• 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!

Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

You are wrong. Here are excerpts from Kennedy's opinion:


What’s in the same-sex marriage ruling - The Washington Post

Marriage is as marriage was, two people, except that now both people can be of the same sex. The supreme court did NOT strip away any solid definition of marriage, only the old one that you like. The bible is not the legal ying and yang of this country. It is the constitution and the governing bodies.

Yes, so why can't a person who has entered into a marriage with one person enter into a marriage with another person? Kennedy's decision is only talking about the decision of two people to marry, if a husband and a wife both want to enter into a marriage with another person that isn't prohibited by Kennedy's argument.
 

There is a great deal of research that has been done showing how the children of married parents are better off than the children of unmarried parents. You may be the only person I know who is not aware of this info.

Benefits
 
Second, even larger majority of Americans are born unable to qualify for the Olympics in any even -- that too is normal -- that does not mean that we need to change the standards for Olympic qualifying, even if that means that the average American can't enjoy the lifestyle of an American Olympian.

being an Olympian is not a moral imperative, so your point is immaterial.


jmotivator said:
Until the SCOTUS decision marriage wasn't a "right". This is one of those cases where the SCOTUS got it wrong. They states and the citizens of those states should have the right to define terms in their own laws. The SCOTUS ruling issued a blanket authorization without a definition of the term "marriage", and outlawed the ability of the state to define the term. "Marriage" has no real definition at this point and the ruling makes it illegal to attempt to define it since doing so will, by process, be denying marriages to people.

It was a right, that was not available to all couples who wanted to enter into a legal long term committed relationship.

jmotivator said:
So if gay marriage was outlawed it wouldn't effect the amount of money that a gay couple could expect to get from Social Security?
No more than if there were no gay people. I have never seen where SS used the % of gay people in the population to set monthly tax rates for employee or employer.

jmotivator said:
Because the argument in favor of polygamy would use precisely the same argument as gay marriage. Since the argument is exactly the same then the new SCOTUS marriage ruling should be applied equally.

Wrong. I have shown the quotes from the Kennedy opinion, and it clearly states "two people" (post 522).
 
There is a great deal of research that has been done showing how the children of married parents are better off than the children of unmarried parents. You may be the only person I know who is not aware of this info.

Benefits

It's funny because your snide lmgtfy.com link ends up with...

The first link discussing the benefits of children living with their married biological mother and father... which wouldn't be the case in a gay marriage.

The second link is the Union of Catholic Bishops... what do you suppose their stance is?

The third promoted the benefits of children living wit their biological parents (kids who grow up with their married biological parents have a higher rate of religiosity in adulthood, dontcha know)

The fourth article is a WaPo article asking whether we are overestimating the benefit of marriage to children

The fifth in an article at the Atlantic that reports on the benefits of intact families (married biological parents)

At what point does this start being a point in your favor? Link six and seven.. hmm.. nope. More talk about intact families.

I thought you had a chance with the 8th link but that Princeton site only said that there is no empirical evidence for the benefits of gay marriage for children...
 
Last edited:
being an Olympian is not a moral imperative, so your point is immaterial.

Please provide your definition of moral imperative and explain why gay marriage is and Olympic aspiration is not a "moral imperative".

It was a right, that was not available to all couples who wanted to enter into a legal long term committed relationship.

Nope, it wasn't considered a legal right until the SCOTUS decision, and there was nothing stopping a gay couple from entering into long term committed relationships. :roll:

No more than if there were no gay people. I have never seen where SS used the % of gay people in the population to set monthly tax rates for employee or employer.

As I already said, the only valid argument for gay marriage is the SS benefits. A gay couple living together without marriage would qualify for fewer social security benefits than if they were married. Therefore, with gay marriage comes an increase in SS payouts.

Wrong. I have shown the quotes from the Kennedy opinion, and it clearly states "two people" (post 522).

Right, but where does it say that each person is limited to one marriage?
 
It's funny because your snide lmgtfy.com link ends up with...

The first link discussing the benefits of children living with their married biological mother and father... which wouldn't be the case in a gay marriage.

No, it also discusses the differences between children living in two parent homes where one was not the biological parent and children in single parent homes

The second link is the Union of Catholic Bishops... what do you suppose their stance is?

This is an ad hom argument, which is a fallacy

The third promoted the benefits of children living wit their biological parents (kids who grow up with their married biological parents have a higher rate of religiosity in adulthood, dontcha know)

This report also discusses the differences between children living in two parent homes where one was not the biological parent and children in single parent homes

The fourth article is a WaPo article asking whether we are overestimating the benefit of marriage to children

So one out of four

The fifth in an article at the Atlantic that reports on the benefits of intact families (married biological parents)

You are misdefining the word "intact" to include "biological" when the article does not say that.

At what point does this start being a point in your favor? Link six and seven.. hmm.. nope. More talk about intact families.

I thought you had a chance with the 8th link but that Princeton site only said that there is no empirical evidence for the benefits of gay marriage for children...

Even if all of the links were for children raised by both biological parents, other studies have shown that the children of same sex married couples do just as well as those raised by both biological parents.

And then there are the links that come up if you click on the link at the bottom of the page
https://www.google.com/search?newwi...yu-AGnh4HgBA&ved=0CGkQ1QIoAA&biw=1280&bih=631
 
Last edited:
Please provide your definition of moral imperative and explain why gay marriage is and Olympic aspiration is not a "moral imperative".

Moral is defined as "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character."

Being an olympic athlete has to do with athletic performance, which has nothing to do with right and wrong.

jmotivator said:
Nope, it wasn't considered a legal right until the SCOTUS decision, and there was nothing stopping a gay couple from entering into long term committed relationships. :roll:
It was a right available to heterosexual couples, who went to the court house, got a marriage license, and got married.


jmotivator said:
As I already said, the only valid argument for gay marriage is the SS benefits. A gay couple living together without marriage would qualify for fewer social security benefits than if they were married. Therefore, with gay marriage comes an increase in SS payouts.

Wrong again, read Kennedy's opinion. Children are stigmatized is their parents relationship is considered second class. Partners were denied visitation rights in hospitals because they were "not family". You may not be able to apply for group health ins. for a gay partner. THere were many problems.

jmotivator said:
Right, but where does it say that each person is limited to one marriage?
State law has already stated that, so it is already covered. The supreme court did not have to say it, it was already done.
 
No, it also discusses the differences between children living in two parent homes where one was not the biological parent and children in single parent homes

Having just read it again, care to quote where it talks about such arrangements favorably? I see that children in a family where the father is not their biological father are 33% more likely to suffer abuse..

This is an ad hom argument, which is a fallacy

Is it? Are you sure you sare using that term correctly? What is the Catholic stance on Gay Marriage? I bet you know. BUt if you think that article suports your argument any better then the others do feel free to quote it.

This report also discusses the differences between children living in two parent homes where one was not the biological parent and children in single parent homes

Where?

So one out of four

No, you are still batting 000.

You are misdefining the word "intact" to include "biological" when the article does not say that.

So you don't think intact families include biological families? I would argue that the vast majority in the study were biological families and no gay families. The study in question measures the effect of intact families on young adults. Since the study is tracking people born in the 80s and 90s from intact families it is impossible that any of them are the product of a gay marriage.

Even if all of the links were for children raised by both biological parents, other studies have shown that the children of same sex married couples do just as well as those raised by both biological parents.

You are not so awesome at citing them if they are out there.

And then there are the links that come up if you click on the link at the bottom of the page
https://www.google.com/search?newwi...yu-AGnh4HgBA&ved=0CGkQ1QIoAA&biw=1280&bih=631

Most of those fall into two categories: 1) Problems solved by a legal power of attorney and 2) Protection from government taxation

So, I have already said that Social Security taxes is one thing in favor of gay marriage argument, and as a conservative I would rather have lower taxes across the board rather than tax shelters.
 
Moral is defined as "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character."

Being an olympic athlete has to do with athletic performance, which has nothing to do with right and wrong.

You defined moral, not moral imperative.

It was a right available to heterosexual couples, who went to the court house, got a marriage license, and got married.

That wasn't a right. By definition a government license can be refused so it isn't a right.

Wrong again, read Kennedy's opinion. Children are stigmatized is their parents relationship is considered second class. Partners were denied visitation rights in hospitals because they were "not family". You may not be able to apply for group health ins. for a gay partner. THere were many problems.

The "stigmatizing" nature of gay marriage isn't changed by the SCOTUS decision, sorry to break it to Justice Kennedy.

The hospital visitation argument has always been the weakest arguments for gay marriage. You can solve that issue any number of ways without ever addressing marriage. There is no national law blocking a gay person from their partner's hospital bedside.

The health insurance issue

State law has already stated that, so it is already covered. The supreme court did not have to say it, it was already done.

In case you missed it, the SCOTUS ruling was against the states ability to define marriage. Trying to argue from the states definitions of marriage at this point is crazy. The SCOTUS stripped them of the ability.
 
There is a great deal of research that has been done showing how the children of married parents are better off than the children of unmarried parents. You may be the only person I know who is not aware of this info.

Benefits
Is there anything showing that the children of married parents are better off than the children of cohabiting parents? Anything showing that a legal piece of paper improves the condition of children?
 
Having just read it again, care to quote where it talks about such arrangements favorably? I see that children in a family where the father is not their biological father are 33% more likely to suffer abuse..



Is it? Are you sure you sare using that term correctly? What is the Catholic stance on Gay Marriage? I bet you know. BUt if you think that article suports your argument any better then the others do feel free to quote it.



Where?



No, you are still batting 000.



So you don't think intact families include biological families? I would argue that the vast majority in the study were biological families and no gay families. The study in question measures the effect of intact families on young adults. Since the study is tracking people born in the 80s and 90s from intact families it is impossible that any of them are the product of a gay marriage.



You are not so awesome at citing them if they are out there.



Most of those fall into two categories: 1) Problems solved by a legal power of attorney and 2) Protection from government taxation

So, I have already said that Social Security taxes is one thing in favor of gay marriage argument, and as a conservative I would rather have lower taxes across the board rather than tax shelters.

You are arguing a straw man. Pointing out problems with one form of marriage (ie where one parent is not the biological parent) does not, in any way, diminish the fact that marriage overall provides stability and security for the overwhelming majjority of the children in homes led by a married couple.
 
You are arguing a straw man. Pointing out problems with one form of marriage (ie where one parent is not the biological parent) does not, in any way, diminish the fact that marriage overall provides stability and security for the overwhelming majjority of the children in homes led by a married couple.

Huh, I would have bet that you knew the definition of "straw man".. I would have lost.

Anyway, you keep making an assertion that gay marriage is good for kids but you can't seem to provide evidence of anything other than the benefits of heterosexual marriage for children.
 
Huh, I would have bet that you knew the definition of "straw man".. I would have lost.

Anyway, you keep making an assertion that gay marriage is good for kids but you can't seem to provide evidence of anything other than the benefits of heterosexual marriage for children.

You're the one who is arguing a straw man about children who aren't being raised by their biological parents.
 
Is there anything showing that the children of married parents are better off than the children of cohabiting parents? Anything showing that a legal piece of paper improves the condition of children?

Actually yes, there is evidence that such situations are worse for a child, mainly due to the fact that it is harder to tell which parents cohabiting are going to remain together and which are going to break up. Cohabiting is much more likely to end in a break up than marriage is to end in divorce, likely due to the fact that marriage does come with harsher penalties for at least one of the couple, costs them more money. But it also means that couples are more likely to work on their relationship, to keep it together, than if they are simply cohabiting and there is little to no legal ties between them.

Cohabiting vs. marriage: does it affect children? - News - capecodtimes.com - Hyannis, MA

It really isn't that stable, mainly because you have to figure if the parents were willing to commit to each other, give it their best try, most of them would simply get married, since the only thing that marriage does beyond cohabiting is create a legal kinship tie between the parents that in itself helps to "pressure" the couple to stay together, at least more than simply cohabiting. They are more likely to actually work on their relationship rather than give up on it at the first signs of trouble or when it gets a little rough.

For Kids, Parental Cohabitation and Marriage Are Not Interchangeable | Family Studies
 

Not what I asked, especially in context of your previous links. There are plenty of studies that show that children of married parents are better off than children of single parents. Is there anything out there that shows whether there is a difference between parents who have a marriage certificate and those who do not, when in both cases, both parents live together and with the children?
 
Not what I asked, especially in context of your previous links. There are plenty of studies that show that children of married parents are better off than children of single parents. Is there anything out there that shows whether there is a difference between parents who have a marriage certificate and those who do not, when in both cases, both parents live together and with the children?

I was hasty so my link only responds to your 2nd question about how the legal piece of paper improves the conditions of children of married couples. Sorry about the oversight

For an answer to your first question, see roguenuke's response (#540)
 
You're the one who is arguing a straw man about children who aren't being raised by their biological parents.

Again, you don't seem to understand the meaning of Straw man fallacy. YOU argued that studies show that children do well in gay marriage, I am pointing out that the studies you have referenced so far contain no data on the children who grow up in gay marriages so your claims are baseless. You then claimed that the studies also covered children growing up witrh only one biological parent, but the studies you clumsily referenced mention only that children in families with a non-biological father are 33% more likely to be abused.

In other words, your evidence doesn't match your claim.
 
You defined moral, not moral imperative.
One only has to define moral to demonstrate that a moral imperative has NOTHING to do with ones desire to be an Olympic athlete. Sorry.

jmotivator said:
That wasn't a right. By definition a government license can be refused so it isn't a right.

Wrong again. From the Utah case challenging Utah's ban on SSM:
"For months now, the action on same-sex marriage has been in the federal district courts," said Stephen Wermiel, an American University Washington College of Law professor. "With the argument in the 10th Circuit this week on the Utah law, and next week on the Oklahoma law, the same-sex marriage issue moves one step closer to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it seems inevitable that the justices will eventually have to decide whether couples of the same sex have a right to marry."
Utah Local News - Salt Lake City News, Sports, Archive - The Salt Lake Tribune

Clearly hetero couples had a right to marry before the SC decision, but same sex couples did not. Now they both have the right to marry, provided they meet the other restrictions that now apply to ALL couples seeking marriage. The state has the right to set certain restrictions, for instance a father cannot marry his biological daughter, but as long as you meet the states requirement you have a right to have the marriage license granted. We now simply recognize that being gay is not a reason to deny issuance of a marriage license.

We have a right to free speech, but it has limits and some speech, such as that which creates a safety hazzard or incites to riot, is illegal and can be prosecuted.



jmotivator said:
The "stigmatizing" nature of gay marriage isn't changed by the SCOTUS decision, sorry to break it to Justice Kennedy.

The hospital visitation argument has always been the weakest arguments for gay marriage. You can solve that issue any number of ways without ever addressing marriage. There is no national law blocking a gay person from their partner's hospital bedside.

The health insurance issue
You are entitled to you erroneous opinion, but 37 states already disagreed with you, 61% of the population, numerous federal court decisions, and now the supreme court. Your side lost because it is wrong, and you're butt hurt about it.


jmotivator said:
In case you missed it, the SCOTUS ruling was against the states ability to define marriage. Trying to argue from the states definitions of marriage at this point is crazy. The SCOTUS stripped them of the ability.

Wrong.

Question: Is Marriage a Civil Right?

Answer: Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men
...
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/f/Is-Marriage-a-Civil-Right.htm

The right to marry has long existed, and in 1967 the supreme court ruled that states that restricted interracial marriage violated the constitution. If you thought that states had the right to define marriage in 2000, you would have been wrong to assume they lost it due to last weeks SSM ruling, because by your faulty logic, they would have actually lost the ability to define marriage in 1967 as a result of the Loving case, but apparently you thought the states still had the right to define marriage. Actually the states have always had the right to define marriage, and the supreme court gets to decide if the states definition unduly denies the right to marry under the provisions of freedom in the Constitution.
 
Again, you don't seem to understand the meaning of Straw man fallacy. YOU argued that studies show that children do well in gay marriage, I am pointing out that the studies you have referenced so far contain no data on the children who grow up in gay marriages so your claims are baseless. You then claimed that the studies also covered children growing up witrh only one biological parent, but the studies you clumsily referenced mention only that children in families with a non-biological father are 33% more likely to be abused.

In other words, your evidence doesn't match your claim.

Again, the studies show that children raised in two (hetero) parent homes do better and other studies show the children of gay couples do just as well.

I can't connect the dots for you.
 
Again, the studies show that children raised in two (hetero) parent homes do better and other studies show the children of gay couples do just as well.

I can't connect the dots for you.

You refuse to provide the studies that say that second part of your claim. That isn't "connecting the dots", that is called "backing up your claim".
 
But it does. The argument made (by SCOTUS) was for any two people, not any two people who are not related.

It is always interesting to see people who claim to be for equality now saying related people cannot have that equality. Really shows you that there is no marriage quality difference in republicans and democrats.

I'll repeat what I said since you seem to try and ignore it. Let me know when you can provide the precedence otherwise. "No, it simply doesn't. Any arguments based on precedence and rights that people can invent or actually exist can do so if gay marriage never did. It leads the way to exactly ZERO types of other marriages."

Maybe read what was actually wrote, educate yourself on this topic and understand the ruling and my statement.
 
Back
Top Bottom