• 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.
BDBoop said:
Frankly, I could care on that front as well, as long as children were precluded (just as it stands now) and they were willing to swear under oath (said children) that they were under no duress, and this is really what they want.

Maybe a guardian ad litem.

For everybody else, see first four words on this post.

Let's return to the topic-at-hand, shall we?
Click to expand...

But the question of fundamental right is the point of this debate, isn't it? Without a fundamental right, the 14th is rendered moot. If I were arguing against gay marriage, I would argue that marriage if fundamental at all is held precisely for one man, and one woman. Please take the opposing view councilor.. :)

Tim-
 
bi bobby enjoys the exact same constitutional protections covering gay gary

who are you to deny him his private, consensual relations?
 
The Prof said:
who are you to tell a man he can't marry a man?

and who are you to tell a bisexual he can't marry 2?

he or she has needs, too, y'know
Click to expand...

Bisexuals are not inherently or even particularly like to be into polygamy.
 
Hicup said:
But the question of fundamental right is the point of this debate, isn't it? Without a fundamental right, the 14th is rendered moot. If I were arguing against gay marriage, I would argue that marriage if fundamental at all is held precisely for one man, and one woman. Please take the opposing view councilor.. :)

Tim-
Click to expand...

Except for the facts that the courts have to deal with the issues currently presented to them, now, today under the constitutionality of things now, today. And in this current time Marriage IS A constitutional right and judges must act on the law based on current constitutional law until such point that a case actually challenging the constitutionality of marriage presents itself and the court over turns it. Until that point, simply ignoring the fact that its been found to be constitutionally a right is just...well....activist judging ;)
 
Zyphlin said:
"number of people" isn't a protected grouping under EPC and furthermore a far stronger case for government interest can be made with polygamy than with same sex marriages.
Click to expand...

bobby is not a number of people

he's bobby
 
The Prof said:
but barry says gay marriage is just like incest and pedophilia

i guess barry fails too

LOL!
Click to expand...

And your failing to twist the topic of the thread continuing to fail is still hilarious.
 
Erod said:
That's because you are a bigot against polygamists.
Click to expand...

No, it's because the polygamy argument is irrelevant to the issue. It's like comparing apples and airplanes. Bringing it up is a silly talking point/red herring that does not apply.
 
The Prof said:
bi bobby enjoys the exact same constitutional protections covering gay gary

who are you to deny him his private, consensual relations?
Click to expand...

No ones denying him private consensual relations.

They're denying him the ability to have more than one spouse.

They can do this because "number of people" is not a protected grouping under the Equal Protection Clause. They can also do this because there is a far stronger case for government interest with regards to polygamy than with same sex marriage.
 
BDBoop said:
No, they really haven't.

They were either curious, or they denied themselves - but gays are gays are gays are gays.
Click to expand...

There are many documented cases..........just google on it and you might learn something.......
 
Is there anyway you can stop changing the subject to prove a nonprovable point? I'm literally getting dizzy.

Hicup said:
But the question of fundamental right is the point of this debate, isn't it? Without a fundamental right, the 14th is rendered moot. If I were arguing against gay marriage, I would argue that marriage if fundamental at all is held precisely for one man, and one woman. Please take the opposing view councilor.. :)

Tim-
Click to expand...
 
Redress said:
And your failing to twist the topic of the thread continuing to fail is still hilarious.
Click to expand...

barack hussein obama's dept of justice equated gay marriage to pedophilia

ug-ly

what's going on with dadt?
 
Hicup said:
The liberals here seem to shy away form the polygamy argument, as it tends to nullify the "fundamental" meaning of marriage. This is precisely my point. If marriage is so fundamental, then by what measure is it so? What is it about marriage that makes it fundamental, or inalieanable?

Liberals care to weigh in?


Tim-
Click to expand...

Maybe because the thread is not about polygamy?
 
Hicup said:
The liberals here seem to shy away form the polygamy argument, as it tends to nullify the "fundamental" meaning of marriage. This is precisely my point. If marriage is so fundamental, then by what measure is it so? What is it about marriage that makes it fundamental, or inalieanable?

Liberals care to weigh in?


Tim-
Click to expand...

Again, and has been explained repeatedly, wanting gay marriage is not the same thing as wanting marriage in any and every case with no limits. Zyphlin has pointed out the legal differences between gays, men and women, and polygamists.
 
Zyphlin said:
That's funny, cause I see a bunch of "conservatives" shying away from this particular conservative whose also rejecting the polygamist arguments and has given specific reasons for it while not a single, solitary conservative has shown how any of my arguments for same sex marriage can be equally applied to polygamy.

How about instead of calling people out, you step up.
Click to expand...

Step up? I've been stepping up since I entered the thread.. LOL

In order to find the truth behind a particular opinion, and whether it has validity, we must take specific, and crucial steps. I'm not sure I received your challnge on polygamy, but if it was directed at me and I missed it, please re-issue it. I don't shy away from direct questions, ever.

I want to know what people here think makes something a fundamental right, and whether they agree that the definition I provided, which closely matches the legal test, is a valid starting point? The reason this question is important is because if marriage isn't fundamental to all humans, then which humans is it fundamental too, if at all?


Your turn.

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
The liberals here seem to shy away form the polygamy argument, as it tends to nullify the "fundamental" meaning of marriage. This is precisely my point. If marriage is so fundamental, then by what measure is it so? What is it about marriage that makes it fundamental, or inalieanable?

Liberals care to weigh in?
Click to expand...

The right of marriage is the right to two parties to choose a spouse, and with free and mutual consent, join together and form a household where they then consent to support each other and their dependents. If polygamists wish to argue that the state has an interest in promoting marriage that includes more than two parties, then let them. They must provide evidence to support that they can provide just as stable homes as heterosexual couples and same sex couples. It has been more than adequately demonstrated through evidence in this case that same sex couples are just as capable of providing a stable household and raising children as heterosexual couples. There is no evidence to support that polygamists are similarly capable. As such, arguments of polygamy are irrelevant to same sex marriage.
 
Zyphlin said:
Indeed.

But saying its discrimination for him not to be able to have 2 spouses instead of 1 IS number of people.
Click to expand...

two?

that's it?

that's your grand constitutional construct?

LOL!

bobby, betty and beatrice are individuals

each one
 
Hicup said:
I don't expect, in fact, I kNOW it is beyond your comprehension.

Tim-
Click to expand...

Actually, I am quite certain that this issue that you are discussing is beyond YOUR comprehension. You do not seem to understand the difference between information and influence, and what occurs in our schools. Have you ever taught sex education? I have and your perception is not only inaccurate, but it is absurd.
 
Navy Pride said:
Just because he was nominated by a Conservative does not make him one.............Soutar comes to mind.........
Click to expand...

Do you have any clue why he was opposed by liberals? Do you have any evidence he is a liberal?
 
Redress said:
Again, and has been explained repeatedly, wanting gay marriage is not the same thing as wanting marriage in any and every case with no limits. Zyphlin has pointed out the legal differences between gays, men and women, and polygamists.
Click to expand...

And he's wrong.. If one beleives that marriage is fundamental right, then any type of marriage is. Is it not?

Tim-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom