• 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!

Ginsburg nation’s first Supreme Court justice to officiate a same-sex ceremony

Wow, so your position is that a religious ceremony binding a same-sex couple is perfectly fine with you, but it should not have the same LEGAL effect as a heterosexual marriage! That’s the first time I’ve seen that argument.

Well, there’s that ol’ First Amendment thing. They have a right to get married and there’s absolutely no reason for the state to recognize it.

Not quite true. Marriage, as an “institution” has only existed in relatively recent times as part of the outgrowth of organized religion. For the greatest part of human existence there was no such thing. The dominant male could do whatever he wanted, including have sex with every female member of the tribal group, or “dominate” any younger or weaker male if he felt like it. Even in historical times there are oodles of examples of same sex bonding recognized by law or culture. What is true in your statement is that one important social aspect of organized religion was the power to sanctify a bond between a man and a woman so as to lend stability to a family unit.

Wow! You’ve made some very, uh, interesting claims here. I would be especially interested in seeing your evidence regarding “oodles of examples of same sex bonding recognized by law or culture”. And please, were, talking about same-sex sexual unions. Not “coming of age male rituals”, etc.

So having two fathers or two mothers might double antisocial behavior in teens or serve to increase alcoholism in children? Hardly a factual presumption.

Not a presumption. See here and here and here.

I think you misrepresent the problems with having a single parent household as being uncorrectable in a two-parent household of same-sex parents. Having few examples of same-sex situations to prove your point, you again project your personal bias and assume facts not in evidence.

See links above. Sorry, when I originally wrote this it was for another thread but that helped to make my point here and I copied-and-pasted it but the links didn’t copy over.

It is your assumption this will “hurt the institution of marriage,” but this presumes facts not in evidence.

Factually untrue! The last change to marriage was the idea of no-fault divorce. Because of this change to marriage is no-longer viewed as a lifetime commitment. People now take a “wait-and-see” view with marriage and today ½ of all marriages end in divorce.

Simply because YOU don’t like the idea is no basis for that presumption either. In fact, YOUR heterosexual marriage is not affected at all unless YOU allow it to be.

Yea, yea, yea--I already heard it. What’s the standard, quaint response again? Oh, yea! “If you don’t like gay marriage then don’t have one.” It’s cute and simplistic and completely misses the point.

Opining about divorce, aside from being a red herring issue here, only affects those who choose to get a divorce not those who remain “happily married.”

And you’re missing the obvious. No-fault divorce was a change to the marriage covenant that harmed the institution. The numbers don’t lie. Whether you like the idea or not marriage is divinely designed. You change the design you harm the institution.

Again with the “divorce” issue? We are talking about same-sex marriage and thus you are again presuming facts not in evidence.

I’m am not “presuming facts not in evidence”. I can only use facts that are IN evidence. Marriage is not easily changed and it’s only changed once before with the advent of no-fault divorce. That changed harmed the institution. Whether you like the idea or not the burden is on those that would change marriage to include SSM to show that it will not harm the institution--not on those of us who defend the traditional meaning of marriage.

Why should you care about same-sex couples getting a divorce affecting children?

Because they’re talking about children?

Whether or not a same-sex couple makes some arrangement about having a child (adoption, artificial insemination, w/e) at worst it would be little different from heterosexual couples who contemplate children and divorce. All of your “divorce points” apply to marriage in general, thus none of them have special merit in relation to same sex marriage.

See above.

You final point is a blatant appeal to emotion based upon false premises, red herrings, presumptions of facts not in evidence, and simple personal bias. Try again, this "don't make it legal" argument simply won’t fly.

See here.
 
What’s the standard, quaint response again? Oh, yea! “If you don’t like gay marriage then don’t have one.” It’s cute and simplistic and completely misses the point.

It's a free country. If you want to tell someone they can't do something, you have to be able to show harm. A gay couple getting married doesn't harm you. I mean, unless they don't invite you to the wedding. That might hurt your feelings, but there's no harm to you in their being married.

Ergo, you have no basis to tell them they can't do it.
 
Well, there’s that ol’ First Amendment thing. They have a right to get married and there’s absolutely no reason for the state to recognize it.

Well, yes there is that "First Amendment" thing, thanks for recognizing it. And in that very same source document, The U.S. Constitution we also have that ol’ "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment. This guarantees the same legal protections obtained through “traditional marriage” to citizens engaged in a same-sex marriage.

Wow! You’ve made some very, uh, interesting claims here. I would be especially interested in seeing your evidence regarding “oodles of examples of same sex bonding recognized by law or culture”. And please, were, talking about same-sex sexual unions.

Well in Greek culture we had the male-male bonding traditions of the Theban Bands, and the Spartan Agoge; During the Zhou Dynasty of China we have the recorded example Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian; Same sex marriage was legal in Rome until 342 AD when the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.

A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova; Boston marriages between women were recognized in Victoria England. Denmark was the first state to recognize a legal relationship for same-sex couples, establishing "registered partnerships" very much like marriage in 1989, then legalized same sex marriage fully in 2012. In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation in the modern world to grant legal status to same-sex marriages. There are currently 15 nations that grant legal status and mutual recognition to same-sex marriages. Then there are nations like the USA and Australia that have internal states that have legalized it, and other states that have not.

Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you can see, much (though not all) of that information came from a simple examination of wikipedia, but the prime sources for the statements are listed there too for your personal research..

Not a presumption. See here and here and here.

You misunderstood. My challenge was not about your claims that kids needed two parents to have a better chance to grow up “well-adjusted.” My response was that you have NO EVIDENCE that the two parents MUST be a man and a women, rather than a couple of the same-sex. That your “presumption” based on personal bias is that two same-sex parents would automatically disrupt a child’s life.

Factually untrue! The last change to marriage was the idea of no-fault divorce. Because of this change to marriage is no-longer viewed as a lifetime commitment. People now take a “wait-and-see” view with marriage and today ½ of all marriages end in divorce.

No! Factually true because you are only presuming that this has anything to do with same-sex marriage. It is a red herring, unrelated to the issue at hand. That holds true for the rest of your diversion into divorce. Why? As I've previously stated; all marriages face the divorce issue you raise, whether they be traditional or same-sex. Therefore such points as you raise have no special bearing on same-sex marriage. Strange that YOU can’t see it is a red herring and irrelevant to the issue of same-sex marriage. Now forgive me for by-passing the rest of your divorce argument, because I have already provided the proper response above.

Because they’re talking about children?

So what, as stated above you have no evidence that same-sex marriages cause more harm than traditional marriages (or traditional marriages ending in divorce, or remarriages to stepparents) on child-rearing. We only see your personal assumption bias, that same automatic assumption bias shared by people who think that since homosexuality is immoral the harm to children must be “self-evident.”

Your arguments remain fallacious, (red herrings, straw man, etc.) full of false analogies based on assumption bias rather than on facts in evidence. If the First Amendment allows the religious sanction of marriage, then the legal protections tradtitionally afforded by this ceremony are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
 
Last edited:
Then homosexuals can turn around and leave you to practice your religion while they get married.

If so, the homosexuals could have turned around and not tried to force someone to bake a cake for them that disagreed with their "marriage".
 
If so, the homosexuals could have turned around and not tried to force someone to bake a cake for them that disagreed with their "marriage".

They didn't try to force them to bake a cake. They asked them to. Then the business owners said no, they wouldn't do it, because the customer is gay. So they let the state know that there was a business operating in violation of state law. In that state, it's illegal for businesses to discriminate. If they want to run a bigoted business, they have to move to a different state where that's allowed.
 
They didn't try to force them to bake a cake. They asked them to. Then the business owners said no, they wouldn't do it, because the customer is gay. So they let the state know that there was a business operating in violation of state law. In that state, it's illegal for businesses to discriminate. If they want to run a bigoted business, they have to move to a different state where that's allowed.

Not what at happened at all. In fact, just this morning I watched an interview with the lady/owner of the bakery. She didn't mind doing business with anybody that was gay and had done business if the past with people that were gay. That was never the issue. The issue was her religious beliefs would not permit her to be a participant in a gay wedding. Why the gay couple were so "bigoted" and hateful against this woman's religious beliefs I don't know. Seems to me they could have been a little tolerant of her religious beliefs, walked down the street and got their wedding cake at another location. Especially being the Constitution of the US says (not state law) a person has the right to freedom of religion. The lady was also asked about the states "rehab" and she said it was nothing more than an attempt to make her "re -learn things". She's right, it's nothing more than the state of Oregon's spin off of a communist style re-education camp.

The good news is though the lady has closed down her shop but is still in business from her home. She will just go back to doing business with people who she has done business with in the past and anybody else that will at least respect the Constitution of the US and her religious beliefs. The loser in this is taxpayers who have allowed the thought police to force a small business owner to contract.
 
Not what at happened at all. In fact, just this morning I watched an interview with the lady/owner of the bakery. She didn't mind doing business with anybody that was gay and had done business if the past with people that were gay. That was never the issue. The issue was her religious beliefs would not permit her to be a participant in a gay wedding. Why the gay couple were so "bigoted" and hateful against this woman's religious beliefs I don't know. Seems to me they could have been a little tolerant of her religious beliefs, walked down the street and got their wedding cake at another location. Especially being the Constitution of the US says (not state law) a person has the right to freedom of religion. The lady was also asked about the states "rehab" and she said it was nothing more than an attempt to make her "re -learn things". She's right, it's nothing more than the state of Oregon's spin off of a communist style re-education camp.

The good news is though the lady has closed down her shop but is still in business from her home. She will just go back to doing business with people who she has done business with in the past and anybody else that will at least respect the Constitution of the US and her religious beliefs. The loser in this is taxpayers who have allowed the thought police to force a small business owner to contract.

I agree with you that allowing states to pass religious law and using the excuse that people can just move to another state if they don't like it is bull****. However, she wasn't being asked to participate in a gay wedding. She was asked to bake a cake. The bible is silent about baking cakes, except for it's concerns about leavened bread.

This isn't about the religious obligations of bakers. It's about allowing bigotry to flourish in local business, or stopping it. If this lady refused to bake wedding cakes for everyone, out of fear of what kind of wedding it may be used in, then it wouldn't be unlawful discrimination. However, she only refused to bake wedding cakes for a sub-class of citizens -- gay ones -- and that's illegal in her state. They just don't want that kind of nasty bigotry to flourish in their state.
 
I agree with you that allowing states to pass religious law and using the excuse that people can just move to another state if they don't like it is bull****. However, she wasn't being asked to participate in a gay wedding. She was asked to bake a cake. The bible is silent about baking cakes, except for it's concerns about leavened bread.

This isn't about the religious obligations of bakers. It's about allowing bigotry to flourish in local business, or stopping it. If this lady refused to bake wedding cakes for everyone, out of fear of what kind of wedding it may be used in, then it wouldn't be unlawful discrimination. However, she only refused to bake wedding cakes for a sub-class of citizens -- gay ones -- and that's illegal in her state. They just don't want that kind of nasty bigotry to flourish in their state.

Of course she was being asked to participate in a gay wedding. The cake she was asked to make was to be used in that wedding. She wanted no part of it based on her religious beliefs that gays should not be married. Her previous actions as a baker proved that she would do business with gay customers. The "bigotry" in this case is the gay couples complete intolerance towards this lady's religious beliefs. If anything, somehow they should be charged with attempting to violate the constitution of the US in regards to other peoples constitutionally protected rights. The state of Oregon should have the book thrown at them as well for the same thing and for trying to run a communist inspired re-education camp.
 
I agree with you that allowing states to pass religious law and using the excuse that people can just move to another state if they don't like it is bull****.

I don't know where you are getting this from.
 
This woman continues to be a disgrace to this country.

LOL

I can just see you when you're in your nineties . . . "Them damn gays!" and "You fags get off my lawn!" - with your hair in all sorts of crazy Einstein patches between intermittent bald spots, lips pruned and fingers gaunt.

The kids on the street will think you strange, and their parents convinced you're suffering from dementia.
 
That it represents one giant step for the United States, in a very good direction.

It is so encouraging to see the US move forward on social issue's like this one. My lovely daughter and my best friend are both gay women and I just cried when DOMA was overturned. To think that they, who are two of the most decent people I know, couldn't marry who they love was beyond me. Here's to continued forward progress!! (raises imaginary glass)
 
I think this is Ginsburg giving all those close minded haters the finger. Awesome!
Precisely. It was inappropriate and in-your-face.

SC Justices are supposed to be above that. That's why they're rarely interviewed.
Remember a few years ago, during a state of the union address, when President Obama misstated a SC decision. One of the justices looked at him and shook his head no. Certain quarters were outraged.
That's all it took for some to say that that was inappropriate behavior for a SC justice.
You give up certain privileges when you take on that job. One of them is making political statements.

I'm glad you characterized what she did as giving the finger, I fully agree with you.
 
Precisely. It was inappropriate and in-your-face.

SC Justices are supposed to be above that. That's why they're rarely interviewed.
Remember a few years ago, during a state of the union address, when President Obama misstated a SC decision. One of the justices looked at him and shook his head no. Certain quarters were outraged.
That's all it took for some to say that that was inappropriate behavior for a SC justice.
You give up certain privileges when you take on that job. One of them is making political statements.

I'm glad you characterized what she did as giving the finger, I fully agree with you.

I was glad to see it. Extended proudly in the air with no shame.
 
LOL

I can just see you when you're in your nineties . . . "Them damn gays!" and "You fags get off my lawn!" - with your hair in all sorts of crazy Einstein patches between intermittent bald spots, lips pruned and fingers gaunt.

The kids on the street will think you strange, and their parents convinced you're suffering from dementia.

There's no way, the thought police hate crimes division and the healthcare death panels will end him long before that. :mrgreen:
 
Same sex marriage was legal in Rome until 342 AD when the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.
Actually, that portion of the Code is understood by scholars to refer to male homosexual prostitution. Male homosexual marriage was never legal under Roman law, as two men did by have the connubium required to be validly married.
 
I was glad to see it. Extended proudly in the air with no shame.

That's the problem with this country, shame is no longer present. I wonder how you'd feel if Roberts attended an NRA meeting? ;)

yeah thought so..

Integrity much?


Tim-
 
No...I'm not asking you to change your mind at all. You are free to your personal beliefs. However, your personal beliefs do not change the facts: Gay marriage is identical to straight marriage in many parts of the country and growing. Your personal views do not change that.

I guess you are referring to it legally, because it is obviously different than a union between a man and woman.
 
That's the problem with this country, shame is no longer present. I wonder how you'd feel if Roberts attended an NRA meeting? ;)

yeah thought so..

Integrity much?


Tim-

They have a right to be a human being, so no it wouldn't bother me. It's not like it is a secret anyway. I give them credit for being capable of being as objective as a human being can be when they do their jobs. So yes, my integrity is quite intact.

IE: there is nothing to be ashamed of if you are gay, if that's what you are implying.
 
They have a right to be a human being, so no it wouldn't bother me. It's not like it is a secret anyway. I give them credit for being capable of being as objective as a human being can be when they do their jobs. So yes, my integrity is quite intact.

IE: there is nothing to be ashamed of if you are gay, if that's what you are implying.

Well that's a matter of opinion now isn't it? As to your integrity, I'll give you the benefit of doubt but I doubt my instincts are wrong on this one. I've rarely if ever been surprised by a progressive. In fact I can't remember anytime one has surprised me with one iota of a strong character. ;)


Tim-
 
Well that's a matter of opinion now isn't it? As to your integrity, I'll give you the benefit of doubt but I doubt my instincts are wrong on this one. I've rarely if ever been surprised by a progressive. In fact I can't remember anytime one has surprised me with one iota of a strong character. ;)
Tim-

Well I could say the same about my experiences with Conservatives, but I think it's best that we chose not to.
 
I guess you are referring to it legally, because it is obviously different than a union between a man and woman.

No. The union is the same period, unless you are simply referring to a sexual component.
 
It is so encouraging to see the US move forward on social issue's like this one. My lovely daughter and my best friend are both gay women and I just cried when DOMA was overturned. To think that they, who are two of the most decent people I know, couldn't marry who they love was beyond me. Here's to continued forward progress!! (raises imaginary glass)

Yes siree bob, that's some standard. Marry who you love. (not raising an imaginary glass on that).
 
Yes siree bob, that's some standard. Marry who you love. (not raising an imaginary glass on that).

It is indeed. Thank you for your continued support. It is so important to me.
 
Back
Top Bottom