• 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

The ONLY argument for "Gay Marriage" is that societal norms have changed. What was once considered aberrant behavior society did not approve of, has become acceptable behavior that many believe deserves to be placed along side Heterosexual Relationships.

The debate would be interesting if both sides were honest about the issue, but NEITHER are. I'm not, You Star isn't, CC isn't Redress... we all have vested EMOTIONAL reasons for our stances. This makes all of us, imperfect messengers of our positions. It gets quite fired up, look how many posts and pages a Gay anything thread gets.

What's really fubar, IMHO, is the use of Godwin's Law (Modified) by those in favor of SSM. If anyone makes an argument against SSM, invariably we'll spend pages discussing how, or how not alike the struggle for Gay Rights is like Race Issues. It's REALLY annoying because it's a pure emotional argument. Sorry guys, but you cannot pull race into everything, that's as bad as others comparing X to Nazi's.

Let's break it down to brass tacks here.

The REAL issue is, do we as a society, wish to accept two men, or two women in a relationship as being the same as a traditional Male/Female bonding?

That's what this ALL boils down too. Everything else is just... side fluff and reasons to pull heart strings to avoid facing the CORE issue.

Society through the ballot box, has repeatedly said "No, no we are not". This is not in dispute. California, one of the most GAY FRIENDLY places in the USA, if not THE most Gay State, rejected raising homosexual relationships to the same importance and acceptance as heterosexual relationships.

That should stop and give ALL of us pause here to consider, strip away the emotional baggage, and look at the results! That DOES matter.

Now we have this case working it's way up to the Supreme Court, which will nominally debate the Constitutionality of the measure. Do the people of the various States have a vested interest in this, and can they enact possibly discriminating laws? But they also must consider the effect on society their decision will have. They ALL will, and they all do. It's human nature.

I believe the States can provide the LEGAL framework, through civil unions that allow SSC (same-sex couples) to receive the same legal rights as any other recognized union, without forcing society to have to say SS relationships equal to OSM. Is it a cop out? No, I think it's finding common ground, and letting society come to grips with the issue.

Please return to your regularly scheduled emotionally driven content.
 
Legally, providing that framework to make civil unions the same as marriage would be exceedingly difficult. Well over 1k federal benefits alone to marriage. Further, the question has to arise is if civil unions are exactly the same as marriage, then why the distinction?

The arguments also go somewhat beyond what you are saying. You are, as you admit, biased, and I think that is why you are missing these. SSM(which I do prefer to GM, thanks MrV) is, to my way of thinking(with it's admitted bias), good for society as a whole. The institution of marriage provides for social stability. Marriages are more stable relationships. This is especially important when considering, as I documented earlier, the vast number of gay people with children, or who want children. Marriage provides the best possible arrangement for raising children, all other things being equal. I think this is an important argument, and simply cannot be discounted.
 
Legally, providing that framework to make civil unions the same as marriage would be exceedingly difficult. Well over 1k federal benefits alone to marriage. Further, the question has to arise is if civil unions are exactly the same as marriage, then why the distinction?

The arguments also go somewhat beyond what you are saying. You are, as you admit, biased, and I think that is why you are missing these. SSM(which I do prefer to GM, thanks MrV) is, to my way of thinking(with it's admitted bias), good for society as a whole. The institution of marriage provides for social stability. Marriages are more stable relationships. This is especially important when considering, as I documented earlier, the vast number of gay people with children, or who want children. Marriage provides the best possible arrangement for raising children, all other things being equal. I think this is an important argument, and simply cannot be discounted.

The distinction, is what SOCIETY wishes to accept, not what you or I are willing to do, SOCIETY. You ignored that part to push why YOU think SSM (To be honest, I saw peeps were using that, and I'm all for saving keystrokes) is good. That's fine. Society isn't ready yet to elevate the SSC to "Marriage". YOU think SSM is good for children, more seem to disagree. Please, don't post studies or whatever, read em, seen em, that's not the point.

That's really what it's about though Redress. Steve and Joe, Man and Man? What the hell do you call a couple like that? I've never bothered to learn... ah well, anyhoots, Steve and Joe might be the worlds best parenting couple, but if Society isn't ready to accept them as a married couple... why force the issue? That's my stance.

Civil Unions providing all the same legal benefits and coverage, lets society get used to the idea, and revisit it later on.
 
The distinction, is what SOCIETY wishes to accept, not what you or I are willing to do, SOCIETY. You ignored that part to push why YOU think SSM (To be honest, I saw peeps were using that, and I'm all for saving keystrokes) is good. That's fine. Society isn't ready yet to elevate the SSC to "Marriage". YOU think SSM is good for children, more seem to disagree. Please, don't post studies or whatever, read em, seen em, that's not the point.

That's really what it's about though Redress. Steve and Joe, Man and Man? What the hell do you call a couple like that? I've never bothered to learn... ah well, anyhoots, Steve and Joe might be the worlds best parenting couple, but if Society isn't ready to accept them as a married couple... why force the issue? That's my stance.

Civil Unions providing all the same legal benefits and coverage, lets society get used to the idea, and revisit it later on.

I just call Steve and Joe people. I don't do a whole lot of labeling.

I think you misunderstand what I was saying, for whatever reason, my poor explanation, or your not following, or a combination of both. The reason society should accept SSM, and should legalize it, is for those reasons. The court may(I suspect will) take the decision out of the hands of people though. If the twin cases making their way through end up the way they very will might, SSM will be legal in the US sooner rather than later. Then the only option is amending the constitution, which neither side can muster the votes for.
 
I just call Steve and Joe people. I don't do a whole lot of labeling.

I think you misunderstand what I was saying, for whatever reason, my poor explanation, or your not following, or a combination of both. The reason society should accept SSM, and should legalize it, is for those reasons. The court may(I suspect will) take the decision out of the hands of people though. If the twin cases making their way through end up the way they very will might, SSM will be legal in the US sooner rather than later. Then the only option is amending the constitution, which neither side can muster the votes for.
And what if the SCOTUS backs the People's right to say no to SSM?
 
And what if the SCOTUS backs the People's right to say no to SSM?

Then voting will have to be the method to get SSM implemented. Neither side is going to successfully get a constitutional amendment passed. Right now that is where the ball is, in the courts. Until they finish, things are in a kinda limbo.
 
The REAL issue is, do we as a society, wish to accept two men, or two women in a relationship as being the same as a traditional Male/Female bonding?

I agree.

Society through the ballot box, has repeatedly said "No, no we are not". This is not in dispute.

I'm afraid this is the most inane argument you can make in America regarding any issue. If a majority of Americans supported abortion, would that change your opinion of it? Would you be any less inclined to fight against a perceived injustice just because a majority was in favor of it? Just because a majority at one point in history holds a position does not mean that position is socially just. At various points in history, it was seen as socially just by a majority to deny women the right to vote and hold office, to own another man, to segregate people based on the color of their skin, etc. The majority was wrong. People who support same sex marriage feel that the majority is wrong in this case as well. And don't be confused, because I'm not suggesting that has anything to do with women's suffrage or race; I'm only pointing out the fact that a majority is not always right and people will do what they feel is socially just.

No, I think it's finding common ground, and letting society come to grips with the issue.

Ideally, yes that would be great common ground. Realistically, it is not for 2 reasons.

1. Your side would not likely concede civil unions if we weren't asking for same sex marriage. You perceive homosexuality as a choice and sin that must be diminished and eradicated from society and so unless we asked for the sky, you would have no reason to offer a common ground.
2. Your side sees civil unions as a stepping stone to same sex marriage. Arguably it is a stepping stone as is the case in California right now. However, it is your side that has taken the step of writing state Constitutional amendments in several states prohibiting not only same sex marriage but civil unions. You can't offer common ground that your side is trying to eradicate.
 
Last edited:
The debate would be interesting if both sides were honest about the issue, but NEITHER are. I'm not, You Star isn't, CC isn't Redress... we all have vested EMOTIONAL reasons for our stances. This makes all of us, imperfect messengers of our positions. It gets quite fired up, look how many posts and pages a Gay anything thread gets.

Society through the ballot box, has repeatedly said "No, no we are not". This is not in dispute. California, one of the most GAY FRIENDLY places in the USA, if not THE most Gay State, rejected raising homosexual relationships to the same importance and acceptance as heterosexual relationships.

That should stop and give ALL of us pause here to consider, strip away the emotional baggage, and look at the results! That DOES matter.

If our opinions are flawed by being driven by emotion, then so are the people who voted for prop 8.

The argument for same sex marriage is constitutionally driven, and the fact that you're emotional about something doesn't mean you can't be rational about it. A rational argument stands on its own. The fact that the supreme court has defined marriage as a fundamental right and equal protection is provided for homosexuals outlines a simple and rational argument for same sex marriage. The opposition's argument is irrational and emotional and, frankly, unconstitutional.
 
Yes...it is a very good sign for those of us on the side of love against hate. The ninth circuit is expediting the appeal process which, if you read the article, is a good indication that they are likely to side with those opposing prop 8.

It's the Ninth Circus Court, would we expect anything else?
 
The ONLY argument for "Gay Marriage" is that societal norms have changed. What was once considered aberrant behavior society did not approve of, has become acceptable behavior that many believe deserves to be placed along side Heterosexual Relationships.

Seriously, Vicchio, your view on Gay Rights and your understanding of the legal issues involved is way too limited for you to comment in your on thread.

Basically, homophobes and those with bigoted views shouldn't be starting threads on civil rights issues--their fear-based prejudices prevent them from having any rational opinion or thoughts.

"The only argument" ... when you start of saying something that ignorant, it's as if you haven't been following the case at all and you understand nothing about the 14th amendment issues.

Perhaps you should read up on the legal issues, the real "arguments" made by both sides.

Good luck. And keep in mind, you can't catch homosexuality, you have to be born with it.
 
This is a good call by the judges. This is a highly contenious issue pitting the people against the constitutionality of an issue, and is surely going to rise to the highest court in the land. As such, no real action of change should probably occur until its settled while at the same time it should be pushed forward quickly to be sure it IS settled.

I think it will get overturned at the Surpreme court, and it absolutely should if it goes up based on the gender argument. I'm less sure how I feel if it gets pushed up as a sexual orientation argument, though in part I feel like the Surpeme Court using it as an oppertunity to set legal precedence to apply medium-tier scrutiny to sexual oreintation would not be a bad thing.

However, regardless of how I feel or wish it to go under the Supreme Court, until such time putting a halt to it is the wise and correct option.
 
Except, of course, that black people are black.. They are innately black, immutable even. Gay's not so, eh? My argument would not work against a black person, nor do I claim it would, so it's not "exactly" the same is it?




Tim-

A bigot is a bigot....even though the subject of their bigotry may vary.
 
Mr. V, I am amazed at your bias in complaining about the "Godwining" of the issue by those on the side of allowing SSM based on pointing it to race while you continually ignore people on your side "Godwining" it by pointing to Polygamy, pedophilia, and Beastaility.

In one case, people are arguing that the 14th amendment makes discriminating against SSM unconstitutional. They reference race because race is the issue of precedence with regards to the 14th amendment applying to marriage. Its DIRECTLY connected.

In the other case, polygamy is not recognized by any scientific authority as an orientation, nor is there any discrimination based on race with regards to it, so there's little to no connection to it in relation to using it to counter the argument made by many in favor of SSM. Its comparable in regards to the societal acceptance of it, but honestly the only people I ever see arguing about SSM from that stand point is people AGAINST it creating a strawman that somehow that is the reason people are saying it should be legalized.

In regards to Beastiality and Pedophlia, in both they're not related in any way to SSM arguments because in both cases its situations where those on the other side of the "relationship" are incapable of legally entering into such a contract as marriage based on the mental and cognitive requirements for such.

At least race DIRECTLY applies to the arguments people are making with regards to the 14th amendment and SSM. Polygamy, Pedophilia, and Beastiality have nothing to do with countering said arguments.
 
Seriously, Vicchio, your view on Gay Rights and your understanding of the legal issues involved is way too limited for you to comment in your on thread.

Basically, homophobes and those with bigoted views shouldn't be starting threads on civil rights issues--their fear-based prejudices prevent them from having any rational opinion or thoughts.

"The only argument" ... when you start of saying something that ignorant, it's as if you haven't been following the case at all and you understand nothing about the 14th amendment issues.

Perhaps you should read up on the legal issues, the real "arguments" made by both sides.

Good luck. And keep in mind, you can't catch homosexuality, you have to be born with it.

Listen to yourself. You couldn't debate my point, instead you loaded a post attacking me, calling me a bigot, a homophobe based on what sir? Based on what?

Your OWN ignorance, and bigotry, your OWN arrogance and EGO. Redress, hardly one to pass up a chance to attack my ideas, presented a well structured discussion, you? That was far beyond your limited capabilities.

Tell me Hazlnut, where was my statement WRONG.

Society historically has rejected Gay Relationships, Gay = an Aberrant Behavior that Society did not approve of. Now we are faced with not only changing that belief, but elevating such relationships as being equal with straight relationships.

No where in that analysis can you find hate or bigotry, but there is plenty to be found in the waste of thought you presented.
 
Listen to yourself. You couldn't debate my point, instead you loaded a post attacking me, calling me a bigot, a homophobe based on what sir? Based on what?

Your OWN ignorance, and bigotry, your OWN arrogance and EGO. Redress, hardly one to pass up a chance to attack my ideas, presented a well structured discussion, you? That was far beyond your limited capabilities.

Tell me Hazlnut, where was my statement WRONG.

Society historically has rejected Gay Relationships, Gay = an Aberrant Behavior that Society did not approve of. Now we are faced with not only changing that belief, but elevating such relationships as being equal with straight relationships.

No where in that analysis can you find hate or bigotry, but there is plenty to be found in the waste of thought you presented.

Careful, you talking to a credentialed attorney.
 
Mr. V, I am amazed at your bias in complaining about the "Godwining" of the issue by those on the side of allowing SSM based on pointing it to race while you continually ignore people on your side "Godwining" it by pointing to Polygamy, pedophilia, and Beastaility.

No, those are examples of slippery slope, at least in regards to the first two. Bestiality sadly has made it own inroads elsewhere.

There is a difference Z, between making the case that if Marriage is no longer One man, One woman, why cant it be between three loving men? Or two men and a woman?

Slippery Slope.


In one case, people are arguing that the 14th amendment makes discriminating against SSM unconstitutional. They reference race because race is the issue of precedence with regards to the 14th amendment applying to marriage. Its DIRECTLY connected.
Funny how, until this judge created that argument, that the 14th Amendment was rarely if ever brought up in these debates. I reject this claim as nothing more then an activist judge creating a reason to make a ruling he wanted. If the SCOTUS upholds his argument, THEN you have a case, until then... it's theory.

In the other case, polygamy is not recognized by any scientific authority as an orientation, nor is there any discrimination based on race with regards to it, so there's little to no connection to it in relation to using it to counter the argument made by many in favor of SSM. Its comparable in regards to the societal acceptance of it, but honestly the only people I ever see arguing about SSM from that stand point is people AGAINST it creating a strawman that somehow that is the reason people are saying it should be legalized.
Again, slippery slope argument, different animal, you know better then this Z.
In regards to Beastiality and Pedophlia, in both they're not related in any way to SSM arguments because in both cases its situations where those on the other side of the "relationship" are incapable of legally entering into such a contract as marriage based on the mental and cognitive requirements for such.

On the face of it, I agree with you completely. However, aren't pedophiles compelled to behave the way they do? Do they not say they cannot help themselves? Don't "animal Lovers" say the same? It's "Genetic"! (just showing as you are trying to with the 14th, how they relate)
At least race DIRECTLY applies to the arguments people are making with regards to the 14th amendment and SSM. Polygamy, Pedophilia, and Beastiality have nothing to do with countering said arguments.
Slippery slope Vs. one Judges theoretical justification for overturning the will of the people.

Honestly? Lose lose for everyone at this point.
 
No, those are examples of slippery slope, at least in regards to the first two. Bestiality sadly has made it own inroads elsewhere.

There is a difference Z, between making the case that if Marriage is no longer One man, One woman, why cant it be between three loving men? Or two men and a woman?

Slippery Slope

Slippery slope is a fallacy. Additionally, Slippery Slope is only useful when the reasonings behind one thing can be applied to the other which can not be said with regards to the 14th amendment issue.

Funny how, until this judge created that argument, that the 14th Amendment was rarely if ever brought up in these debates. I reject this claim as nothing more then an activist judge creating a reason to make a ruling he wanted. If the SCOTUS upholds his argument, THEN you have a case, until then... it's theory.

The 14th amendment was routinely brought up. The Equal Protection Clause is routinely used as a means of arguing why Gay Marriage should be alloud. Granted, its usually people basing it of sexual orientation rather than gender.

If you want to talk about gender, I'll happily go back and find every mention of me saying it is about gender. I won't speak for others, but I know both Myself and Rivvrat explicitely were stating this was a gender issue for some time now before this judge looked at it.

Again, slippery slope argument, different animal, you know better then this Z.

For the slippery slope argument to be useful it has to have some actual backing in how what they're suggesting is the reason that one thing should be legal can apply to other.

You're exactly right about the legitimacy of the Slippery Slope argument...IF people were arguing that gay marriage should be made legal because society is okay with it.

However that's not what's being discussed in this case, its being discussed with regards to the 14th amendment, and there's been no one on this forum whose shown how polygamy in any way could be considered anything but at the lowest tier of scrutiny of the 14th.

On the face of it, I agree with you completely. However, aren't pedophiles compelled to behave the way they do? Do they not say they cannot help themselves? Don't "animal Lovers" say the same? It's "Genetic"! (just showing as you are trying to with the 14th, how they relate)

Read my post with regards to those two, the issue with them is not the inability to apply to the 14th but rather to do with the contractual ability of the other "individual". Age based discrimination in regards to contracts has been found allowable under the law, as has a "juvenile" status. Animals have no way of legitimately cognitively consenting to enter into a contract. The issues against those two things has nothing to do with the 14th but with regards to other laws present on the books. Even if you COULD put forth a legitimate argument that they should be middle teir scrutiny, the argument for state interest in denying it is far greater because it is not societal issues one points at but actual legal issues regarding contracts that shows the legitimate state interest in denying it.

Slippery slope Vs. one Judges theoretical justification for overturning the will of the people.

As above.
 
Semi-related comment: Has any one else noticed that the prop 8 ruling has gotten the headlines and the discussion, but it's the DOMA ruling that is the big one in the SSM fight. If DOMA goes down, and there is a very good chance it will, then this leads to states and the federal government having to recognize SSMs as just like traditional marriages. At that point, it's all over for opponents of SSM.
 
Gender is a "thing"! Notwithstanding physiology, someone's gender, and their identifying roles, are tied to many intangibles, of which sexuality, and spirituality are just a couple of the variables. In family court, the whole due process for denying (Mostly) men the right to equity with their own children in divorce, is based on the "best interests of the children" doctrine. Children do best, and it is the most ideal, when both the mother, and the father are in a healthy, and commited relationship. children recieve their identity "training" from both examples. I don't see how, even remotely, how a SSM would offer the same intrinsic value to society?


Tim-
 
Gender is a "thing"! Notwithstanding physiology, someone's gender, and their identifying roles, are tied to many intangibles, of which sexuality, and spirituality are just a couple of the variables. In family court, the whole due process for denying (Mostly) men the right to equity with their own children in divorce, is based on the "best interests of the children" doctrine. Children do best, and it is the most ideal, when both the mother, and the father are in a healthy, and commited relationship. children recieve their identity "training" from both examples. I don't see how, even remotely, how a SSM would offer the same intrinsic value to society?


Tim-

There have been a number of studies on gays as parents. Might read up and check the available information and post an argument based on that. I warn you, most of it shows gays at least as good as straits at raising children, with the most recent study of children raised by lesbian couples doing better than average.

Without research and sourcing, your objection is just "I think", and not much good.
 
Gender is a "thing"! Notwithstanding physiology, someone's gender, and their identifying roles, are tied to many intangibles, of which sexuality, and spirituality are just a couple of the variables. In family court, the whole due process for denying (Mostly) men the right to equity with their own children in divorce, is based on the "best interests of the children" doctrine. Children do best, and it is the most ideal, when both the mother, and the father are in a healthy, and commited relationship. children recieve their identity "training" from both examples. I don't see how, even remotely, how a SSM would offer the same intrinsic value to society?


Tim-

CC has already posted loads of actual scientific studies that are of a high standard with regards to the scientific method that debunk this.

You've posted....

....

Crap, was going to post what you've shown in support of your assertions but then I just realized you haven't backed them up at all.
 
Moderator's Warning:
The personal attacks need to end. The flat out calling of individual posters bigots, homophobes, etc needs to end. The baiting behavior of attempting to interject individuals real life jobs and negative comments concerning it is also unneeded.
 
There have been a number of studies on gays as parents. Might read up and check the available information and post an argument based on that. I warn you, most of it shows gays at least as good as straits at raising children, with the most recent study of children raised by lesbian couples doing better than average.

Without research and sourcing, your objection is just "I think", and not much good.

I have, and you know it, or are you suggesting that my posts in other "gay" threads should be forgotten? I would start with Judith Tracy's study on homosexual parenting. It's illuminating. Of course you'd need to understand how to read the correlative value of the analysis, we already know some people on this forum are incapable of understaning risk through correlative value, but do try.

In any event, one cannot deny that children do best, when both a mother, and a father are present. It not only applies in the instant case concerning gender, but it is also intrinsic to a healthy society. The heterosexual coupling is the type of coupling that society should recognize and afford special standing. There is a pressumption of procreative value to the heterosexual bond, whereas none whatsoever exists between that of a homosexual union.


Tim-
 
Back
Top Bottom