• 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!

Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

Because it would be a violation of the fourth amendment.

How is it an unreasonable search or seizure to require proof of fertility before issuing a marriage license? For one, you are arguing that it is perfectly reasonable that fertility must be considered as a prerequisite for marriage. For two, the government wouldn't be taking the information, it would be requiring that it voluntarily be given in exchange for a marriage license.
 
Last edited:
I see. So same sex couples should be deneid marriage because they can't unintentionally have kids? Yeah, not exactly a strength builder for you case.
So you agree that the state should have greater interest in a heterosexual couple than a homosexual couple?
 
How is it an unreasonable search or seizure to require proof of fertility before issuing a marriage license?

Because it is gathering medical information about a person, without a warrant, without there being a pressing concern for the safety of another.

For one, you are arguing that it is perfectly reasonable that fertility must be considered as a prerequisite for marriage.

I'm arguing that the innate fertility of OSMs is the basis for marriage being defined as between a man and a woman because the only reason the state has any interest in marriage at all relates to the raising of children.

I've also been arguing that ignoring the opposition's POV on this is not helping the cause. It has been detrimental.

Instead arguments should be presented relating to SSM providing stable homes for children despite the innate infertility of these unions. You started going that route, but then you decided that being disagreeable was more important than arguing effectively for your position.

This is what I meant about rereading without your preconceptions. You seem to think that I'm arguing against SSMs. I'm not. I'm arguing against teh poor tactics you and many other SSM proponents engage in.
 
Now, I know that a few in here are going to go off on a tirade and start calling me a fake Conservative again

Lets put it this way Dan. When the vast majority of the people who support you when you make your claims about "real conservatives" are some of the farthest far left people on this board, that should tell you something.
 
Lets put it this way Dan. When the vast majority of the people who support you when you make your claims about "real conservatives" are some of the farthest far left people on this board, that should tell you something.

I was merely quoting and agreeing with Ted Olsen when I started this thread. Why do you believe that the lawyer who argued Bush's side in Bush v. Gore is far left? I gotta hear your answer to this. Do you have the balls to answer that, or are you cowardly enough to just do personal attacks while not commenting on what Olsen said, and why you disagree with him? :rofl

And as for some of the Liberals liking me, Ronald Reagan was liked by some of the Liberals too, although they disagreed with him strongly on policy. In fact, at the end of many days, he and Tip O'Neil would drink a beer together. So, in addition to answering the first question, why don't you tell me why you consider Ronald Reagan part of the far left? :rofl

You want to hijack this thread and make it a discussion about me instead? Feel free to. I will freakin' destroy you right here.
 
Last edited:
Because it is gathering medical information about a person, without a warrant, without there being a pressing concern for the safety of another.

You don't need a warrant if it is given voluntarily.

I'm arguing that the innate fertility of OSMs is the basis for marriage being defined as between a man and a woman because the only reason the state has any interest in marriage at all relates to the raising of children.

There is no innate fertility for opposite sex couples. Many opposite sex couples are infertile or too old have children. And fertilty has nothing to do with raising children. The ability to make cihldren does not imbue a person with the ability to raise them.

I've also been arguing that ignoring the opposition's POV on this is not helping the cause. It has been detrimental.

There is no validity to it. I keep pressing you to answer the simple question, why should the state have an interest in fertility when legislating and you keep bringing up irrelevancies. Fertility has nothing to do with the ability to raise children. It is simply the theoretical ability to make children.

Instead arguments should be presented relating to SSM providing stable homes for children despite the innate infertility of these unions. You started going that route, but then you decided that being disagreeable was more important than arguing effectively for your position.

That is because I never went a separate route. That was your perception. The fact that same sex couples are as capable as opposite sex couples at raising children strengthens the case that this is unfounded discrimination.

This is what I meant about rereading without your preconceptions. You seem to think that I'm arguing against SSMs. I'm not. I'm arguing against teh poor tactics you and many other SSM proponents engage in.

I know very well you are not arguing against same sex marriage. I've acknowledged the fact in previous posts. Where you are wrong is that it is a legitimate argument that the state has an interest in legislating based on fertility.
 
Last edited:
You don't need a warrant if it is given voluntarily.

Tehre's no such thing as a voluntary requirement.



There is no innate fertility for opposite sex couples. Many opposite sex couples are infertile or too old have children.

As a whole, there is an innate fertility for opposite sex couples.

And fertilty has nothing to do with raising children.

Without fertility, raising children is impossible because children are impossible. Children are a byproduct of a fertile man copulating with a fertile woman.


The ability to make cihldren does not imbue a person with the ability to raise them.

True. Which is why the state has an interest in marriage to begin with.
There is no validity to it.

And thus, you prove me correct in saying that your approach is detrimental to your cause.

I keep prressing you to answer the simple question, why should th state have an interest in furitility when legistlating and you keep bringing up irrelevancies.
And you keep willfully ingoring the responses because you disagree with them and would prefer to sabotage teh SSM argument by ignoring the validity of the argumetns the other side presents, thus proving my actual argument (teh one you continually fail to grasp) to be correct.

Fertilty has nothing to do with the ability to raise children.
Fertility is the first step to raising children in every single case, even children who are adopted.

It is simply the theoretical ability to make children.

Theoretical?!?!? :lol:


That is because I never went a separate route. That was your perceptoin.

Then why did you fail to go that route until I brought it up to begin with?

The fact that same sex couples are as capable as opposite sex couples at raising children strengthens the case that this is unfounded discrimination.

To a degree yes, but are they are as willing to raise children as OS couples?

Presenting an argument that the reasoning behind SSM is to raise children together and suddenly the case for unfounded discrimination is proven.




Where you are wrong is that it is a legitmate argument that the state has an interest in legistatling based on fertility.

Where you are wrong is that I've been saying that defining marriage as between a man and a woman is based on fertility because the only interest the state has in marriage is the raising of children is a legitimate argument.

Acknowledging it's legitimacy would dictate that one presents a counter-argument to that argument by.. wait for it... "presenting arguments relating to SSM providing stable homes for children despite the innate infertility of these unions".

It is a legitimate argument, but that doesn't mean it can't be countered by acknowledging it's merits, and then pointing out how those merits are also true of SSMs. .
 
As a whole, there is an innate fertility for opposite sex couples.

No, as a whole, there is partial fertility for opposite sex couples. Don't try to weasel words.

Without fertility, raising children is impossible because children are impossible. Children are a byproduct of a fertile man copulating with a fertile woman.

Oooooookay.

1. There is fertility regardless of whether or not there is marriage.
2. Same sex couples are not fertile but they can still raise children.
3. If you want to make the argument that fertility is essential to having children that anyone can raise, then make that argument, not a weasel post.
4. If the state has an interest in using marriage to promote fertility, then it should deny infertile opposite sex couples that right.

True. Which is why the state has an interest in marriage to begin with.

Promoting stable homes for children.
 
Lets put it this way Dan. When the vast majority of the people who support you when you make your claims about "real conservatives" are some of the farthest far left people on this board, that should tell you something.

I was merely quoting and agreeing with Ted Olsen when I started this thread. Why do you believe that the lawyer who argued Bush's side in Bush v. Gore is far left? I gotta hear your answer to this. Do you have the balls to answer that, or are you cowardly enough to just do personal attacks while not commenting on what Olsen said, and why you disagree with him? :rofl

And as for some of the Liberals liking me, Ronald Reagan was liked by some of the Liberals too, although they disagreed with him strongly on policy. In fact, at the end of many days, he and Tip O'Neil would drink a beer together. So, in addition to answering the first question, why don't you tell me why you consider Ronald Reagan part of the far left? :rofl

You want to hijack this thread and make it a discussion about me instead? Feel free to. I will freakin' destroy you right here.
Oh goody, the True Conservative™ gauntlet has been thrown down.

:popcorn2:
 
No, as a whole, there is partial fertility for opposite sex couples. Don't try to weasel words.

As a whole there is innate fertility for opposite sex couples. Indiviudally, fertility may crop up, but as a whole, the vast majority of couples are fertile.



1. There is fertility regardless of whether or not there is marriage.

Oh christ. :roll: Reread post 113. I already pointed out that this asinine bull**** doesn't help your cause.


2. Same sex couples are not fertile but they can still raise children.

Good. Focus on that fact as the basis for SSM arguments. It's the only way to address the SSM opponents arguments effectively without falling prey to the poor debate choices I outlined in post 113.

3. If you want to make the argument that fertility is essential to having children that anyone can raise, then make that argument, not a weasel post.

Reread post 113.

4. If the state has an interest in using marriage to promote fertility, then it should deny infertile opposite sex couples that right.

Where the **** did you get the idea of "promote fertility"? It's about raising children. Fertility is simply the basis being used for the man + woman definition of marriage.

Promoting stable homes for children.

DING! DING! DING! Arguments that indicate that this is the main impetus for seeking legalization of SSM will utterly destory the opposition's arguments. My entire point was to show that this is where the debate should be focussed.
 
DING! DING! DING! Arguments that indicate that this is the main impetus for seeking legalization of SSM will utterly destory the opposition's arguments. My entire point was to show that this is where the debate should be focussed.

Frankly I could care less. Arguing that marriage is about providing stable homes for children is not a Constitutional argument for same sex marriage. Arguing that imposing a definition of marriage that does not include same sex unons is unfounded gender discrimination because same sex couples are only different from opposite sex couples in that they are not fertile and the state has no interest in legislating on the basis of fertility is a Constitutional argument.
 
Frankly I could care less. Arguing that marriage is about providing stable homes for children is not a Constitutional argument for same sex marriage.

And that's where your argument fails and acts as a hindrance the SSM side both in public opinion and potentially in the Supreme court.

The only way to really prove that equal protection is violated is by showing that SSM has the same ultimate goal of OSM. This is because it cannot be argued that the State's interest in marriage is not the raising of children in a stable environment.
 
And that's where your argument fails and acts as a hindrance the SSM side both in public opinion and potentially in the Supreme court.

The only way to really prove that equal protection is violated is by showing that SSM has the same ultimate goal of OSM. This is because it cannot be argued that the State's interest in marriage is not the raising of children in a stable environment.

As I stated in the other thread.

We are only debating about what makes the best argument.

I stand by my argument that the state has no interest in discriminating against same sex couples when it comes to marriage on the basis of fertility.

You can stand by your argument that marriage is about raising children and same sex couples raise kids just as well as opposite sex couples.

I see my argument as a better Constitutional argument as the Equal Protection Clause and levels of scrutiny do not allow discrimination on the basis of sex unless it is based on a legitimate state interest. Fertility is clearly not a legitimate state interest because opposite sex couples are not denied marriage if they are infertile. I cannot see how your argument is a Constitutional argument.
 
I would argue that requiring fertility tests for people to get married would not be a violation of the 4th. Some states require blood tests to get married, and if that is legal, surely a fertility test would be too.

Marriage Laws in the US - Blood Tests
 
Back
Top Bottom