• 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!

Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

Goobieman said:
You haven't explained how the argument for changng 'man and woman' cannot be equally applied to changing 'two'.
Click to expand...

You're playing in semantics now.

What's keeping animal lovers from not getting it changed to "x can marry y, or this list of farm animals: ... "?

We can exercise in hyperbolic arguments all day, the fact of the matter is there is a large and growing group of people who are oppressed by simple mindedness and would just like equal and fair treatment. They've got it in Iowa and a few other states. And while alot of times I don't agree with their tactics, I do agree with their end-goal of being equal.. seeing how in the eyes of the constitution as a citizen they're the same as you and I. (Or at least, they should be.)
 
stevenb said:
You're playing in semantics now.

What's keeping animal lovers from not getting it changed to "x can marry y, or this list of farm animals: ... "?

We can exercise in hyperbolic arguments all day, the fact of the matter is there is a large and growing group of people who are oppressed by simple mindedness and would just like equal and fair treatment. They've got it in Iowa and a few other states. And while alot of times I don't agree with their tactics, I do agree with their end-goal of being equal.. seeing how in the eyes of the constitution as a citizen they're the same as you and I. (Or at least, they should be.)
Click to expand...

"Oppressed?" Get real.
 
stevenb said:
You're playing in semantics now.
Click to expand...
No. I am not.

I said:

If the argument for changing 'man and woman' to 'two individuals' is sound, then the same argument for changing 'two individuals' to 'two or more individuals' is equally sound.
Click to expand...

You have not explained how this is not the case; you have not explained how the argument for changng 'man and woman' cannot be equally applied to changing 'two'.
 
I just love it when someone backed into a corner comes out with, "So, we should just allow Kermit marry Piss Piggy if they want to?"

It never gets old.

:rofl
 
BulletWounD said:
"Oppressed?" Get real.
Click to expand...

Maybe oppressed wasn't the correct word, but, by and by they are definitely having their rights subjugated by these types of laws.
 
BulletWounD said:
"Oppressed?" Get real.
Click to expand...

No more oppressed than I am, not being able to have a legal three-way marrige between Faith Hill, Shania Twain and myself.

:mrgreen:
 
Goobieman said:
No. I am not.

I said:



You have not explained how this is not the case; you have not explained how the argument for changng 'man and woman' cannot be equally applied to changing 'two'.
Click to expand...

And you've not provided any proof that there is such a movement, or reasonable amount of people who would push for that.

And, as far as I'm concerned, if it were to come to pass I wouldn't frown upon it either as I believe the government should have nothing to do with marriage in the first place.
 
The institution of marriage seems to me to be a religious one, therefore the government should stay out of that business and let the churches decide who gets married.

If the government is going to be involved, and I believe they should not, then they should call them all civil unions. That includes same-sex marriage and polygamy. It is not the business of the government, being a public entity for the entire population of the country, to dictate who consentingly marries who.
 
stevenb said:
And you've not provided any proof that there is such a movement, or reasonable amount of people who would push for that.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to the discussion.

Explain how the argument for changng 'man and woman' cannot be equally applied to changing 'two'.
 
MrVicchio said:
AHH, the denial is steep thick with this one.

Why was Marriage just between a man and a woman? What stopped it from being between two men?
Click to expand...

Religious arguments.
 
MrVicchio said:
And the road to polygamy opens further.

Good news too, there are a lot of hot women I need to work on marrying.
Click to expand...

I always enjoy it when people throw out this fallacious argument. You do understand that there are many reasons why government supports and encourages marriage. These reasons occur through heterosexual marriage and through homosexual marriage, but not through polygamy.

But please show us how plural marriage benefits the government and society to bolster your argument that polygamy would be sanctioned.

This ought to be good.
 
Goobieman said:
Irrelevant to the discussion.

Explain how the argument for changng 'man and woman' cannot be equally applied to changing 'two'.
Click to expand...

Explain in my belief-set (libertarian), why it matters what "marriage" is defined as please.
 
Goobieman said:
Irrelevant to the discussion.

Explain how the argument for changng 'man and woman' cannot be equally applied to changing 'two'.
Click to expand...

The law about polygamy applies equally to all religions where as the law on gay marriage does not apply equally to gender.

I'm sure you have heard that argument before.

Personally I don't care if you have as many wives as you want.
 
MrVicchio said:
When you make decisions based on emotion, not well considered reasoning... you release that little ass kicker (the law of unintended consequences)
Click to expand...

Indeed...unintended consequences. When the people were trying to stop white folk from marrying black folk I suppose they shouldn't have created and instituted the marriage license. Once it became state document, actual law contract marriage became domain of the State and subjected to all the restrictions placed against the State.
 
Goobieman said:
If the argument for changing 'man and woman' to 'two individuals' is sound, then the same argument for changing 'two individuals' to 'two or more individuals' is equally sound.
Click to expand...

Not in the least. There are reasons that the government sponsors and advocates for marriage. This has nothing to do with discrimination nor "rights". It has to do with the things that marriage brings to society and why government would want to promote those things.

Please show how polygamy accomplishes these things.
 
winston53660 said:
The law about polygamy applies equally to all religions where as the law on gay marriage does not apply equally to gender.
Click to expand...
Relevance?

Explain how the argument for changng 'man and woman' cannot be equally applied to changing 'two'.
 
stevenb said:
Explain in my belief-set (libertarian), why it matters what "marriage" is defined as please.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry... were you going to explain how the argument for changng 'man and woman' cannot be equally applied to changing 'two', or not?
 
Goobieman said:
I'm sorry... were you going to explain how the argument for changng 'man and woman' cannot be equally applied to changing 'two', or not?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned it could be changed to whatever people would like.

So, in essence, your explain how it cannot be equally applied is moot.
 
Goobieman said:
No. You did not.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but what don't you understand? The laws about polygamy apply equally across the board where as the laws about gay marriage discriminate base on gender.
 
If this is the game we're playing, doesn't fault then lie withing the SCotUS? It was the courts which ruled originally that the marriage license could not be applied to just interracial marriage. They changed marriage from between a man and a woman of the same race to just a man and a woman. So if that was changed, it is the source of all the downfall. Because clearly we as humans can't be rational about this so if we allow same sex marriage, we're totally going to allow polygamy, and let's throw in bestiality in there cause why do we have to limit it to the same species? Let's take the slippery slope and see where it goes, of course if we always did that nothing would get done. And in this instance it's very possible to be rational about this. But since we're not using rational arguments, then we'll tread back up the slippery slope to where it all started. We should never have allowed interracial marriage, that paved the way for the downfall of marriage. The purpose of the marriage license was to discriminate, it's still used that way (wonders how humanity grows).
 
stevenb said:
I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned it could be changed to whatever people would like.

So, in essence, your explain how it cannot be equally applied is moot.
Click to expand...
Then on what grounds do you oppose the position that 'same sex marriage leads to polygamy'?

It's VERY plain to me that the argument for changng 'man and woman' can be equally applied to changing 'two'.

"If two consenting adults want to marry..."
"If three consenting adults want to marry..."
 
winston53660 said:
I'm sorry but what don't you understand?
Click to expand...
The part where you think any of that nullfies the argument for gay marrige, as applied to polygamy.

"If two consenting adults want to marry..."
"If three consenting adults want to marry..."
 
Goobieman said:
Then on what grounds do you oppose the position that 'same sex marriage leads to polygamy'?

It's VERY plain to me that the argument for changng 'man and woman' can be equally applied to changing 'two'.

"If two consenting adults want to marry..."
"If three consenting adults want to marry..."
Click to expand...

Then I apologize for being vague of my support for this.

In my eyes the clear definition of "a union between two consenting adults" does not lead to polygamy.

But if it did, I wouldn't contest it either as I believe the government shouldn't have their hands in people's personal lives much as they do now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom