read past the first paragraph.

Purposes for same-sex marriage in society...
1. Providing stable, two parent homes for children raised by same-sex couples.
2. Encouraging monogamous sexual behavior and thereby reducing sexually transmitted diseases.
3. Increasing the physical, emotional, and mental health of gay and lesbian persons and reducing.health costs to society.
4. Broadening familial social support for when gays and lesbians age.

I could go on, but what you really meant is that same-sex marriage does not serve the religious purpose you envision for marriage.
 
CriticalThought said:
ROFL. You just confirmed my argument. I am guessing you did not read past the first paragraph.

Purposes for same-sex marriage in society...
1. Providing stable, two parent homes for children raised by same-sex couples.
2. Encouraging monogamous sexual behavior and thereby reducing sexually transmitted diseases.
3. Increasing the physical, emotional, and mental health of gay and lesbian persons and reducing.health costs to society.
4. Broadening familial social support for when gays and lesbians age.

I could go on, but what you really meant is that same-sex marriage does not serve the religious purpose you envision for marriage.
Click to expand...

See, where you and me go off in very different directions is that you think what YOUR opinion about the benefits to society are should trump what SOCIETY's opinion. Society is able to make the determination for itself much better than you can make the determination for it.
 
Papa bull said:
See, where you and me go off in very different directions is that you think what YOUR opinion about the benefits to society are should trump what SOCIETY's opinion. Society is able to make the determination for itself much better than you can make the determination for it.
Click to expand...

And "society" (in the form of 55% of the country, and 80% of young adults) approves of same sex marriage.

Again, Papabull, know your basic background facts if you're going to hold a staunch position in a debate. Otherwise you may start to give the impression that you're making everything up as you go.
 
Cardinal said:
And "society" (in the form of 55% of the country, and 80% of young adults) approves of same sex marriage.

Again, Papabull, know your basic background facts if you're going to hold a staunch position in a debate. Otherwise you may start to give the impression that you're making everything up as you go.
Click to expand...

Whoops! Looks like I could stand to take my own advice: the number of 55% is a bit old and that number is actually 56%.

A majority of Americans support the Supreme Court’s decision to allow gay marriage to proceed in multiple states, a new poll says.

According to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Friday, 56 percent of Americans support the court’s decision earlier this month, compared with 38 percent who oppose it.
Click to expand...

Poll: Majority support SCOTUS gay marriage decision - Jonathan Topaz - POLITICO.com
 
Papa bull said:
See, where you and me go off in very different directions is that you think what YOUR opinion about the benefits to society are should trump what SOCIETY's opinion. Society is able to make the determination for itself much better than you can make the determination for it.
Click to expand...



It's a judgment of purpose and there is no purpose for society to sanction homosexual pairings.

that seems to be false you seem to be ignoring it
 
Papa bull said:
See, where you and me go off in very different directions is that you think what YOUR opinion about the benefits to society are should trump what SOCIETY's opinion. Society is able to make the determination for itself much better than you can make the determination for it.
Click to expand...

Appeal to the majority. Another logical fallacy. At one point of time a majority of society thought the earth was flat and circled by the sun. At one point in time a majority in society thought that slavery was a good idea. At one point in time a majority of society thought interracial marriage bans were good. A majority in society does not truly dictate whether something is good or bad. That said, 54% of the country now supports same-sex marriage. That does not in itself mean same-sex marriage is right or wrong.
 
Cardinal said:
And not even an accurate appeal to the majority, at that.
Click to expand...

Since marriage is an institution created by man and defined by man, what men think matters in ways that it wouldn't over simple assertions of fact. What most people consider marriage to be is what marriage actually is or at least should be since this is a democracy and marriage is a matter of democratic law. If the majority think homosexual marriage is something the state should sanction, the legislature should take that into consideration in their law governing marriage and it's definition. And vice versa.
 
Cardinal said:
Whoops! Looks like I could stand to take my own advice: the number of 55% is a bit old and that number is actually 56%.



Poll: Majority support SCOTUS gay marriage decision - Jonathan Topaz - POLITICO.com
Click to expand...

States rights. What San Francisco residents think doesn't hold water in Alabama. I've got no problem with states redefining marriage to include homosexuals if that supports the values of the people in that state. Not all states are full of people that think this sort of social experiment is a good idea.
 
Papa bull said:
Since marriage is an institution created by man and defined by man, what men think matters in ways that it wouldn't over simple assertions of fact. What most people consider marriage to be is what marriage actually is or at least should be since this is a democracy and marriage is a matter of democratic law. If the majority think homosexual marriage is something the state should sanction, the legislature should take that into consideration in their law governing marriage and it's definition. And vice versa.
Click to expand...

Would you like to try that again in English? I mean, I get that you're trying to come up with a new argument (I think -- I don't actually know what you said up there, so I could be wrong), and that's technically what I asked for, but it still needs to be presented with English grammar and syntax so that the recipient of your message can understand it.
 
Papa bull said:
States rights. What San Francisco residents think doesn't hold water in Alabama. I've got no problem with states redefining marriage to include homosexuals if that supports the values of the people in that state. Not all states are full of people that think this sort of social experiment is a good idea.
Click to expand...

The state right argument fails in court repeatedly. It hasn't worked before and it won't work now.
 
Cardinal said:
Would you like to try that again in English? I mean, I get that you're trying to come up with a new argument (I think -- I don't actually know what you said up there, so I could be wrong), and that's technically what I asked for, but it still needs to be presented with English grammar and syntax so that the recipient of your message can understand it.
Click to expand...

He means that if the state wants to re-define marriage the people should have some say in it, so make a law and pass it, but you know that the oligharchy won't stand for the people's voice being heard.

But it will be, whether they want it or not.
 
it's just me said:
He means that if the state wants to re-define marriage the people should have some say in it, so make a law and pass it, but you know that the oligharchy won't stand for the people's voice being heard.

But it will be, whether they want it or not.
Click to expand...

Ah, thanks for that. As I said, the state right argument fails repeatedly.
 
Cardinal said:
The state right argument fails in court repeatedly. It hasn't worked before and it won't work now.
Click to expand...

And that's the problem. It absolutely SHOULD be the state's right and the supreme court has NOT decreed that the state cannot manage it's own marriage laws. Not yet, anyway. We'll see if that ever happens.
 
Papa bull said:
And that's the problem. It absolutely SHOULD be the state's right and the supreme court has NOT decreed that the state cannot manage it's own marriage laws. Not yet, anyway. We'll see if that ever happens.
Click to expand...

If you want I can probably dig it up, but a SC justice said that as the lower courts were doing a fine and dandy job in their rulings, there was no need for them to step in.
 
Cardinal said:
If you want I can probably dig it up, but a SC justice said that as the lower courts were doing a fine and dandy job in their rulings, there was no need for them to step in.
Click to expand...

And another said that it would be a bad idea for them to step in, anyway, because it's something the states need to deal with at the legislative level. And yet another said that with homosexual marriage being such a new concept, it cannot be assumed that those rejecting it are doing so out of bigotry.
 
Papa bull said:
And that's the problem. It absolutely SHOULD be the state's right and the supreme court has NOT decreed that the state cannot manage it's own marriage laws. Not yet, anyway. We'll see if that ever happens.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has decreed that equal protection applies to marriage laws, and that equal protection applies to state laws.
 
Papa bull said:
States rights. What San Francisco residents think doesn't hold water in Alabama. I've got no problem with states redefining marriage to include homosexuals if that supports the values of the people in that state. Not all states are full of people that think this sort of social experiment is a good idea.
Click to expand...

We are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom