• 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 won't force state to defend Prop. 8

And??? ..... So..... How are you right again?


Tim-

Fundamental, in Constitutional terms, means it deals with due process, which means life, liberty, or property. It just so happens that marriage deals with all three. It has nothing to do with procreation. The government has historically supported marriage because it provides stable homes for children. That stability comes from the sharing of life, liberty, and property between two consenting adults in a harmonious relationship. The fact that same sex couples cannot procreate in no way detracts from the fact that they are capable of providing stable homes for children as well.

Now I can't spell it out any better for you. If you want waste your time by using your own definition of "fundamental" rather than the legal definition, then have at it. I've tried to improve your understanding of Constitutional law so that you could at least coherently debate the topic, but I probably might as well have been trying to educate a wall.
 
Yes it was gender discrimination. So? It's part of what makes up an individual identity, but not intrinsically exclusive to the individual. Gender imparts function to a society, at least outside of biologoy, and that function is arbitrary. Why would an arbitrary "thing" have fundamental rights? Unless, the gender bond is fundamental to the posterity of the state?

See.. It all boils down to procreation.


Tim-

It all boils down to the fact that you have no idea what "fundamental right" means in the Constitutional sense.
 
Singularity -
1. Concern #1: Why must we look at the fundamental human phenotypic design - specifically that of the sexual organs - in order to correctly argue that the state is involved in marriage 'for the kids' and homosexuals are potentially excluded? What reason does the state need to look at the 'fundamental design of humanity' to determine who may or may not raise a child? Or did you mean something entirely different by fundamental design, and if so, what about that determines if the state either condones the raising of children by people with this characteristic, or excludes them because of it?

Answered already but again. When men make laws they typically review the standards, and the application of such laws. All possible contingencies are considered. When marriage laws were defined, and encoded into US law, they did not ever suspect that the question of pro creative capacity would ever be a question, nor necessarily an exclusion to marriage. But what makes marriage fundamental is exactly the procreative qualities marriage imparts on the state. The state benefits from heterosexual marriage by way of the intrinsic qualities heterosexuals bring to the table.

Concern #2: Saying that "it is intrinsic to humanity to produce children" is not universally intrinsic, as intrinsic refers to fundamental nature or property. It is certainly intrinsic to have sex, but children? That's quite a stretch

A stretch eh? Sure it is? Please.. Humans have sex, and produce children. If it isn't intrinsic, then there would be no humans.. :)

Concern #3: "Presumptive that when men and women 'bond [have sex], they produce children" is not entirely true

Sure, not entirely, but then it wouldn't be presumptive now would it?

Concern #4: You haven't given any reason why those that "don't" or "can't" procreate should be included in marriage if they are heterosexual couples, and excluded if they are homosexual.

I have no argument for this, other than we presume they will, if they can't then, so be it. One thing we do know, homosexuals can't, as condition of their nature, produce children.

And yet, your position is not shared by everyone, nor is it morally suspect to say that one is for marriage equality. No, this is an excellent example of subjectivity, as not everyone would concur with your moral belief, nor is there any universal appeal to wrongness here

Then what is objective? Why would it need to be shared by everyone? It is a fact that what I claim is true. Whether you agree of Judge Walker agrees is immaterial to my claim.

Re-read what you wrote - you believe that "homosexual parenting" is "no worse, or better than any heterosexual bonding that is also harmful...that said, I am not opposed to homosexual parenting". What the heck? If homosexual parenting was no better than a harmful heterosexual parenting, wouldn't that be EVERY reason for you to oppose it?

Right you are. That didn't come out right. Of course it's better than a dysfunctional heterosexual couple.

My apologies.


Tim-
 
My argument was that it's biologically impossible for two men/two women to conceive a child... There are obvious differences between the hetero and homosexual unions. the relationships are not the same, nor should they be recognized as the same. We lost the prop 8 trial because a bias gay judge ruled illogically.

And it's impossible for infertile couples to biologically produce a child, yet they get married. And it doesn't stop there. The elderly get married as well. But if your argument is that biological impossibility for child rearing means that we can allow for heterosexual couples to marry despite the infertility while homosexual couples cannot, then you gotta get on the witness stand and offer up something other than opinion. For all your words about homosexuals being different, how it's impossible for same sex couples to make babies (not true thanks to the wonders of medicine, but i'll allow it), and how you fervently oppose same sex couples access to the same privilege we enjoy as heterosexuals under the tidy word 'marriage', neither you nor anyone on your side of the argument has been able to provide any peer reviewed, unbiased scientific or psychiatric studies supporting your position that they could use in that court of law - and believe me, they tried. You claim that you lost because of a biased judge, yet what was he to do when you couldn't provide not a single scientific study backing up your case? Should he have simply ignored the science and ruled in your favor?

In any case, good luck. You're gonna need it.


The wording is specific, and I can take it to mean (like I stated) that abortion should be illegal. It clearly says you can't deny a person life, liberty, privileges, etc. I believe that applies to fetuses as they are unborn human people. By the same application of the clause abortion should be struck down.

Nice try, but there's a conflict. Since the mother is an adult, and one could construe that forcing her to have a child is denying her liberty here to make the decision, then this Amendment can be interpreted in a different manner than the way you did. Unfortunately with your anti gay-marriage argument, there is no interpretation - the wording is quite literal. You may complain that the trial wasn't fair, or that the science shouldn't be used because it doesn't support your religious viewpoint, or whatever reason you want to complain about. My argument is about the literal wording of the Amendment, and why you lost in a court of law.

Next time, get better lawyers.
 
Last edited:
Fundamental, in Constitutional terms, means it deals with due process, which means life, liberty, or property. It just so happens that marriage deals with all three. It has nothing to do with procreation. The government has historically supported marriage because it provides stable homes for children. That stability comes from the sharing of life, liberty, and property between two consenting adults in a harmonious relationship. The fact that same sex couples cannot procreate in no way detracts from the fact that they are capable of providing stable homes for children as well.

Now I can't spell it out any better for you. If you want waste your time by using your own definition of "fundamental" rather than the legal definition, then have at it. I've tried to improve your understanding of Constitutional law so that you could at least coherently debate the topic, but I probably might as well have been trying to educate a wall.

This "wall" is calling you out. Simply because life, liberty, and property are fundamental does not make them the definiton for fundamental. Here's a clue for you. Ask yourself what makes life fundamental, what makes liberty fundamental, and what makes property fundamental, and you're there. The answer is illuminating..

Tim-
 
Singularity - Answered already but again. When men make laws they typically review the standards, and the application of such laws. All possible contingencies are considered. When marriage laws were defined, and encoded into US law, they did not ever suspect that the question of pro creative capacity would ever be a question, nor necessarily an exclusion to marriage. But what makes marriage fundamental is exactly the procreative qualities marriage imparts on the state. The state benefits from heterosexual marriage by way of the intrinsic qualities heterosexuals bring to the table.

No, this still has not offered an adequate reason why heterosexual couples who happen to be infertile should still be allowed the include themselves into a procreation-centric defense of marriage, while same sex couples are disallowed. Actually, check that. I went back and read it a few times, and I can find no reason. So, where does the actual justification for exclusion come in? Because I addressed every issue you posted, and I see nothing that would hold up as ironclad under scrutiny. In this post, you mentioned 'procreative qualities' that marriage imparts on the state. Very well, what procreative qualities do infertile heterosexual couples offer that homosexuals do not? Or the elderly, for that matter? In addition, name a few of these intrinsic qualities that ALL heterosexuals bring to the table (please note, if one of them is "the ability to procreate", elaborate on why infertile heterosexual couples should still be allowed inclusion while homosexual couples are not).


A stretch eh? Sure it is? Please.. Humans have sex, and produce children. If it isn't intrinsic, then there would be no humans.. :)

And yet, humans have sex, and produce no children, too. The desire for sex may be intrinsic, but the desire for children? Again, that's a stretch.

Then what is objective? Why would it need to be shared by everyone? It is a fact that what I claim is true. Whether you agree of Judge Walker agrees is immaterial to my claim.

You may certainly believe that morally, same sex couples should not be married. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily an objective viewpoint, as it could be laced with personal bias or strong opinions. And since there are plenty of folks who believe that same sex marriage is not morally suspect, then voila! Here comes the subjectivity!
 
This "wall" is calling you out. Simply because life, liberty, and property are fundamental does not make them the definiton for fundamental. Here's a clue for you. Ask yourself what makes life fundamental, what makes liberty fundamental, and what makes property fundamental, and you're there. The answer is illuminating.

Your calling me out by asking philosophical questions?

Meh, you lack even a basic understanding of Constitution law. You don't know what Due Process is. You don't know what a fundamental right is.

The Supreme Court defined marraige as a fundamental right. Case closed. If you don't like it, then get a Federal Constitutional Amendment passed to eliminate marriage.

The state has shown no interest in pormoting procreation. You haven't even provided a rational justification for promoting procreation over a couple's abilty to provide a stable home.

What this comes down to, is you have no Constitutional argument, no rational argument, and not even a semblance of a human argument, as to why same sex couples should be deneid the life, liberty, and property, inherent in marriage. You wish to deny fundamental rights based solely on their sex, without any justification that could pass the scrutiny test. That is sad and it demonstrates that what this really is about is that you don't want to accept same sex relationships as equal to opposite sex relationships, and you will stubbornly distort your own logic to justify it.
 
And it's impossible for infertile couples to biologically produce a child, yet they get married. And it doesn't stop there. The elderly get married as well. But if your argument is that biological impossibility for child rearing means that we can allow for heterosexual couples to marry despite the infertility while homosexual couples cannot, then you gotta get on the witness stand and offer up something other than opinion. For all your words about homosexuals being different, how it's impossible for same sex couples to make babies (not true thanks to the wonders of medicine, but i'll allow it), and how you fervently oppose same sex couples access to the same privilege we enjoy as heterosexuals under the tidy word 'marriage', neither you nor anyone on your side of the argument has been able to provide any peer reviewed, unbiased scientific or psychiatric studies supporting your position that they could use in that court of law - and believe me, they tried. You claim that you lost because of a biased judge, yet what was he to do when you couldn't provide not a single scientific study backing up your case? Should he have simply ignored the science and ruled in your favor?

There is no science. Not credible at least? Nor did the opponents offer up unbiased, and credible science that supported their view. So, what now?

Tim-
 
There is no science. Not credible at least? Nor did the opponents offer up unbiased, and credible science that supported their view. So, what now?

Tim-

It is incredibly sad that after you openly admitted that you did not read the 80 findings of fact in the ruling, that you now criticize the science without actually knowing anything about it.

You have no credibility on this topic, whatsoever.

In fact, the two expert witnesses that Protect Marriage offered up to support Prop 8, actually provided some of the strongest evidence to bring it down.
 
Last edited:
There is no science. Not credible at least? Nor did the opponents offer up unbiased, and credible science that supported their view. So, what now?

Tim-

Well, according to the lawyers who tried the case, the judge that overturned prop 8, the expert witnesses called to testimony, and the social scientific studies presented in court, there was. And then i'd say that you and them apparently have a disagreement on the issue. I'm not sure what you or I can do about reversing that decision, but if you want to try, I wish you good luck.

As for myself, i'm content.
 
Singularity -
No, this still has not offered an adequate reason why heterosexual couples who happen to be infertile should still be allowed the include themselves into a procreation-centric defense of marriage, while same sex couples are disallowed. Actually, check that. I went back and read it a few times, and I can find no reason. So, where does the actual justification for exclusion come in? Because I addressed every issue you posted, and I see nothing that would hold up as ironclad under scrutiny. In this post, you mentioned 'procreative qualities' that marriage imparts on the state. Very well, what procreative qualities do infertile heterosexual couples offer that homosexuals do not? Or the elderly, for that matter? In addition, name a few of these intrinsic qualities that ALL heterosexuals bring to the table (please note, if one of them is "the ability to procreate", elaborate on why infertile heterosexual couples should still be allowed inclusion while homosexual couples are not).

This is the question the court needs to answer. Is procreation fundamental to marriage, and is it an interest the state must protect to the exclusion of all others? I say yes, what "they" say when it all comes to fruition is what's important.

And yet, humans have sex, and produce no children, too. The desire for sex may be intrinsic, but the desire for children? Again, that's a stretch

I don't think it is. I think the opposite is the exception, and the "stretch" if you will.

You may certainly believe that morally, same sex couples should not be married. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily an objective viewpoint, as it could be laced with personal bias or strong opinions. And since there are plenty of folks who believe that same sex marriage is not morally suspect, then voila! Here comes the subjectivity!

Truth isn't subjective, even if one cannot convince others that what they speak is the truth, subjective it does not become simply because not everyone agrees on what is the truth.

Tim-
 
It is incredibly sad that after you openly admitted that you did not read the 80 findings of fact in the ruling, that you now criticize the science without actually knowing anything about it.

You have no credibility on this topic, whatsoever.

In fact, the two expert witnesses that Protect Marriage offered up to support Prop 8, actually provided some of the strongest evidence to bring it down.

Uh huh, so where is the science, CT? Have any?

Tim-
 
Well, according to the lawyers who tried the case, the judge that overturned prop 8, the expert witnesses called to testimony, and the social scientific studies presented in court, there was. And then i'd say that you and them apparently have a disagreement on the issue. I'm not sure what you or I can do about reversing that decision, but if you want to try, I wish you good luck.

As for myself, i'm content.

Ah, you mean the social scientific science presented.. Don't you abhor the "subjective", Singularity? I mean, isn't that what you just accused me off? Show me some science, I mean real science. None was presented as fact, and unfortunately Walker took some of it as such.



Tim-
 
Is procreation fundamental to marriage, and is it an interest the state must protect to the exclusion of all others?

I would absolutely love it if you could provide some sort of explaination as to why procreation should be considered first and foremost when it comes to marriage. Obviously this is your opinion, but what possible rational explaination can you use to justify it?
 
Singularity -

This is the question the court needs to answer. Is procreation fundamental to marriage, and is it an interest the state must protect to the exclusion of all others? I say yes, what "they" say when it all comes to fruition is what's important.

So, now it's a question that the court needs to answer? What happened to the position you so vehemently defended a few pages back? And what about your elaboration - when do I get to see it?

I'm not belittling your argument - far from it. I think the arguments that you and the others against same sex marriage put forth are crucial to the workings of our great republic, and while I disagree with you all on the issue, these arguments nevertheless need to be addressed. The fact of the matter is that there are many questions that folks have about the ramifications of the legality of same sex marriage, and they deserve to be answered. As for myself, I think there is enough evidence to proceed with legalization, and I would very much like to see same sex marriage the law of the land.

I imagine you and I will continue this debate for a while to come, either in this thread or any other that pops up on the issue.
 
I would absolutely love it if you could provide some sort of explaination as to why procreation should be considered first and foremost when it comes to marriage. Obviously this is your opinion, but what possible rational explaination can you use to justify it?

I have... And yes it is my opinion.


Tim-
 
So, now it's a question that the court needs to answer? What happened to the position you so vehemently defended a few pages back? And what about your elaboration - when do I get to see it?

I'm not belittling your argument - far from it. I think the arguments that you and the others against same sex marriage put forth are crucial to the workings of our great republic, and while I disagree with you all on the issue, these arguments nevertheless need to be addressed. The fact of the matter is that there are many questions that folks have about the ramifications of the legality of same sex marriage, and they deserve to be answered. As for myself, I think there is enough evidence to proceed with legalization, and I would very much like to see same sex marriage the law of the land.

I imagine you and I will continue this debate for a while to come, either in this thread or any other that pops up on the issue.

I suspect we will clash from time to time, however, I find your demeanor to be positiive, and I respect your opinon on the matter. I thought you presented yourself very well. I just happen to disagree. We will see how it turns out.


Tim-
 
Absolutely.

Here is Walker's ruling.

California Prop 8 Ruling (August 2010)

He cites every study of relevance and the expert witness testimony.

Bring up whichever studies you want to contest. We can talk about each and every one of them if you want.

I could but I won't. I consider phycology, and psychiatry to be "science-light". I have successfully argued with Redress on many of her parenting studies, and so on and so forth. I do not deny the homosexual capacity to succesfully raise children in healthy happy homes. However, I do reserve my judgenment until really good studies come out, ones where apples are compared to apples, and not oranges.


Tim-
 
I could but I won't. I consider phycology, and psychiatry to be "science-light". I have successfully argued with Redress on many of her parenting studies, and so on and so forth. I do not deny the homosexual capacity to succesfully raise children in healthy happy homes. However, I do reserve my judgenment until really good studies come out, ones where apples are compared to apples, and not oranges.


Tim-

That is perfectly fair. In fact, I wish you exercised such critical thinking in all your views. Then we probably wouldn't have to debate 3 pages on the legal definition of a "fundamental right".

Also, if you had been less lazy and actually read Walker's ruling, then I think you would have been more informed on the topic and could have used those same critical thinking skills to find other areas to reserve judgment.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention that marriage is, in fact, a fundamental right. Loving v. Virginia.

That's true...but there was no need to even debate that because his entire underlying premise is wrong.
 
And isn't that what was argued in court, the right of the individual to marry his/her same sex partner?

Whether it was or wasn't, it isn't what you're arguing here.

Regarding your second question, I would answer with one of my own. Why would someone get married to a partner that he/she was not sexually attracted to nowadays? Do you know of such examples personally? And given that it's a possibility, would those be healthy marriages, you think?

People marry for many reasons, as is pointed out every time someone says that the point of marriage is children.

People may marry for convenience. People may marry because they want money. People may marry because they just want companionship. Or they want security. In none of those cases is sexual attraction necessary.

Nor is a "healthy" marriage necessary for the right to marry be exercised, especially considering that the definition of "health" in a marriage may and does vary widely from person to person.

So, I ask again -- why is sexuality a necessary component of marriage?
 
Hicup - What does science have to do with it? If a man wants to marry a man, or a woman wants to marry a woman, it is none of the government's damn business.
 
Back
Top Bottom