• 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.
rivrrat said:
Not to mention that every time I have used a "Men's" bathroom, I wasn't prevented from doing so by anyone.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how we're supposed to interpret that ;)
 
digsbe said:
Fair enough, sorry for a false accusation
Click to expand...

Thank you.


Yes they are, the state is taking a moral stance that homosexual unions are just as much a marriage as a traditional heterosexual one.
Click to expand...

No, and this is where your argument loses validity. The state is NOT taking a moral stance. It is taking a scientific stance that homosexual unions are as beneficial to society as heterosexual ones.

The state would be acting upon a moral issue and taking a moral stance against the will and morals of the majority. I have said this before, there would be no legal recourse or complaint if the majority voted for a marriage definition hat included same sex relationships. The state would be imposing one moral stance as superior to the other. That is absolutely imposing morals upon an entire society.
Click to expand...

This is why I never argue from a moral stance... because it's not about morality. It's about information and science. tex has repeated a failed mantra throughout this. From a benefit to society standpoint, there is no difference between hetero- and homo- sexual marriage. All evidence confirms this. It does NOT confirm this with polygamy.

In the case of proving whether or not GM is valid, morality is irrelevant. You can vote how you desire, but this is ultimately about science, not morality.


Here is an essay that was written and is backed up by numerous scientific sources that states that homosexuality may develop due to sexual, physical, and emotional abuse. Sexual Abuse: A Major Cause Of Homosexuality?
Click to expand...

You REALLY don't want to go this route. I have to get back to work, but I can debunk this essay in about 2 seconds. Here is the first two lines:

It is a well-documented fact that many many homosexuals were sexually abused when young. (This paper will conclude with a list of some books which support that statement.)In other words, there is an abundance of evidence that many many homosexuals were born heterosexual but were disoriented by sexual abuse.
Click to expand...

This is a logical fallacy. No causastion whatsoever. Therefore, the author can NOT make the claim that homosexuals were born heterosexual and were disoriented by sexual abuse. It is an absurd claim, that I will further debunk later.

Further, the paper lies about credentials. Dr. Ronald Bayer is NOT a psychiatrist, nor was he ever. He is a professor of Sociology. His paper about how homosexuality was removed as a diagnosis has been debunked, repeatedly. He was not there. There is a book written by those who WERE there about how it happened. I'll dig it up and post it later.

In other words, the essay you posted is completely invalid. That didn't take me long at all.
 
CriticalThought said:
What do polygamists have to do with the state mandating gender roles?
Click to expand...

Absolutely nothing. tex still doesn't understand how one defines sexual orientation and that polygamy is not one. Pay him no mind.
 
Taylor said:
I'm not sure how we're supposed to interpret that ;)
Click to expand...

LOL however you wish. :)

If the women's bathroom line is too long and I gotta go, I'm going in the men's bathroom. Simple as.

We have men's and women's bathrooms here at work and they are absolutely identical. They are also one person only bathrooms. We all use them as though they are unisex even though they are designated otherwise. It would be stupid not to. Why should I stand in the hall trying not to piss my pants when there's a perfectly good bathroom right in front of me that just happens to have "Men" written on the door? It's silly.

But, no one stops me or anyone else from using that bathroom. So, there's no reason for me to petition the company to have unisex bathrooms.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Absolutely nothing. tex still doesn't understand how one defines sexual orientation and that polygamy is not one. Pay him no mind.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that Walker even ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional on the basis that it violated the 14th amendment by discriminating against sexual orientation. I believe he overturned it on the basis that it discriminated again sex. Things like sex, race, age, etc. are protected classes by federal law, and things like polygamy, pedophilia, and sexual orientation are not. I read through the ruling and it seemed to me that he was saying the state had no rational or legitimate interest in mandating gender roles in marriage, and therefore could not lawfully discriminate against a man choosing to marry a man or a woman choosing to marry a woman. Whether or not they were homosexual couples seemed to be irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
rivrrat said:
LOL however you wish. :)

If the women's bathroom line is too long and I gotta go, I'm going in the men's bathroom. Simple as.

We have men's and women's bathrooms here at work and they are absolutely identical. They are also one person only bathrooms. We all use them as though they are unisex even though they are designated otherwise. It would be stupid not to. Why should I stand in the hall trying not to piss my pants when there's a perfectly good bathroom right in front of me that just happens to have "Men" written on the door? It's silly.

But, no one stops me or anyone else from using that bathroom. So, there's no reason for me to petition the company to have unisex bathrooms.
Click to expand...
Haha - and this is in Virginia?? I know of at least a few college dorms (mostly in CA) that are unisex (or "gender neutral") - that brings it up a whole level. Not just shared toilets, but showers etc.

The absolute worst are sporting venues, although some bars can be pretty bad, too.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Absolutely nothing. tex still doesn't understand how one defines sexual orientation and that polygamy is not one. Pay him no mind.
Click to expand...

And you can't even read a CDC study. You lost pages ago but you just haven't admitted it.
 
CriticalThought said:
So what about marriage? If the state stops mandating the gender roles of marriage does that somehow affect the argument that marriage should be restricted to two people?
Click to expand...

Because it breaks equal protection under the law as you just stated. Why would it not cover more than two people? How could you restrict it?

Why is it discrimnatory? What class of people does it discriminate against? Sex, men and women, are a protected class, just like race is a protected class.

Whereas sexual orientation is not a protected class, nor are polygamists or pedophiles. The judge found a wealth of evidence to support that the state had no rational grounds by which to prohibit two people of the same sex from marrying. Whereas polygamists and pedophiles are not only not a protected class, but they are not supported by any credible evidence.
Click to expand...

If you claim more than 2 people cannot marry what are you pointing to that invalidates the 14th ammendment coverage based on this ruling? Explain yourself.

and person does not have an age limit so in come the adults who want to marry children. Once again, explain yourself. You are fabricating these protected classes that have nothing to do with the Equal Protection clause.

Nope, only protected classes.
Click to expand...
That doesn't fly. The 14th ammendement Equal protection clause says:

"no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Any person. Not protected classes. PERSON. So again, how can you discriminate against people who are Polygamists for example? Explain how.
 
Last edited:
FilmFestGuy said:
The greater point is IT DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL. It has nothing to do with the argument. It's OFF-TOPIC.
Click to expand...

It was a counter to his argument. Go back and read what he advocated. I've only explained it a dozen times.
 
texmaster said:
Because it breaks equal protection under the law as you just stated. Why would it not cover more than two people? How could you restrict it?

Why is it discrimnatory? What class of people does it discriminate against? Sex, men and women, are a protected class, just like race is a protected class.

Whereas sexual orientation is not a protected class, nor are polygamists or pedophiles. The judge found a wealth of evidence to support that the state had no rational grounds by which to prohibit two people of the same sex from marrying. Whereas polygamists and pedophiles are not only not a protected class, but they are not supported by any credible evidence.

If you claim more than 2 people cannot marry what are you pointing to that invalidates the 14th ammendment coverage based on this ruling? Explain yourself.



Nope, only protected classes.
Click to expand...

Gender is a protected class. Women were discriminated against by the state in that they were told they could only marry men (and vice-versa) and it wasn't in the state's interest to prevent it. It's really not that hard to figure out.

Yes, we keep saying that he made "same-sex marriage legal" (because he did) - but legally, what he did is struck down gender-discrimination in marriage law.

There is no way polygamists, pedophiles, or animal-humpers could argue that this case means they can get married now. It can't be argued. It doesn't address age; it doesn't address animals; and it doesn't address numbers.

They can NOT use that argument.

Again, you're getting your panties in a bunch over something that will not happen. It's not there. It's only in your (and others) imaginations. You're making something up to get nervous about.
 
texmaster said:
It was a counter to his argument. Go back and read what he advocated. I've only explained it a dozen times.
Click to expand...

No - I got involved in your little side argument about HIV only briefly. Since then, I've just been trying to get you guys back on topic - which is gay marriage.

Your little side topic really, really, really needs to be moved into a different thread. I don't care who brought it up or why. I'm just tired of off-topic discussions that go back and forth and back and forth for 20 pages.
 
texmaster said:
Any person. Not protected classes. PERSON. So again, how can you discriminate against people who are Polygamists for example? Explain how.
Click to expand...

That would be why the Federal government created protected classes for cases of discrimination.

As I said with CC, I don't believe that Walker even ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional on the basis that it violated the 14th amendment by discriminating against sexual orientation. I believe he overturned it on the basis that it discriminated again sex. Things like sex, race, age, etc. are protected classes by federal law, and things like polygamy, pedophilia, and sexual orientation are not. I read through the ruling and it seemed to me that he was saying the state had no rational or legitimate interest in mandating gender roles in marriage, and therefore could not lawfully discriminate against a man choosing to marry a man or a woman choosing to marry a woman. Whether or not they were homosexual couples seemed to be irrelevant.

As FilmFestGuy has stated, your polygamy argument is now irrelevant. This was a case of gender discrimination in marriage, which was why it was overturned. Gender discrimination is not a grounds by which polygamists, pedophiles, or zoophiles can argue for the right to marry.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
How could you restrict it?
Click to expand...

There are a few ways. One is on rights issues. Polygamy rarely works out in a non-oppressive manner. We even still have modern day examples of this in the US. If this were done in a way that completely abides by the rights of the individual, you can try to work around that. But the polygamist communities such as in Arizona, that's not how it works in practice. So you can always go that route.

Another way is to site precedent. Which would be Utah. It was not even allowed into the Republic unless it made polygamy illegal.
 
Ikari said:
There are a few ways. One is on rights issues. Polygamy rarely works out in a non-oppressive manner. We even still have modern day examples of this in the US. If this were done in a way that completely abides by the rights of the individual, you can try to work around that. But the polygamist communities such as in Arizona, that's not how it works in practice. So you can always go that route.

Another way is to site precedent. Which would be Utah. It was not even allowed into the Republic unless it made polygamy illegal.
Click to expand...

Additionally, there is no law preventing from a group of people living together and having whatever relationship they want. When it comes to the legal benefits though, one person having 10 dependent spouses would be a government nightmare; thus it's in the state's interests to limit marriage to two people.

Plus restricting the number of people involved in a legal contract isn't protected anywhere in the constitution. You could argue freedom of association - but their ability to associate isn't being restricted. It's just their ability to enter into the legal agreement we call marriage.

If a theater is sold out, is it a violation of your rights to be told they can't let you in because it would violate fire codes? Nope.

Again, consenting adults can do what they like. But the government isn't discriminating by limiting legal marriage to two adults.
 
texmaster said:
And you can't even read a CDC study. You lost pages ago but you just haven't admitted it.
Click to expand...

I already showed that you misrepresented the CDC study. You never got out of the starting block with this debate, but we all know you'll never admit that you don't have clue. Even though anyone who understands this debate can see it.
 
texmaster said:
It was a counter to his argument. Go back and read what he advocated. I've only explained it a dozen times.
Click to expand...

You haven't refuted my argument. Mostly because you don't understand it. But keep making your foolish claims. As impossible as it may be, it's making you look even LESS knowledgeable on the topic.
 
Ikari said:
There are a few ways. One is on rights issues. Polygamy rarely works out in a non-oppressive manner. We even still have modern day examples of this in the US. If this were done in a way that completely abides by the rights of the individual, you can try to work around that. But the polygamist communities such as in Arizona, that's not how it works in practice. So you can always go that route.

Another way is to site precedent. Which would be Utah. It was not even allowed into the Republic unless it made polygamy illegal.
Click to expand...

Actually, it could be even easier. While same sex marriage has relatively little impact on the structure of society, as the only people who are generally interested in it are gays and lesbians, polygamy has a substantial impact on the structure of society. Since society is split pretty much 50% males and 50% females, for every wife a man takes, it leaves another man without a wife. That means that a large underprivileged class of unmarried men would form, which has been documented both in modern day polygamous sects and in the past when polygamy was more accepted. It endangers the general welfare of the nation to promote the means of the formation of such a class, and therefore the state cannot endorse polygamy.
 
Last edited:
FilmFestGuy said:
Additionally, there is no law preventing from a group of people living together and having whatever relationship they want.
Click to expand...

This is f'd up and off topic, but there is such a law in my city. It's called the 2 + You rule. You can only live in a house with 2 other unrelated people. Now none of this is polygamy concerns, it all stems from college students and property owners; but I still think it's a f'd up law.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You haven't refuted my argument. Mostly because you don't understand it. But keep making your foolish claims. As impossible as it may be, it's making you look even LESS knowledgeable on the topic.
Click to expand...

Perhaps he was "refudiating" it! :)
 
Ikari said:
This is f'd up and off topic, but there is such a law in my city. It's called the 2 + You rule. You can only live in a house with 2 other unrelated people. Now none of this is polygamy concerns, it all stems from college students and property owners; but I still think it's a f'd up law.
Click to expand...

True, but that could be a married couple + 2 extra lovers, if they wanted! :) Not quite a harem, but close.
 
texmaster said:
Then you cannot stop Polygamists. They have every right to the 14th amendment. No where does it say the 14th ammendment doesn't apply to groups of more than 2 people or stops at a certain age. No could you stop children and adults from marrying. Again, the 14th ammendment applies. That is the gaping hole in the ruling.
Click to expand...

:failpail: #1) Polygamists don't qualify for a marriage license based on their CURRENT MARITAL STATUS. Have you ever applied for a marriage license? If you had, then you would know that people who were previously married must supply proof the previous marriage was annulled or dissolved.

**also most polygamists are looking to marry girls under the age of consent.

:failpail:#2) Children are not adults--they can not consent to marriage. They are getting equal protection under the law.

Gaping hold indeed....
 
BDBoop said:
I've barely been skimming this thread and it is my understanding that if "other sexualities" (such as?) *because people are born gay - but afaik they are not born polygamous* want their issue addressed then they need to file suit as well.
Click to expand...

The fact is no one knows if gays are born that way or not....There are arguments on both sides of the issue........
 
BDBoop said:
Bestiality is deviant, homosexuality is not.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion....The majority of the people in this country (Christians) disagree with you on that statement......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom