• 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!

Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

Hicup said:
Morality in the context of a collective society cannot be wrong. It is always correct, whether it is right or wrong is an individual distinction. Only when enough individuals agree that it is wrong, does it become wrong in the context of society. Do not confuse that, just because it is correct that society deems something right or wrong, it is right or wrong necessarily. That's not the argument here. Only that in a democratic society, the collective endorses, or rejects acts, or actions with the use of law. If it isn't legislated for, it is immaterial.


Tim-
Click to expand...

So when most of German Society thought it was OK to persecute the jews. That was right then?
 
Hicup said:
Morality in the context of a collective society cannot be wrong. It is always correct, whether it is right or wrong is an individual distinction. Only when enough individuals agree that it is wrong, does it become wrong in the context of society. Do not confuse that, just because it is correct that society deems something right or wrong, it is right or wrong necessarily. That's not the argument here. Only that in a democratic society, the collective endorses, or rejects acts, or actions with the use of law. If it isn't legislated for, it is immaterial.


Tim-
Click to expand...

Things that are legal are not legislated for. Only things that are destined to become illegal require legislation. The only thing society can collectively agree to is what they feel is wrong and thus should be illegal. This endorses the opposite behavior.

Thus, there is no endorsement that stems from trying to make something legal. In actuality, all that is beign requested is a repeal of existing legislation.

This does not endorse the behavior that is being "legalized". It only de-endorses the alternative behavior.

For example, making homosexuality illegal is an endorsement of heterosexuality.Repealing such a law removes that endorsement of heterosexuality without providing an endorsment of homosexuality. Neither behavior is collectively endorsed. It leave sit up to the individual to decide.
 
False dichotomy, eh?

One can make the effort to de-illegalize something for reasons other than endorsing it
Click to expand...

And an example of this would be?

On top of that, things are not "legalized". They are simply no longer illegalized.
Click to expand...

If something isn't illegal then what is it? Take prohibition; once legal, then illegal, then legal again? What about free speech, gun ownership? These are recognized rights not to be infringed upon. The law is the recognition of these rights. It is legal to speak freely, and to own a gun. What about the right to life and liberty; whether expressed or implied; to infringe on these inalienable rights, is illegal.

It is not false to suggest no middle ground when there is none, only to infer no middle bround when in-fact one exists.


Tim-
 
To the Germans it was right, and the evidence is in the tacit approval. However, I caution you, 1930's Germany isn't the right analogy to Western style government, and the same rules do not apply. That was my qualifier, and I thought I was clear. In a free from coercive democracy, my assertion stands on its own merit.


Tim-
 
For example, making homosexuality illegal is an endorsement of heterosexuality.Repealing such a law removes that endorsement of heterosexuality without providing an endorsment of homosexuality. Neither behavior is collectively endorsed. It leave sit up to the individual to decide.
Click to expand...

The individual is the society when collected. Besides, repealing a law against homosexual marriage does nothing to remove any endorsement of heterosexuality, but it does endorse homosexuality, by definition.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
False dichotomy, eh?



And an example of this would be?



If something isn't illegal then what is it? Take prohibition; once legal, then illegal, then legal again? What about free speech, gun ownership? These are recognized rights not to be infringed upon. The law is the recognition of these rights. It is legal to speak freely, and to own a gun. What about the right to life and liberty; whether expressed or implied; to infringe on these inalienable rights, is illegal.

It is not false to suggest no middle ground when there is none, only to infer no middle bround when in-fact one exists.


Tim-
Click to expand...
we don't make laws stating that something is legal. If there's no legislation against something, then it is simply legal. The only action we can take to "legalize" something is if legislation is already in place declaring it illegal. By doing that we are only removing faulty legislation, no other action is taken. It's not illegal for me to drink draino, but I don't think the fact that it's not illegal means that society endorses the behavior. It's not illegal for me to go to Vegas and gamble away every penny I have. But I don't think society "endorses" that behavior. It's not illegal for me to drink myself into a drunken stupor every day and night, lose my job, my spouse and my car, but society sure as **** doesn't endorse that behavior.

Removing legislation that prohibits an action does not promote or endorse said action. It merely permits it.
 
Hicup said:
The individual is the society when collected. Besides, repealing a law against homosexual marriage does nothing to remove any endorsement of heterosexuality, but it does endorse homosexuality, by definition.


Tim-
Click to expand...

No, removing the law against same-sex marriage would not be endorsing anything. It would simply be eliminating gender discrimination in the marriage contract.
 
Removing legislation that prohibits an action does not promote or endorse said action. It merely permits it
Click to expand...

No, removing the law against same-sex marriage would not be endorsing anything. It would simply be eliminating gender discrimination in the marriage contract
Click to expand...

Well, you have one single point, only when the voice of the people is removed can this be true. If the voice of the people is heard, and used by way of representation, then my assertion holds logically. I submit to you the MA example on "legalizing" gay marriage. One single judge made the call, and the legislature refused the people the right to vote on it. Conversely, in CA, and Prop 8, the people were heard. By not altering the CA constitution to include same sex marriage, the people have made it illegal, and illegitimate for gay couples to marry. In other words, they do not endorse gay marriage. The rightness and or wrongness of that decision is an individual distinction because the collective has decided.

Ok, I really, really need to get back to work so I apologize if I have a long delay between posts.

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
And an example of this would be?
Click to expand...

Drugs. Many people want them legalized in order to stop frivolously wasting money on keeping them illegal when it hasn't worked.

Doesn't mean they endorse drug use.

If something isn't illegal then what is it?
Click to expand...

Legal

Take prohibition; once legal, then illegal, then legal again?
Click to expand...

Great example. Which one of those things took legislation? Which one of them required repealing legislation? and which one required no legislation?

What about free speech, gun ownership? These are recognized rights not to be infringed upon. The law is the recognition of these rights.
Click to expand...

The law actually makes it illegal to infringe on those rights. It doesn't legalize those rights. Laws can only make things illegal. It is a lack of laws makes them legal.

It is legal to speak freely, and to own a gun.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Because no legislation can exist which makes it illegal because legislation exists which makes such legislation illegal.

What about the right to life and liberty; whether expressed or implied; to infringe on these inalienable rights, is illegal.
Click to expand...

And it is illegal because there is legislation that exists which makes it illegal.

It is not false to suggest no middle ground when there is none, only to infer no middle bround when in-fact one exists.
Click to expand...

It is false to invent a dichotomy based on the incorrect premise that things are legalized by legislation. They are not.

They are legal due to the absence of legislation.

"Legal" is the default status of everything until there is some action taken.

Repealing legislation is re-creating an absence of legislation.

Endorsement can only occur when one promotes something. Legislatively, the only way that one can promote something is by denying it's opposite.

We do endorse the right to bear arms and speak freely. This is obvious because we have passed legislation that denies the opposite; that makes it illegal to pass laws banning free speech or arm bearing.

The only way to endorse homosexuality would be to pass legislation banning heterosexuality (denying the opposite).

Otehrwise, there is an endorsement neutal state since both situations exist in the absence of positive legislation.
 
Hicup said:
CC -

Ah, the prison conundrum. I posted this quote from you, because you actually have something correct. The problem is in how you're interpreting it. :)

However, your "prison" retort has nothing to do with pedophilia, and answering my questions pinning you down on what constitutes a homosexual act, or orientation. I know it's unconfortable for you, and I apologize, but you did press after all.

Please note that by and large I will dismiss anything that comes from the APA, UNLESS of course it has any scientific merit. The APA is a political organization, and the science of psychology, and psychiatry doesn't meet the measure for any definition of science. Granted there are types of pathological, physiological, and biological areas of psychology that are worth entertaining, but unitl you can produce anything of value, I'm not goig to do the work for you.


Tim-
Click to expand...

First of all, unless all or even most homosexuals are pedophiles, then you can't make any claim that homosexuality, in itself, is wrong because many pedophiles rape children of the same sex as themselves.

As CC has been trying to explain to you, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality are all orientations. Homosexuals are sexually attracted to people of the same gender as themselves. Heterosexuals are sexually attracted to people of the opposite gender as themselves. Bisexuals are attracted to either gender. This doesn't mean that any of the members of these orientations must act on those attractions. A person can claim that they are bisexual and never have sex with a person of the same gender as themself. That person recognizes however that they can be sexually "turned on" by someone who is the same gender as themself. Maybe, though, they are already married and choose not to act on those attractions.

Homosexuals can physically have sex with a member of the opposite sex, many do it now and have done it in the past to fit in or even solely to reproduce. A person does not actually need to be attracted to another person to have sex with them. During my time in the Navy, I heard the phrase "double bagging" often when a guy was being teased for talking about sleeping with a girl just for sexual satisfaction, but who he wasn't attracted to at all and who may or may not be promiscuous herself.

So why does it matter if someone chooses to sleep with a person of the same gender as themself or someone of the opposite gender? As long as the two participants are of legal consenting age and not having sex in public, then it should be their business. Having sex exclusively with people of the opposite gender as yourself doesn't make you a better person or citizen than people who have sex with people of the same gender or either gender. In fact, having sexual fetishes doesn't make someone a bad person either, although a person of any sexual orientation can have sexual fetishes.

Homosexual sex is legal. Same sex marriage is the issue being discussed, so you have to prove why two men or two women entering into a legal contract of marriage is harmful to people or the government or government interests, while a man and a woman entering into the same legal contract isn't. Same sex marriage has nothing to do with sex. Actually, opposite sex marriage doesn't have anything to do with sex either. Both, legally speaking, are a contract entered into by a couple to make the couple legally a part of each other's families. The couple does not have to be able to have children, or even be physically able to have sex. They really don't have to be attracted to each other. The reason most people legally marry the person they do is because of love and they want to make that person their closest family member, giving them the legal say in financial, legal, and medical decisions when the person is unable, sharing their assets, and if they choose to have children, providing a stable environment for those children to be raised in, along with many other things. This is what people who are homosexual want, especially those who feel that they have found the person they are in love with.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke, thanks for your candid response.

I'll largely concede your opinion, and agree to disagree. I cannot prove my opinion incontrovertibly. But neither can anyone else here. I can only base them on evidence that suggests particular correlations; simply because the hard science isn't there yet. I cannot prove gay marriage harmful to society, I can only infer, it will be harmful. I made that case, and you can decide for yourself whether you agree with it or not.

I do have two small criticisms though.

This doesn't mean that any of the members of these orientations must act on those attractions. A person can claim that they are bisexual and never have sex with a person of the same gender as themself.
Click to expand...

The distinction between conduct, and orientation is important? Why, because on its own, a sexual orientation is completely harmless, and irrelevant - only when is it acted upon does it have consequences, and primarily those consequences concern public health issues. Society has the right and the obligation to regulate public health issues. As abhorrent as pedophilia is, as an orientation, it is harmless, very much for the same reasons as homosexuality is harmless. Why do we regulate the act of pedophilia? Because of the harm it brings on the victim. But how is this harm measured? It's measured, that, even though a act of pedophilia wouldn't necessarily cause distress to the victim, the very knowledge that the victim is incapable of rational thought, makes the crime a crime. We protect those that are incapable of protecting themselves, even from themselves. Likewise, without knowing the full implication, and causation of homosexual influence among adolescents, should we, and damn, don't we have the right to regulate it? Shouldn't we err on the side of caution, even if at the expense of the adult homosexual wishing to marry?

So why does it matter if someone chooses to sleep with a person of the same gender as themself or someone of the opposite gender? As long as the two participants are of legal consenting age and not having sex in public, then it should be their business. Having sex exclusively with people of the opposite gender as yourself doesn't make you a better person or citizen than people who have sex with people of the same gender or either gender. In fact, having sexual fetishes doesn't make someone a bad person either, although a person of any sexual orientation can have sexual fetishes.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this view. Adults have the right to do what they want, or should be able too, however, I was asked why I oppose gay marriage. I oppose it for the specific reason that involves the sanctioning, and or institutionalizing the behavior by the state. We can parse words all day long about legal and illegal, but the fact of the matter is that, homosexuality is not illegal, homosexual marriage is. By repealing homosexual marriage constraints we invariably validate the behavior. Once done, the game is on. it WILL absolutely be introduced to public school children as a valid form of sexual expression, and in some circles even promoted, and encouraged. No conspiracy theory there, it's already happening. So, if one assumes the truth of premise to be true, then my conclusion is also true. The premise is that homosexuality can be catchy to adolescent children - for lack of a better term. Now if you believe, much like I suspect you do, that homosexuality is not catchy, then you must conclude that I am wrong. That's fine, I'm ok with it.

The couple does not have to be able to have children, or even be physically able to have sex
Click to expand...

In the US it is still a legal, affirmative defense to divorce, or annul a marriage because the other partner is unable to bear children.

In any event I appreciate the civility.

Tim-
 
Last edited:
Hicup said:
roguenuke, thanks for your candid response.

I'll largely concede your opinion, and agree to disagree. I cannot prove my opinion incontrovertibly. But neither can anyone else here. I can only base them on evidence that suggests particular correlations; simply because the hard science isn't there yet. I cannot prove gay marriage harmful to society, I can only infer, it will be harmful. I made that case, and you can decide for yourself whether you agree with it or not.

I do have two small criticisms though.



The distinction between conduct, and orientation is important? Why, because on its own, a sexual orientation is completely harmless, and irrelevant - only when is it acted upon does it have consequences, and primarily those consequences concern public health issues. Society has the right and the obligation to regulate public health issues. As abhorrent as pedophilia is, as an orientation, it is harmless, very much for the same reasons as homosexuality is harmless. Why do we regulate the act of pedophilia? Because of the harm it brings on the victim. But how is this harm measured? It's measured, that, even though a act of pedophilia wouldn't necessarily cause distress to the victim, the very knowledge that the victim is incapable of rational thought, makes the crime a crime. We protect those that are incapable of protecting themselves, even from themselves. Likewise, without knowing the full implication, and causation of homosexual influence among adolescents, should we, and damn, don't we have the right to regulate it? Shouldn't we err on the side of caution, even if at the expense of the adult homosexual wishing to marry?



I don't disagree with this view. Adults have the right to do what they want, or should be able too, however, I was asked why I oppose gay marriage. I oppose it for the specific reason that involves the sanctioning, and or institutionalizing the behavior by the state. We can parse words all day long about legal and illegal, but the fact of the matter is that, homosexuality is not illegal, homosexual marriage is. By repealing homosexual marriage constraints we invariably validate the behavior. Once done, the game is one. it WILL absolutely be introduced to public school children as a valid form of sexual expression, and in some circles even promoted, and encouraged. No conspiracy theory there, it's already happening. So, if one assumes the truth of premise to be true, then my conclusion is also true. The premise is that homosexuality can be catchy to adolescent children - for lack of a better term. Now if you believe, much like I suspect you do, that homosexuality is not catchy, then you must conclude that I am wrong. That's fine, I'm ok with it.



In the US it is still a legal, affirmative defense to divorce, or annul a marriage because the other partner is unable to bear children.

In any event I appreciate the civility.

Tim-
Click to expand...

gotta disagree a bit....homosexuality is "catchy"? i don't think so......experimenting might be tempting, but not orientation. what's so fun about being gay? (pun intended)
 
Hicup said:
By repealing homosexual marriage constraints we invariably validate the behavior.
Click to expand...

Homosexual marriage will exist with or without those constraints. Homosexual marriage cannot be made illegal. Since marriage is a religious institution, making it illegal in any instance would be a violation of the first amendment.

One can even get married to 12 people without fearing any legal repercussions.

The only thing the government can legally involves itself in is the legal contract that is coupled with marriage.

Thus, it only recognizes certain types of marriages. That doesn't negate the existence of other unrecognized marriages.

With regard to polygamy, the law can dictate that an individual can only enter into that specific contract with one other person at a time and that the contract must be broken before it is entered into with anyone else. Thus polygamy and polyandry are not recognized by the State. But that does not make thee marriages any less real.
 
Ask a gay person. No seriously, I'm sure being gay is fun for gays no different than being hetersexual is fun for heterosexuals. :)

Tim-
 
Tucker Case said:
Homosexual marriage will exist with or without those constraints. Homosexual marriage cannot be made illegal. Since marriage is a religious institution, making it illegal in any instance would be a violation of the first amendment.

One can even get married to 12 people without fearing any legal repercussions.

The only thing the government can legally involves itself in is the legal contract that is coupled with marriage.

Thus, it only recognizes certain types of marriages. That doesn't negate the existence of other unrecognized marriages.

With regard to polygamy, the law can dictate that an individual can only enter into that specific contract with one other person at a time and that the contract must be broken before it is entered into with anyone else. Thus polygamy and polyandry are not recognized by the State. But that does not make thee marriages any less real.
Click to expand...

No disagreement here.. Right you are. Marriage is state of being, and inalienable I suppose.

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Ask a gay person. No seriously, I'm sure being gay is fun for gays no different than being hetersexual is fun for heterosexuals. :)

Tim-
Click to expand...

Being a heterosexual is fun? :confused:

I've never really noticed anything "fun" about being attracted to women.
 
Hicup said:
Ask a gay person. No seriously, I'm sure being gay is fun for gays no different than being hetersexual is fun for heterosexuals. :)

Tim-
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of being "fun", its just a matter of being who they are. I am heterosexual, but I don't consider it fun per say just who I am. Now if your talking about the ACTS that people that are homosexual or heterosexual do in bed, that's a whole different story to others I'm sure.
 
TheNextEra said:
It's not a matter of being "fun", its just a matter of being who they are. I am heterosexual, but I don't consider it fun per say just who I am. Now if your talking about the ACTS that people that are homosexual or heterosexual do in bed, that's a whole different story to others I'm sure.
Click to expand...

Oh I dunno, I like being attracted to the opposite sex, and it's kinda fun, no? Let's put it this way. It doesn't suck! :)

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
No disagreement here.. Right you are. Marriage is state of being, and inalienable I suppose.

Tim-
Click to expand...

So there are actually no constraints being placed on homosexual marriage. Only constraints on the State's recognition of these marriages.

That lack of recognition serves as an enrosement of heterosexual marriages.

Repealing that constraint on recognition does not validate anything. It simply retracts the endorsemnt of heterosexual marriages.

That does not act as an endorsement of homosexual marriages, though. It merely serves as an endorsement neutral environment.

To make an example, let's say two politicians, Politician A and Politician B, are running for an office.

So lets say I decide to endorse Poltician A. By necessity, this requires me to reject politician B.

Now let's say the only thing I can officially do is reject something (i.e. pass legislation making something illegal). Thus, I have to reject politician B in order to endorse politician A.

Endorsement is the equal and opposite reaction to rejection of a dichotomy and vice versa.

But lets say I rescind my rejection of Politician B (and thus rescind my endorsement of politician A).

I'm back to an endorsement-neutral situation. Neither politician is endorsed nor rejected.

Thus, by repealing the constraints on recognition, ther cannot possibly be an endorsement or validation of gay marriage. The only thing that occurs is a return to neutral regarding the collective position. It allows for both beliefs to be seen as potentially valid by the collective. It leaves the ultimate power to decide with the people instead of the State.
 
Ok, well I'm sure CC will come in here later, and claim another victory, but in all honesty I'd like to move on to other, more important issues of the day. I really don't know what else to say on the matter. I do feel strongly about my position, but not nearly enough to continue on with this whole thread ad infinty. When new evidence comes out, or someone says something compelling enough for me to bother, I'll reevaluate my stance, until then, I'll see you all in the other threads.

I'm sure CC will dog me there as well, but it's ok. I've delt with his variety before.

Cheers to all, and I hope I didn't strongly offend anyone with my views.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Oh I dunno, I like being attracted to the opposite sex, and it's kinda fun, no? Let's put it this way. It doesn't suck! :)

Tim-
Click to expand...

Being heterosexual, for me, is really no different from having lines on my hand. It's just how things are.
 
Tucker Case said:
So there are actually no constraints being placed on homosexual marriage. Only constraints on the State's recognition of these marriages.

That lack of recognition serves as an enrosement of heterosexual marriages.

Repealing that constraint on recognition does not validate anything. It simply retracts the endorsemnt of heterosexual marriages.

That does not act as an endorsement of homosexual marriages, though. It merely serves as an endorsement neutral environment.

To make an example, let's say two politicians, Politician A and Politician B, are running for an office.

So lets say I decide to endorse Poltician A. By necessity, this requires me to reject politician B.

Now let's say the only thing I can officially do is reject something (i.e. pass legislation making something illegal). Thus, I have to reject politician B in order to endorse politician A.

Endorsement is the equal and opposite reaction to rejection of a dichotomy and vice versa.

But lets say I rescind my rejection of Politician B (and thus rescind my endorsement of politician A).

I'm back to an endorsement-neutral situation. Neither politician is endorsed nor rejected.

Thus, by repealing the constraints on recognition, ther cannot possibly be an endorsement or validation of gay marriage. The only thing that occurs is a return to neutral regarding the collective position. It allows for both beliefs to be seen as potentially valid by the collective. It leaves the ultimate power to decide with the people instead of the State.
Click to expand...

Tucker, if I may call you that, you present an intersting set of circumstances, however, I have to go and pick up my kids from camp, and am planning to spend the rest fot eh day with them. I pormise to come back to this post and give it the full attention it deserves. Can I do this later?

Thanks,

Tim-
 
very good news. maybe my dream to see true freedom in my lifetime will come true after all. up next on teh agenda: drugs, prostituition and gambling.
 
Hicup said:
Tucker, if I may call you that, you present an intersting set of circumstances, however, I have to go and pick up my kids from camp, and am planning to spend the rest fot eh day with them. I pormise to come back to this post and give it the full attention it deserves. Can I do this later?

Thanks,

Tim-
Click to expand...

No problem, Hicup. Have a good day with your kids. Hopefully it's as nice outside by you as it is by me. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom