• 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!

Court halts Calif. gay marriages pending appeal

zip98053 said:
What is the vested state interest that is not served by allowing a pair of people to form a financial pairing that gives them benefits that would otherwise not be available to them?

If you can, please try to avoid the pretentious pejoratives about relative mental capabilities.
Click to expand...

But they can already. Without marriage.. Next...


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
It's not assumption so much as it is a pressumption. One is diredted by law, the other is not.

My argument is legal in nature not philosophical, as your is? Why is there an instrinsic pressumption that gays will procreate?


Tim-
Click to expand...

Why, then, is there a presumption that the reason that the government gives special privileges to marriage is to encourage procreation?

I think that the government should either not be in the business of marriage, or not be in the business of deciding how people pair off.
 
Hicup said:
They have children, but they are not pressumed to have a wanting of children. Do I have to spell this out to you?


Tim-
Click to expand...

Wait a minute. Really? Gays shouldn't get married because you make a faulty assumption? This has to be one of the stupider arguments I have ever heard. Let's look at some numbers:

http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/FinalAdoptionReport.pdf

More than one in three lesbians have given birth and one in six gay men have fathered or adopted a child.
• More than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians want to have a child.
• An estimated two million GLB people are interested in adopting.
• An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
• More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
Click to expand...

Looks like gays do want kids....

By the way, we call this actually documenting claims, instead of just making **** up.
 
I knew the stay would probably be extended, and I do think it is appropriate even though I support SSM. Let the process run it's court, I think we will win in the end(see what I did there?).
 
zip98053 said:
Why, then, is there a presumption that the reason that the government gives special privileges to marriage is to encourage procreation?

I think that the government should either not be in the business of marriage, or not be in the business of deciding how people pair off.
Click to expand...

That, Sir, is left up to you to decide. Legally, there us a real identifiable need for it. It is the entire basis of my argument.


Tim-
 
Redress said:
Wait a minute. Really? Gays shouldn't get married because you make a faulty assumption? This has to be one of the stupider arguments I have ever heard. Let's look at some numbers:

http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/FinalAdoptionReport.pdf



Looks like gays do want kids....

By the way, we call this actually documenting claims, instead of just making **** up.
Click to expand...

So, I want to smoke weed. No I don't really, but it is as ridiculous as your argument. Why would a homosexual who cannot bear children with the one they love want to have kids in the "same-way" a heterosexual couple does. How efficient is it?



Tim-
 
still have yet to hear one good reason against Gay marriage..I can't believe we are still debating this in 2010, lets just legalize it and move on to more important things.
 
Hicup said:
But they can already. Without marriage.. Next...


Tim-
Click to expand...

Can you say non sequitur?

Who can do what aleady without marriage?

If the government would simply allows civil unions to any pair that wants to form a civil union, and then gives that pair the same rights and privileges as they currently give to married couples, then we can get the government out of the marriage discussion. The government would not have to condone or prevent marriage. It simply allows these civil unions and then marriage reverts to what it has been historically, a religious ceremony.
 
Hicup said:
So, I want to smoke weed. No I don't really, but it is as ridiculous as your argument. Why would a homosexual who cannot bear children with the one they love want to have kids in the "same-way" a heterosexual couple does. How efficient is it?



Tim-
Click to expand...

Why not place special recognition for the intrinsic value or the heteroseuxal union?


Tim-
 
zip98053 said:
Can you say non sequitur?

Who can do what aleady without marriage?

If the government would simply allows civil unions to any pair that wants to form a civil union, and then gives that pair the same rights and privileges as they currently give to married couples, then we can get the government out of the marriage discussion. The government would not have to condone or prevent marriage. It simply allows these civil unions and then marriage reverts to what it has been historically, a religious ceremony.
Click to expand...

No argument there...



But the gays don't want that.. They want marriage..



Tim-
 
Last edited:
BCR said:
still have yet to hear one good reason against Gay marriage..I can't believe we are still debating this in 2010, lets just legalize it and move on to more important things.
Click to expand...

Then you haven't been paying attention.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
That, Sir, is left up to you to decide. Legally, there us a real identifiable need for it. It is the entire basis of my argument.


Tim-
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that I've yet to discern any legal argument in your postings. Saying that one is making a legal argument without any citations of precedent does not a legal argument make.
 
Your Star said:
Just because you don't drink and drive doesn't mean it doesn't affect you. When other people drink and drive on the same roads as you, guess what it affects you!

And it's not a dishonest question, how does it affect you?
Click to expand...

Who are YOU to judge how Gay Marriage would affect me or another person? How did Slavery Affect non-slave holders? How did Blacks not being able to Vote affect whites? How did Women not being able to Vote Affect Males?

Think about how silly that line of thought is, "How does it affect you? It doesn't so you can't argue against it!" No matter how the person you are attacking replies, you will claim their reasons are NOT VALID and dismiss them. A most dishonest emotional line of thought.
 
Hicup said:
No argument there...



But the gays don't want that.. They want marriage..



Tim-
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I think that they want the same standing, under the law, as any other couple. They will make the seperate is inherently not equal argument and I think that I would agree with them.

My proposition is that the government doesn't say anything about marriage. The government should only do civil unions. Le the pastors do marriage.
 
zip98053 said:
I'm afraid that I've yet to discern any legal argument in your postings. Saying that one is making a legal argument without any citations of precedent does not a legal argument make.
Click to expand...

What? Why the need for precedent? Where do you think precedent comes from? A hint is the strongest legal argument. The refusal, or offording gay rights to marriage is substantive. You do know what that means, right?


Tim-
 
zip98053 said:
I don't think so. I think that they want the same standing, under the law, as any other couple. They will make the seperate is inherently not equal argument and I think that I would agree with them.

My proposition is that the government doesn't say anything about marriage. The government should only do civil unions. Le the pastors do marriage.
Click to expand...



They are separate, AND they are unequal.


Tim-
 
Your Star said:
And there it is. Atleast you have the balls to say that you think LGBT are unequal.
Click to expand...

They are in the context of this debate, and in the vested interest of the state.

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
What? Why the need for precedent? Where do you think precedent comes from? A hint is the strongest legal argument. The refusal, or offording gay rights to marriage is substantive. You do know what that means, right?


Tim-
Click to expand...

I'm having a hard time following your logic. "A hint is the strongest legal argument"? I understand all of those words individually, but I can't parse any meaning from the sentence. I can just imagine going up to a judge and saying I have a really good argument in support of my position. It isn't based on any legal precedent, but I'd like to give you a "hint".

I know what "substantive" means but I don't know what your point is. If you don't mind, could you try doing the non-legal version of your argument. The "legal" version is just to damn hard to follow.
 
Hicup said:
So, I want to smoke weed. No I don't really, but it is as ridiculous as your argument. Why would a homosexual who cannot bear children with the one they love want to have kids in the "same-way" a heterosexual couple does. How efficient is it?



Tim-
Click to expand...

Um, it's the 21st century. There are lots and lots of ways for gay couples to have kids. Being gay does not make you not maternal/paternal. I know, it ruins your argument based on your bad assumption, but there it is.
 
zip98053 said:
I'm having a hard time following your logic. "A hint is the strongest legal argument"? I understand all of those words individually, but I can't parse any meaning from the sentence. I can just imagine going up to a judge and saying I have a really good argument in support of my position. It isn't based on any legal precedent, but I'd like to give you a "hint".

I know what "substantive" means but I don't know what your point is. If you don't mind, could you try doing the non-legal version of your argument. The "legal" version is just to damn hard to follow.
Click to expand...



hehehe.. :) You're funny, I like you.


Tim-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom