• 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!

California gay marriage ban overturned: report

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zyphlin said:
Navy, True or False....You, a man, can marry a woman?

Navy, True or False....Rivvrat, a woman, can marry a woman?

Please exactly show me after answering that how there is equal protection under the law between men and women in regards to marriage?
Click to expand...


You are forgetting the polygamy issue as well as people who are related wanting to get married for the benefits provided without sex involved............In fact we have something similar here in Washington in that older people who are related can be involved in a domestic partnership with full benefits.............

These people have the same rights under the 14th amendment as gays do.............
 
texmaster said:
9th ammendment never mentions homosexuality or sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

Nope, sure doesn't. It doesn't mention anything speciically. What it does say is "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

You understand, yes?
 
Navy Pride said:
You are forgetting the polygamy issue as well as people who are related wanting to get married for the benefits provided without sex involved............In fact we have something similar here in Washington in that older people who are related can be involved in a domestic partnership with full benefits.............

These people have the same rights under the 14th amendment as gays do.............
Click to expand...

Why do you care, Navy? I lived in the same state with some 20,000 polygamists, and the sky didn't fall. I see no reason why consenting adults can't marry other consenting adults without Navy Pride or anyone else butting his nose into their marriage.
 
Zyphlin said:
Navy, True or False....You, a man, can marry a woman?

Navy, True or False....Rivvrat, a woman, can marry a woman?

Please exactly show me after answering that how there is equal protection under the law between men and women in regards to marriage?
Click to expand...

Why is the limitation to men and women? Why not children marrying children or children marrying men or women? If you are going to expand equal protection under the law to include sexual orientation you cannot descriminate against any sexual orientation.
 
Navy Pride said:
You already have the same rights. you want a special right...............Hell I can't have 4 wives, why should you be allowed to marry your boyfriend............
Click to expand...

Same reason blacks should have been allowed to marry whites. Despite the fact that you can't have 4 wives.
 
Navy Pride said:
You are forgetting the polygamy issue as well as people who are related wanting to get married for the benefits provided without sex involved............In fact we have something similar here in Washington in that older people who are related can be involved in a domestic partnership with full benefits.............

These people have the same rights under the 14th amendment as gays do.............
Click to expand...

I find it interesting that everytime you get confronted with certain gay marriage questions you immediately go to polygamy. Is it really so hard to stay on topic?
 
Ikari said:
Nope, sure doesn't. It doesn't mention anything speciically. What it does say is "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

You understand, yes?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And since hommosexual marriage has never been defined as a right there is no legal standing. That is why we have laws and ammendments not judges writing new law.
 
texmaster said:
Why is the limitation to men and women? Why not children marrying children or children marrying men or women? If you are going to expand equal protection under the law to include sexual orientation you cannot descriminate against any sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

Marriage is between two consenting adults. Minors can't consent to anything legally.

Nice try again though.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
I find it interesting that everytime you get confronted with certain gay marriage questions you immediately go to polygamy. Is it really so hard to stay on topic?
Click to expand...

Because if you are creating a new "right" specifcally for sexual orientation you cannot descriminate against any other sexual orientation which includes polygamy.
 
Your Star said:
Marriage is between two consenting adults. Minors can't consent to anything legally.

Nice try again though.
Click to expand...

And there are laws against gay marriage you want to throw out so how can you justify only keeping the laws you like?

Thinking this through helps.
 
texmaster said:
Absolutely. And since hommosexual marriage has never been defined as a right there is no legal standing. That is why we have laws and ammendments not judges writing new law.
Click to expand...

Homosexual marriage may never have been defined as a right, but contract sure as hell is. Right to contract is a right held by the individual. The marriage license is a contract.

You understand, yes?
 
Navy Pride said:
Polls mean nothing here............
Click to expand...

I know, you've told us that numerous times Navy. Just a search of the archieves for Polls, Bush, and Iraq shows us that.

Navy Pride circa 2005 archieve post said:
Not a big polls fan here......Its all how they are worded..........

(LINK)
Click to expand...

Navy Pride circa 2005 archieve post said:
You can make anything you want out of polls and you know it....It really depends on who you poll

(LINK)
Click to expand...

Navy Pride circa 2005 archieve post said:
As I have saud many times polls can be very faulty like the one that was given to the troops in Iraq.............

(LINK)
Click to expand...

As we can see Navy, when Bush was in office you were a huge advocate for ignoring polls and "the will of the people". Indeed, when a person wouldn't take action based on polls you stated things like this.

Navy Pride circa 2005 archieve post said:
He is a president who does not get up in the morning and look at the polls to decide his positions......I like that..........

(LINK)
Click to expand...

Navy Pride circa 2005 archieve post said:
Thank God this President does not run his presidency by stupid bias left wing media polls.......

(LINK)
Click to expand...

Navy Pride circa 2006 archieve post said:
If President Bush governed by the polls he would be concerned about his approval ratings and maybe Cut and Run in Iraq like you and your Liberal buddies want him to do.......

(LINK)
Click to expand...

Saying how much you like it that people don't govern based on polls. And yet, it seems now that you're advocating polls DO matter and that a judge should judge based on polls.

That reminds me of something else you had said.

Navy Pride circa 2005 archieve post said:
When it comes to polls our liberal friends only cite them when they favor their position..........

(LINK)
Click to expand...

Just flip the liberal thing.

What I'm getting at Navy is simply appealing to polls is hollow. Its doubly hollow when its done by someone who previously continually discounted polls. Can polls be useful tools? Yep, they could back in 2005 with Iraq and they can today as well, you know, like the one some time ago that you discounted where people felt DADT should end. But polls in and of themselves should never be the only, or even primary, justification for something done by a government official because public opinion is continually swaying and at times simply unconstitutional or wrong.
 
texmaster said:
Why is the limitation to men and women? Why not children marrying children or children marrying men or women? If you are going to expand equal protection under the law to include sexual orientation you cannot descriminate against any sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

Age of consent laws serve a legitimate governmental interest and thus would be upheld under an equal protection challenge.
 
texmaster said:
Because if you are creating a new "right" specifcally for sexual orientation you cannot descriminate against any other sexual orientation which includes polygamy.
Click to expand...

Polygamy is a practice, not an orientation.
 
texmaster said:
Why is the limitation to men and women? Why not children marrying children or children marrying men or women? If you are going to expand equal protection under the law to include sexual orientation you cannot descriminate against any sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

Yet another weak argument. Children can't marry children because they are not at the age of consent. You can't compare the two because adults, regardless of sex, are at the age of consent. :doh
 
texmaster said:
Because if you are creating a new "right" specifcally for sexual orientation you cannot descriminate against any other sexual orientation which includes polygamy.
Click to expand...

And since we're all happy go lucky on the 14th, answer me why for decades the courts have abridged the rights of Fathers, over the Mother? Due process I suppose. So if one agrees that due process can legally infringe upon a parents right to their children, then why not for gay marriage?


Tim-
 
Zyphlin said:
I know, you've told us that numerous times Navy. Just a search of the archieves for Polls, Bush, and Iraq shows us that.
Click to expand...

You left out the best one Zyph....the one where Navy called Rasmussen a "biased pollster that only polls liberals"......

That's always been my favorite.
 
texmaster said:
Because if you are creating a new "right" specifcally for sexual orientation you cannot descriminate against any other sexual orientation which includes polygamy.
Click to expand...

If you want to start a topic discussing polygamy, feel free. This discussion is on gay marriage, specifically in California. Please try to stay on topic.
 
It actually hurt to read that. Because children can't enter contracts. Surely you already knew that. Please tell me you did.

texmaster said:
Why is the limitation to men and women? Why not children marrying children or children marrying men or women? If you are going to expand equal protection under the law to include sexual orientation you cannot descriminate against any sexual orientation.
Click to expand...
 
texmaster said:
And there are laws against gay marriage you want to throw out so how can you justify only keeping the laws you like?

Thinking this through helps.
Click to expand...

Just like there were laws against black people marrying white people. Just like there were Jim Crow laws. This process has been repeated numerous times in American history, this is just the next time another minority group gets a right that has been denied them because they were different.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Yet another weak argument. Children can't marry children because they are not at the age of consent. You can't compare the two because adults, regardless of sex, are at the age of consent. :doh
Click to expand...

Not that I advocate children marrying children, I do however wish to raise the point, at which time does a childs inability to marry another child, legitimately serve the government interest?


Tim-
 
today, gay marriage

tomorrow, polygamy

LOL!

now, there's a WINNING argument

let me ask you---after polygamy, what's next for the enlightened?

hey, when you're right in your own opened and expanded mind---AND YOU KNOW IT---of what worth are the sentiments of a bunch of backward looking, small minded neighbors, fellow workers, associates...

just like 31 states---a bunch of crap
 
Navy Pride said:
You are forgetting the polygamy issue as well as people who are related wanting to get married for the benefits provided without sex involved............In fact we have something similar here in Washington in that older people who are related can be involved in a domestic partnership with full benefits.............

These people have the same rights under the 14th amendment as gays do.............
Click to expand...

In regards to members of the same family, it’s a reasonable argument to make that the state has legitimate and reasoned state interest to deny such marriages due to the fact that procreation between those two individuals has a higher chance for genetic deformity which could place a drain on society as a whole in having to help support that individual. However, I actually have no issues with two siblings or two cousins getting married in a governmental sense…though I think the term “marriage” should be removed as a whole. There’s no reasons in situations where a pair of siblings are going to be together for a substantial amount of time that benefits with regards to power of attorney type issues, taxes, real estate purchase, and other type things should be denied to them. Do I think they should be screwing each other? Nope, and I agree completely with incest laws regarding sex…but simply as governmental marriage, I have little issue with it. Your example in Washington with the older people is exactly what I am describing.

Polygamy issues don’t factor into what I said at all. Polygamy is discrimination based on numbers which one, is allowable, and two, even if it was covered by equal protection its covered at a far lower standard than gender is.

But navy, rather than simply asking questions and deflecting, why don’t you answer mine.

Where is the equal protection based on gender in the fact you can marry a woman but a woman can’t marry a woman?
 
Your Star said:
Polygamy is a practice, not an orientation.
Click to expand...

I may be a bit biased about polygamy, being an old man of 64, but I think that having more than one spouse at the same time is crazy stupid. The logistics of it has to be difficult at best.
If I was 24, I might have a different opinion....;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom