• 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

Except for one can not claim that procreation is the reason that the government has a vested interest in marriage. To do so one would need to have procreation being needed for marriage. It is not. Heterosexual couples that are have conditions making it impossible to create off spring can be married. Individuals who, if they have off spring, are far more likely to have physically or mentally damaged children are allowed or marry. Individuals with no desire to have kids and no plans to have kids can be married. Individuals who have had surgical procedures to keep themselves from having children can get married.

There are numerous and repeated instances in our society where individuals who can not or will not have children are given marriage benefits therefore stating that that is the reason to deny same sex marriages on the basis of marriage being for procreation falls flat as if that was true the government would need more protections against non-procreating marriages than simply disallowing SSM.

Indeed, two Same Sex individuals wishing to have a child are far more likely to produce said child than two individuals who do not wish to have a child and are not physically capable of carrying or creating one.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Uh huh.. Yes, and Stacey's study analyses them all. But that's neither here nor there. I'm not arguing that homosexual unions cannot have children through a variety of methods. I'm not even arguing that they can be as loving as heterosexual couples. It's immaterial to my argument.

CC is NO authority on homosexuality. Show me something that he has written on homosexuality that would have you believe he has some superior unique knowledge unknown to any of us? I'd be glad to look at it. I'd ask him, and I have umpteen million times, but he hasn't shown me anything.

Tim-
 
Zyphlin said:
Except for one can not claim that procreation is the reason that the government has a vested interest in marriage. To do so one would need to have procreation being needed for marriage. It is not. Heterosexual couples that are have conditions making it impossible to create off spring can be married. Individuals who, if they have off spring, are far more likely to have physically or mentally damaged children are allowed or marry. Individuals with no desire to have kids and no plans to have kids can be married. Individuals who have had surgical procedures to keep themselves from having children can get married.

There are numerous and repeated instances in our society where individuals who can not or will not have children are given marriage benefits therefore stating that that is the reason to deny same sex marriages on the basis of marriage being for procreation falls flat as if that was true the government would need more protections against non-procreating marriages than simply disallowing SSM.

Indeed, two Same Sex individuals wishing to have a child are far more likely to produce said child than two individuals who do not wish to have a child and are not physically capable of carrying or creating one.
Click to expand...

These are all examples of exceptions, they are NOT the rule. Society does have a vested interest in promoting, and even giving special recognition to heterosexual couplings. It is pressumed intrinsically that the heterosexual coupling will procreate, whereas there is NO pressumption that a homosexual coupling will.

Enough said. Look, Zyphlin, you can't get around this. There is no way to argue that the homosexual coupling offers the same, or equal intrinsic value to society. It simply does not exist.

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Uh huh.. Yes, and Stacey's study analyses them all. But that's neither here nor there. I'm not arguing that homosexual unions cannot have children through a variety of methods. I'm not even arguing that they can be as loving as heterosexual couples. It's immaterial to my argument.

CC is NO authority on homosexuality. Show me something that he has written on homosexuality that would have you believe he has some superior unique knowledge unknown to any of us? I'd be glad to look at it. I'd ask him, and I have umpteen million times, but he hasn't shown me anything.

Tim-
Click to expand...

CC's studies were debunked and exposed long ago relying on unsupervised questionnaires and studies that never once had any genetic or biological link to homosexuality in even 3/4 of homosexuals tested. Some people simply like holding onto the past.

It is amusing for some to think its our responsibility to prove the genetic link to homosexuality or a "natural" link when they are the ones making the argument.
 
Last edited:
Ok, I'll be on later, I really, really must get back to work.. :)


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
These are all examples of exceptions, they are NOT the rule. Society does have a vested interest in promoting, and even giving special recognition to heterosexual couplings. It is pressumed intrinsically that the heterosexual coupling will procreate, whereas there is NO pressumption that a homosexual coupling will.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether is the exception or not, the ability is still there and it is not isolated instances. You can not use something that can be ROUTINELY done currently as justification for violating the constitution. It does not reach an important state interest, nor have you demonstrated substantially that it does.

Procreation is not an important state interest. We are not lacking in the number of individuals in this country, it is inherent in humans to wish to procreate so such will happen without government involvement, there is no important state interest in pushing for procreation.

There could be important state interest in providing stable family situations for children, however to say that it would have to apply for ALL children. A Same Sex Couple is a more stable environment for a child than living in a foster home, or than living with a single parent, and there is legitimate evidence out there to suggest its as stable as a heterosexual couple.

Enough said. Look, Zyphlin, you can't get around this. There is no way to argue that the homosexual coupling offers the same, or equal intrinsic value to society. It simply does not exist.
Click to expand...

Don't have to, you've not shown in any way information that leads me to believe there is an "important" state interest in the state rewarding procreation specifically, nor have you in any way countered the notion that there are a MULTITUDE of ways individuals can still get married now in which one can presume they will not procreate. All you state is "thats an exception". That's not disproving, that's copping out.
 
MrVicchio said:
Where is the freedom to force the people to change society for no good reason?
Click to expand...

9th amendment. Society has no rights, only individuals have rights. If society is set against the rights and liberties of a portion of its populace, society must change so that it honors those rights and liberties. Simple as that.
 
texmaster said:
Actually I did. I enjoy seeing the rights of the voters enforced by the courts.
Click to expand...

Yet we are not a pure democracy. So the "rights" of the voters to create and enforce law is tempered by the rights of the minority. If you violate those, the majority cannot have its way. Well, not justly anyway. You can force it if you're ok with tyranny.
 
tlmorg02 said:
What concerns me about some of these comments is that they are very similar to those made by segregationists during the civil rights struggle. Should states have had the right to decide segregation?!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Not only that, ironically they are using one of the tools of the old racists. The marriage license. That was created to prevent interracial marriage. Now it's being used to prevent same sex marriage. I guess bigotry never learns.
 
Hicup said:
How about being on the side that is the most ideal to society.. That's the side I wanne be on.


Tim-
Click to expand...

I'd rather be on the side that best upholds the rights and liberties of the individual.
 
Zyphlin said:
Except for one can not claim that procreation is the reason that the government has a vested interest in marriage. To do so one would need to have procreation being needed for marriage. It is not.
Click to expand...
If anything, procreation (or rather, "procreative potential") is "an" interest, not "the" interest - that alone negates your conclusion that "procreation would be needed for marriage."
 
Ikari said:
Yet we are not a pure democracy. So the "rights" of the voters to create and enforce law is tempered by the rights of the minority. If you violate those, the majority cannot have its way. Well, not justly anyway. You can force it if you're ok with tyranny.
Click to expand...

We are a republic not a democracy with the right to vote on issues that can be made into law. Are you claiming the right to vote on a proposition by the people is illegal?
 
Zyphlin said:
Regardless of whether is the exception or not, the ability is still there and it is not isolated instances. You can not use something that can be ROUTINELY done currently as justification for violating the constitution. It does not reach an important state interest, nor have you demonstrated substantially that it does.

Procreation is not an important state interest. We are not lacking in the number of individuals in this country, it is inherent in humans to wish to procreate so such will happen without government involvement, there is no important state interest in pushing for procreation.

There could be important state interest in providing stable family situations for children, however to say that it would have to apply for ALL children. A Same Sex Couple is a more stable environment for a child than living in a foster home, or than living with a single parent, and there is legitimate evidence out there to suggest its as stable as a heterosexual couple.



Don't have to, you've not shown in any way information that leads me to believe there is an "important" state interest in the state rewarding procreation specifically, nor have you in any way countered the notion that there are a MULTITUDE of ways individuals can still get married now in which one can presume they will not procreate. All you state is "thats an exception". That's not disproving, that's copping out.
Click to expand...

I knew I shouldn't have checked in. :)

I did provide a legal basis for my argument. Pressumption, and intrinsic procreative value to society. You just don't like it. If it's not intrinsic to the heterosexual bonding as applied to their gender roles, then how fundamental is gender as a criteria for deciding whether or not to afford any fundamental standing as a class or group of people?

What, outside of procreation are the fundamental basis for the State in recognizing marriage? What is the States vested interst in it? What? So we can divy up the assets in divorce? I ask you, outside of procreative value, what is the states vested interest in marrage? What out of those 1000 or so rights afforded heterosexual couples is intrinsic to the marriage, and the states vested interest?

This outta be good?


Tim-
 
Taylor said:
If anything, procreation (or rather, "procreative potential") is "an" interest, not "the" interest - that alone negates your conclusion that "procreation would be needed for marriage."
Click to expand...

So what are the other interests then and rank them. Because procreation seems to me the only thing that separates homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage (though adoptions can occur). If it's just "an" interest, not "the" interest; then there are others and perhaps others ranked higher. So why is it ok to ban a group from marriage, from exercising their right to contract, if you have violated just "an" interest? There has to either be other interests violated or it has to be "the" interest. So what are these other interests? And is it enough to justly infringe upon the rights of others?
 
texmaster said:
We are a republic not a democracy with the right to vote on issues that can be made into law. Are you claiming the right to vote on a proposition by the people is illegal?
Click to expand...

It is not illegal by any means, but certainly unconstitutional for the whims of a majority to be forced upon the powerless minority. Read the Federalist Papers and in particular Madison when he talks about the dangers of "mob" rule. Thus the founders created a republic that would insulate the nation from the dangers of majority opinion and votes.
 
Ikari said:
So what are the other interests then and rank them. Because procreation seems to me the only thing that separates homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage (though adoptions can occur). If it's just "an" interest, not "the" interest; then there are others and perhaps others ranked higher. So why is it ok to ban a group from marriage, from exercising their right to contract, if you have violated just "an" interest? There has to either be other interests violated or it has to be "the" interest. So what are these other interests? And is it enough to justly infringe upon the rights of others?
Click to expand...

You're all missing the legal importance of my argument. The EPC challenge, and that of due process are tied to fundamental rights. I have provided an argument that addresses those issues. Unless what you wish to argue rises to a fundamental right, it is rendered moot. Make your case councilor..


Tim-
 
Ikari said:
So what are the other interests then and rank them. Because procreation seems to me the only thing that separates homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage (though adoptions can occur).
Click to expand...
Child rearing would of course be a big one. One could say that in recognizing marriage, the state recognizes that marriage is the proper social construct for having and raising children.
 
Taylor said:
Child rearing would of course be a big one. One could say that in recognizing marriage, the state recognizes that marriage is the proper social construct for having and raising children.
Click to expand...

Not to mention, it is also the only criteria that rises to meet any rational basis test the court may apply to a fundamental right, and ta vested state interest thereof.

That's why it's important, all else fails.


Tim-
 
It is my belief, due to the States position leading into the Federal court challenge to prop 8, that the state really didn't want to represent the peoples choice on this. All indications are that this is true. Although I have not read the transcripts of the case, I believe that it is possible that the State (The people) were under-represented.

Meaning.. They wanted to lose.

Tim-
 
Taylor said:
Child rearing would of course be a big one. One could say that in recognizing marriage, the state recognizes that marriage is the proper social construct for having and raising children.
Click to expand...

So this still deals with procreation alone. Because same sex couples could adopt, thus could actually rear a child. So are we just going off procreation here? Cause I thought it wasn't "the" interest.
 
Hicup said:
You're all missing the legal importance of my argument. The EPC challenge, and that of due process are tied to fundamental rights. I have provided an argument that addresses those issues. Unless what you wish to argue rises to a fundamental right, it is rendered moot. Make your case councilor..


Tim-
Click to expand...

Is this a deflect statement? I just wanted to know what all the interests were in a ranked list. Because the only thing I see as different between same sex marriage and hetero marriage is strict procreation. So what's the list, where is "procreation" in there, and what other "interests" have been violated? Can you answer the question? And are these violations of "interest" enough to endorse government force against the innate and inalienable right of contract?
 
Hicup said:
Not to mention, it is also the only criteria that rises to meet any rational basis test the court may apply to a fundamental right, and ta vested state interest thereof.

That's why it's important, all else fails.


Tim-
Click to expand...

How does same sex parents stack up against State run orphanages? Probably a lot better. One may say that the "ideal" is one man, one woman. But there are more orphans in the world than families willing to adopt; so we don't have one man and one woman for all needy children. In that case, is it so bad to have a loving, two parent home that isn't one man and one woman? A stable environment by which to grow and live? **** it, stick them in a State home because the State is a better parent than gays? Is that the route you're gonna take here?
 
Ikari said:
So this still deals with procreation alone. Because same sex couples could adopt, thus could actually rear a child. So are we just going off procreation here? Cause I thought it wasn't "the" interest.
Click to expand...

They can adopt, but they cannot intrinsically produce a child meeting the same standards that a heterosexual coupling can. There is zero pressumption that they can by themselves, zero, nadda, zilch. :)


Tim-
 
Ikari said:
Is this a deflect statement? I just wanted to know what all the interests were in a ranked list. Because the only thing I see as different between same sex marriage and hetero marriage is strict procreation. So what's the list, where is "procreation" in there, and what other "interests" have been violated? Can you answer the question? And are these violations of "interest" enough to endorse government force against the innate and inalienable right of contract?
Click to expand...

There is no inalienable right to contract in marriage. I proved that a few weeks ago. :) Next.


Tim-
 
Ikari said:
So this still deals with procreation alone. Because same sex couples could adopt, thus could actually rear a child. So are we just going off procreation here? Cause I thought it wasn't "the" interest.
Click to expand...
This isn't algebra. Child-rearing doesn't suddenly become irrelevant to marriage simply because gay couples can adopt. Or, maybe I'm not getting the point you're trying to make?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom