• 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!

Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

Papa bull said:
Whether the state does or does not endorse homosexual marriages has no bearing on your freedom. Freedom has nothing to do with something others have to give you and state sanctioned marriage is a concession from the state and it's no restriction of your freedom if you don't have it. Anyone that considers not being married to be a restriction of their freedom is a little nuts, anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes is does have a bearing on your freedom. It has a bearing for example on your financial situation compared to a heterosexual couple in an equally committed relationship. It has bearing on your freedom to adopt and raise children compared to a heterosexual person. Furthermore, heterosexual couples do not have to endure the comments of people that they should be happy not to be locked up for having a relationship/sex, you for example did say that about gay couples in this thread. Then there are restrictions on medical decisions, healthcare, mortgages, loans, housing, contracts, etc. etc. etc. that can be simply avoided by being married, just like it is with heterosexual couples.
 
Papa bull said:
Not at all. I think the state has the right to create tax benefits for relationships that it wants to encourage without being forced to give that incentive to relationships it doesn't not want to endorse. Our state doesn't see the point in endorsing homosexual marriage and giving incentives to promote them, so it doesn't.
Click to expand...

All men are created equal. That is what the preamble says, not some people are created more equal than others and they just have to accept that.
 
Papa bull said:
And I respect your right to your own opinion even though you don't have a monopoly on defining conservative values, either. My respect for homosexual relationships isn't the issue and your relationship is your business. Only when people want the state to sanction their relationship does that become their business - not the relationship; just the sanction. And with homosexual marriage being a novel concept only realized for the first time in modern history since 2001, I think it's more than a little unreasonable for anyone to think that failure to embrace it must be purely because of bigotry or a desire to oppress anyone. It's a social experiment so novel that it will take some time for everyone to get used to it. Where it takes us is anyone's guess. Will the whole world end up promoting homosexual marriages? Will it be a mistake that we rescind? Will it be something that turns out to be so insignificant that we'll all wonder what the fuss was about? No one knows.
Click to expand...

no one has to embrace it they just have to stop denying people equal rights

people still dont embrace woman, minority rights and interracial marriage, that's meanignless

anybody standing in the way that wants to ACTIVELY FIGHT AGAINST it, is in fact a bigot and or against equal rights . . that much is crystal clear, theres no other logical arguments
 
Papa bull said:
The "homosexuality is a race" argument fails supremely.
Click to expand...

Neither is heterosexual. And that "race" gets preferential treatment from the government when it comes to taxes.
 
AGENT J said:
no one has to embrace it they just have to stop denying people equal rights

people still dont embrace woman, minority rights and interracial marriage, that's meanignless

anybody standing in the way that wants to ACTIVELY FIGHT AGAINST it, is in fact a bigot and or against equal rights . . that much is crystal clear, theres no other logical arguments
Click to expand...

Well, I can't say that there ARE no other logical arguments, but I haven't seen any, and PapaBull hasn't mentioned any, despite being asked to provide them. And when the issue goes in front of the courts, there are no 'logical' arguments presented then either - just appeals to tradition and/or religion.
 
Papa bull said:
I think you're right on point, actually.

I think the real reason why homosexuals are demanding homosexual marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with equal rights because they already have equal rights. They are pursuing the homosexual marriage agenda for two primary reasons.

1. To poke a stick in the eye of Christians and Christianity
2. To be able to say that homosexuality is normal

Civil Unions wouldn't do those two things even if they conveyed every benefit that marriage does to homosexual couples. Therefore, civil unions were unacceptable. It had nothing at all to do with rights. This issue has been driven by homosexual militants. Most homosexuals I've know have had no interest in marriage for the sake of marriage. Many have told me that their homosexual lifestyle was about eschewing the "normal" model of marriage and kids.

What the long term consequences will be, no one knows because no society that endorsed homosexuality has stood the test of time and so we have no example to take a lesson from. But I think it's clear to see that in our country, the homosexuals will prevail. How it changes society in this country is something we can only guess about.
Click to expand...

Yes, why would gays want to walk down the aisle and promise eternal love for one another at the alter. I cannot imagine why they would except of course to irritate those annoying religious people who think they are so high and mighty that they should be allowed to keep the feeling of wedded bliss purely to themselves.

The problem is that in the US the simple civil act of getting married has been pulled into the religious universe. In the US marriage has been made into a religious ceremony when it ought to be a civil one. It is a contract of sort and it is ridiculous that you should want to make that contract valid by the signature/stamp of approval of a priest.

Make marriage a civil act in which 2 people stand in front of a judge or a dedicated government employee in which they are legally bound into matrimony. Then, for people who are religiously inflicted/of religious beliefs, can go down to their local church and perform a religious bond with no legal but purely spiritual and religious implications.

That way religious folks can keep their religious wedding ceremony intact and gays can have the same civil rights as straight people have.

And we have had gay marriage for 13 plus years and it has not changed anything to the status of the institute of marriage.
 
Papa bull said:
Thank you for sharing that stupid assumption with me. I'm not religious. You don't have to be religious to acknowledge that the desire to poke a stick in the eye of Christians is one of the primary motivations for homosexuals demanding marriage instead of civil unions. You just have to be honest and willing to call things the way they really are.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with those stupid religious people who take offense at everything, it has to do with the simple fact that it should not be necessary for gays to make do with civil unions when there is no reason whatsoever for them to not be included in the institute of marriage. None whatsoever.
 
JasperL said:
Well, I can't say that there ARE no other logical arguments, but I haven't seen any, and PapaBull hasn't mentioned any, despite being asked to provide them. And when the issue goes in front of the courts, there are no 'logical' arguments presented then either - just appeals to tradition and/or religion.
Click to expand...

well I guess thats a good point, maybe there is one out there lol
but you are right NONE have been presented

i have two threads here asking for reason and nobody could ever do it.
the first one was closed because it approached 2000 posts and they shut them down around then, Part II goes to 1200+ posts. and still NOT one legitimate recent to stop equal rights.
 
Papa bull said:
You keep trying to frame it as an equal rights issue and it isn't.
Click to expand...

Well, but it is an equal rights issue, gays should not have to settle for civil unions.
 
Peter King said:
All men are created equal. That is what the preamble says, not some people are created more equal than others and they just have to accept that.
Click to expand...

Equality isn't the issue. No one is barred from marriage because they're a homosexual. Homosexuals have all the rights everyone else has.
 
Papa bull said:
Equality isn't the issue. No one is barred from marriage because they're a homosexual. Homosexuals have all the rights everyone else has.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure they are being barred from marriage because they are homosexual because they are not free to marry the partner they want to marry.
 
Papa bull said:
Equality isn't the issue. No one is barred from marriage because they're a homosexual. Homosexuals have all the rights everyone else has.
Click to expand...

this lie has already been destroyed repeatedly by many posts and posters, oh yeah and court cases LMAO

repeat it as many times as you want it a failed fallacy and strawman.
 
Peter King said:
Pretty sure they are being barred from marriage because they are homosexual because they are not free to marry the partner they want to marry.
Click to expand...

thats what the court cases say . . but i guess those dont count lol
 
Peter King said:
And we (The Netherlands) have had gay marriage for 13 plus years and it has not changed anything to the status of the institute of marriage.
Click to expand...

Let's see how marriage has made out in the Netherlands since 2001. Marriage is at the lowest level as a percentage of the population since 1935. Only 1 in 10 homosexuals is married today and marriage as a social institution is in steady decline. The Netherlands blows away any argument that homosexual marriage is actually a good thing for the institution of marriage in our society. It either coincides with the dismal decline of marriage in the Netherlands or is at least partly to blame for it.

Conclusion from this evaluation: http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.May2011-rev.pdf is below.

After ten years of same‐sex marriage, approximately 9 out of 10 gay and lesbian
people in the Netherlands have still not chosen to enter a legal marriage.* *Marriage
as a social institution continues to decline, with lower rates of marriage, higher rates of
divorce and out of wedlock childbearing among opposite sex couples.

As noted above, correlation does not prove causation.**

At a minimum the data from the Netherlands does suggest that the hopes of
those making a conservative case for gay marriage that it will strengthen marriage
generally and dramatically increase the stability and fidelity among same‐sex
couples‐‐are likely to be disappointed.
Click to expand...
 
Papa bull said:
Let's see how marriage has made out in the Netherlands since 2001. Marriage is at the lowest level as a percentage of the population since 1935. Only 1 in 10 homosexuals is married today and marriage as a social institution is in steady decline. The Netherlands blows away any argument that homosexual marriage is actually a good thing for the institution of marriage in our society. It either coincides with the dismal decline of marriage in the Netherlands or is at least partly to blame for it.

Conclusion from this evaluation: http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.May2011-rev.pdf is below.
Click to expand...

LMAO another failed strawman, you realize theres not ONE fact here that supports equal rights is bad for marriage? not ONE
 
Papa bull said:
Let's see how marriage has made out in the Netherlands since 2001. Marriage is at the lowest level as a percentage of the population since 1935. Only 1 in 10 homosexuals is married today and marriage as a social institution is in steady decline. The Netherlands blows away any argument that homosexual marriage is actually a good thing for the institution of marriage in our society. It either coincides with the dismal decline of marriage in the Netherlands or is at least partly to blame for it.

Conclusion from this evaluation: http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.May2011-rev.pdf is below.
Click to expand...

All that means is that people see government-run marriage as the sham it is. Why would anyone want to enter into material contract and lose all their assets if the marriage doesn't work out? It's not worth it anymore, not with the financial pressures of the modern world. People don't want to sign that kind of contract. I know of many people who had marriage ceremonies with their communities and loved ones, and did not invite government. So what if it's not legally recognized? Legal recognition means that big brother gets to tell you what to do with your money and assets.

That said, people should have equal right to enter into a marriage contract with another consenting adult of their choosing, regardless of their sex. It's not hard to grasp.

As for the OP... America is woefully behind the times. Most western nations settled this question years ago. For instance, Canada did in 2005, with a single parliamentary discussion about it. The U.S. lacks the integrity to make a nation-wide ruling, which makes no sense. Either everyone is equal or they're not. Leaving it up to the States means you can equivocate on equality. Sad.

Yeah... Alaska's ruling is a victory which is great, but it's the year 2014 and the U.S. is still divided over an issue which, according to its Bill of Rights, is rather cut and dry. Most other countries in the free world got off the gay marriage party bus years ago.
 
Peter King said:
Pretty sure they are being barred from marriage because they are homosexual because they are not free to marry the partner they want to marry.
Click to expand...

They are not barred from marriage. The fact that marriage law requires the union of one of EACH sex - the pairing of opposites that is actually MARRIAGE does not bar them from being married. There is no law stating that you must assert that you are heterosexual before being married. The pairing of opposite sexes is the very purpose of marriage. The homogenous union of two people of the same sex is something but it's not a marriage. At least it wasn't until the Canada and the Netherlands decided to volunteer to be guinea pigs in this social experiment. I think it's too bad we aren't waiting longer to see what happens to them before deciding to join them. I think it's foolish on our part.
 
Papa bull said:
They are not barred from marriage. The fact that marriage law requires the union of one of EACH sex - the pairing of opposites that is actually MARRIAGE does not bar them from being married. There is no law stating that you must assert that you are heterosexual before being married. The pairing of opposite sexes is the very purpose of marriage. The homogenous union of two people of the same sex is something but it's not a marriage. At least it wasn't until the Canada and the Netherlands decided to volunteer to be guinea pigs in this social experiment. I think it's too bad we aren't waiting longer to see what happens to them before deciding to join them. I think it's foolish on our part.
Click to expand...

everything you post, facts, laws, and court cases prove wrong, why do you think people will believe it?
once again nobody is fooled.
 
Papa bull said:
Equality isn't the issue. No one is barred from marriage because they're a homosexual. Homosexuals have all the rights everyone else has.
Click to expand...

No they don't have the same rights as everyone else if they wish to marry someone of the same gender, so you're wrong.
 
HenryChinaski said:
No they don't have the same rights as everyone else if they wish to marry someone of the same gender, so you're wrong.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The laws apply equally to you whether you are heterosexual or not. A heterosexual can't marry someone of the same sex, either. This isn't an equal rights issue.
 
Papa bull said:
Note that the states aren't banning homosexual liaisons. A state's ban on gay marriage is a statement that it is not going to be coerced into normalizing homosexuality and sanctioning homosexual unions and giving tax incentives for people to enter into homosexual unions. The "benefit" is that they don't have to jump through whatever hoops homosexuals want. Unless a state sees a benefit in doing so, it shouldn't be made to do so and this state sees no benefit in sanctioning homosexual unions as "marriage" and I think my state's decision is a wise one.
Click to expand...

Even if all this nonsense were true, what is the state's interest in preventing homosexuality from being normalized or in not providing incentives for gays to marry? Other than your own personal distaste or the distaste of some religious groups which does not constitute a legitimate state interest, of course.

CriticalThought said:
You are not incorrect. However, the equal protection clause is an exception because its purpose was to limit state powers. The real question is then not whether their is a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage but whether or not states have the Constitutional authority to ban same-sex marriage. That is where your side has failed to provide a sufficient argument as to the rationality of these bans. But if you do not even recognize the legitimacy of the courts to interpret the Constitution then there really is no debate to be had. You reject the very notion of how the government has been run for over 200 years.
Click to expand...

I have never understood how a person can read that the judiciary's power extends to all cases arising under the constitution but claim that a petitioner cannot contend that an act by congress violates the constitution. Or rather, that no court can grant that particular relief to a petitioner. Ultimately, that argument contends that the only check at all on congress is the presidential veto. Otherwise, there is no actual way of making congress adhere to the constitution. Otherwise they are free to violate it at all. And it's the small government conservatives who make this argument. It's very confusing.
 
Papa bull said:
Let's see how marriage has made out in the Netherlands since 2001. Marriage is at the lowest level as a percentage of the population since 1935. Only 1 in 10 homosexuals is married today and marriage as a social institution is in steady decline. The Netherlands blows away any argument that homosexual marriage is actually a good thing for the institution of marriage in our society. It either coincides with the dismal decline of marriage in the Netherlands or is at least partly to blame for it.

Conclusion from this evaluation: http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.May2011-rev.pdf is below.
Click to expand...

No, marriage is not in decline. You talk the talk but you do not know the facts.

Marriage before 2001 was the only option to get the benefits that married couples get in the Netherlands. Around 2001 gays and straight were given the option of either marrying or opting for a registered partnership for people who never were really into the whole marriage thing but did want legal protection in case of death, taxes, etc. etc. etc.

So the number of marriage may have gone down from about 82 thousand a year to about 72 thousand (up to 2012) but where before 2001 there were zero registered partnerships, now there are about 10,000 every year. Making the entire number of registered relationships is still about 82 thousand.

And also, there is also the fact that people no longer feel the need to get a marriage license anymore. If a child is born in the Netherlands it is no longer necessary for the parents to be married but still get the name of the father. Even my grandmother choose to shack up with a guy without getting married after my grandfather died. It is not gay weddings that have made there be less marriages, it is the passing of time and the emancipation of women.

Sorry, but your comments just make no sense.
 
Papa bull said:
They are not barred from marriage. The fact that marriage law requires the union of one of EACH sex - the pairing of opposites that is actually MARRIAGE does not bar them from being married. There is no law stating that you must assert that you are heterosexual before being married. The pairing of opposite sexes is the very purpose of marriage. The homogenous union of two people of the same sex is something but it's not a marriage. At least it wasn't until the Canada and the Netherlands decided to volunteer to be guinea pigs in this social experiment. I think it's too bad we aren't waiting longer to see what happens to them before deciding to join them. I think it's foolish on our part.
Click to expand...

In other words, they are being barred from marrying the one they love. Simple and it proves that they cannot marry the one they love, the only way the can marry is if they lie and live a fake life. Sorry but that is not being allowed to marry, that is raping your own personality just so that you can have a dishonest marriage with a woman.

And it is not a social experiment, it is respecting actual civil rights of all citizens in your country to engage in behavior that is legal for all other people in that country.
 
clownboy said:
However, it was his assertion, shared by others, that the majority already approves.
Click to expand...

They do, on average. Even Texas polls a plurality in favor. (Albeit within the margin of error, and just a plurality rather than majority)

however, due to the realities of gerrymandered districts, party majorities, ballot measure processes and constitutional amendments, the hurdles for repealing the marriage ban are higher than merely taking a poll. It varies by state, of course, but state constitutional amendments aren't so easily removed. In the end, 52% support isn't going to get marriage equality in Alabama. Because we aren't a direct democracy. Alabama had a majority (R) legislature, and they sure as hell aren't going to enact marriage equality just because a poll says slightly over 50% support itm

but, again, there is absolutely no reason for the minority to wait on the approval of the majority, nor the slow crawl of legislative actions.
 
Peter King said:
In other words, they are being barred from marrying the one they love. Simple and it proves that they cannot marry the one they love, the only way the can marry is if they lie and live a fake life. Sorry but that is not being allowed to marry, that is raping your own personality just so that you can have a dishonest marriage with a woman.

And it is not a social experiment, it is respecting actual civil rights of all citizens in your country to engage in behavior that is legal for all other people in that country.
Click to expand...

If you don't want to flyfish, don't insist on fishing a flyfishing only stream and don't whine that you are being persecuted because you prefer spinning tackle.

Marriage is a heterosexual thing and always was despite specious arguments by homosexuals and advocates of homosexuality. Two people of the same sex living together may be a relationship of one sort or another but it isn't a marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom