Page 12 of 22 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 215

Thread: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

  1. #111
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    And you know what? Olsen is 100% correct. Conservatism argues for limited government, and greater individual freedom.

    Now, I know that a few in here are going to go off on a tirade and start calling me a fake Conservative again, so let me pose the following question: Which is more Conservative? That the government should get off the backs of the people, or that the government should get off the backs of the people, except where it should be on the backs of the people in cases where I don't agree with something? Think about it. Many who claim to be Conservatives simply are not who they say they are. And, of course, they are always the first to accuse others of not being Conservative. You can say "He who smelt it dealt it".

    DanaRhea's law of Conservatism - The term "Social Conservatism" is an oxymoron.

    BTW, before you call Ted Olsen a fake Conservative, you should know that he is the one who successfully argued before the Supreme Court the Bush side of Bush v. Gore in 2000. His Conservative credentials are beyond question. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

    Article is here.
    How can government get off the backs of the people in something where the government itself has always been involved? Honestly, marriage is a legal contract. It can be the basis for court proceedings. Meaning marriage is under the authority of government and always has been under such authority. Denying federal marriage benefits to people who are legally married under state law is one thing, but marriage itself is a legal institution under the authority of state governments. Banning homosexuals from having relationships of a sexual or romantic nature is a matter of government butting in, but deciding who can forge a contract that is binding under state law is not because the government has to be involved by default.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  2. #112
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    I long for the day when displayed political leanings are accurate.
    Which means you believe that someone who is Conservative but doesn't 100% agree with you isn't actually conservative? Right?

    You do realize that this nation - regardless of the right-wing fantasies you create in your head - is NEVER going to be 100% conservative. It's also never going to have 100% of Conservatives agreeing with each other all the time.

    Thus, if you believe the way for you to rule is to get everyone in lock-step agreement with you, you're not going to last long on top. The Tea Party and the current class of conservatives need to understand that.

    I've never believe that Republicans are wrong at all things all of the time. I just think my side is right about certain things at certain times more often than the opposition. If you screw up - like Republicans did from 2004-2006 and like Democrats are doing now and rule as if your party is the only one that exists, you'll get thrown out.

    From what I see, Republicans (if and when) they take control are simply going to make the same mistakes of the past few classes of Congress and pretend that shouting platitudes and attempting to shame the other side is the same thing as leadership.

    If they fall into that trap, their power will be as short lived as the Democrats.

    So, by all means...keep up your ideological purity tests. They'll be the death of you.

  3. #113
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    In other words, since the anti same sex marriage side cannot explain to the courts how imposing a definition of marriage that excludes same sex couples is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest, it is unconstitutional to do so.
    But they can make a legitimate argument for imposing that definition as a state interest: procreation.

    First, we have to acknowledge why marriage exists in the first place. More than anything else, it exists to create a stable two-parent environemtn for the raising of children. This is fairly undeniable. Marriages in the past were often arranged and the participants never knew each other prior to getting married. Traditions surrounding "consumation" abound.

    As we've progressed, marriages took on the "love" aspect.



    Furthermore, using you reasoning, we could justfiy interracial marriage bans.

    The law can be written, "Any person can marry someone of their own race."

    As such, a black person cannot marry a white person and white person cannot marry a black person. Equal protection of the laws, right?

    No, as Loving versus Virginia decided, race cannot be used as a factor by the state to determine who can and cannot marry.

    There is no more legimate reason for state to discriminate based on race than there is for the state to discriminate based on sex.
    Two things:

    1. If the law was written as "Any person can marry someone of their own race", it would not prohibit interracial marriages. Wording is a key factor in law-making. Poorly worded laws never end up working as intended.

    2. My reasoning would not justify interracial marriage bans, as there is no legitimate arguments regarding the intention of marraige that can exclude interracial marraiges. Unfortunately for SSM, there is a legitimate argument against Same-sex marriages relating to the procreational purposes of marriage, which is really the ultimate purpose of marriage.

    The pro same-sex marriage side must acknowledge these arguments and not simply attempt to dismiss them as irrelevent in order to make their case.

    The proponents of SSM have failed to do so, and have in many ways hurt their own case from this failure because they often tend to attack this ultimate purpose of marraige as irrelevent to teh point of marriage.

    Instead of acknowledging the argument, they simply say things like "So what? People can have kids without getting married" or "People get married without having kids. Should they be prevented from getting married too?"


    Lets face it, most people oppose the concept of SSM. That's why these states keep voting the issue down (I mean California of all places lost that vote).

    While I don't get their opposition myself, it seems to be what people think.

    In order to change their minds, one must actually listen to their argumetns and create their rebuttals to address those arguments. The SSM proponents have only increased the opposition with their current approach.

    Ultimately, they are going to push this too far without stating their case effectively (using gender discrimination as their basis for their arguments will ultimately fail because the only reason that the state even has an interest in marriage in the first place is beecause of how it relates to raising children). If they don't formulate their arguments to adress this issue in this way, they will probably lose when it goes to the supreme court because they won't be prepared to defend against this legitimate argument.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #114
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,118

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    But they can make a legitimate argument for imposing that definition as a state interest: procreation.
    Since when has procreation been a prerequisite to marriage? Do they make people take fertility tests before they get married? Do they forbid elderly couples who are postmenopausal from getting married? Do they retract a couple's marriage if they are together for a certain amount of time and then fail to have children? Procreation is not a valid argument for a legitimate state interest in marriage because the state doesn't require that heterosexual couples actually procreate to get married.

    First, we have to acknowledge why marriage exists in the first place. More than anything else, it exists to create a stable two-parent environemtn for the raising of children. This is fairly undeniable. Marriages in the past were often arranged and the participants never knew each other prior to getting married. Traditions surrounding "consumation" abound.
    Actually this is false. In most of the world, marriage has occurred after a couple had been together and the mother was already expecting. Marriage didn't make much sense if the couple was infertile. Betrothals were a result of economic incentives, whereby families could exchange goods for having a daughter marry into another family and solidifying bonds between the two families. Furthermore, many early Christian sects were pretty convinced that the world was going to end soon, and they weren't really having sex at all as celibacy was seen as more noble than marriage. Many of the leaders at the time realized that they were going to die off and the religion would be in trouble, so marriage began to be sanctified by the church over celibacy.

    As we've progressed, marriages took on the "love" aspect.
    This is true. The romantic notion of love is a fairly recent addition to marriage. Love was often associated with a mistress rather than a wife. It was a concept largely born out of the Victorian era. Of course, it is irrelevant to the argument since marriage is ultimately a contract in the civil sense, and love is not a state requirement to get married.

    Two things:

    1. If the law was written as "Any person can marry someone of their own race", it would not prohibit interracial marriages. Wording is a key factor in law-making. Poorly worded laws never end up working as intended.
    Fine, I'll be more specific. Marriage is defined as a union between two of the same race. There, more inclined to our modern day example. Good way to sidestep the argument that your reasoning can be equally applied to interracial marriage bans.

    2. My reasoning would not justify interracial marriage bans, as there is no legitimate arguments regarding the intention of marraige that can exclude interracial marraiges. Unfortunately for SSM, there is a legitimate argument against Same-sex marriages relating to the procreational purposes of marriage, which is really the ultimate purpose of marriage.
    Not exactly a "legitimate" reason given that elderly couples, infertile couples, and couples who choose not to have children, are all allowed to marry. I'm afraid for that argument to be rational, all those groups would have to be denied the right to marry.

    The pro same-sex marriage side must acknowledge these arguments and not simply attempt to dismiss them as irrelevent in order to make their case.

    The proponents of SSM have failed to do so, and have in many ways hurt their own case from this failure because they often tend to attack this ultimate purpose of marraige as irrelevent to teh point of marriage.
    They are irrelevant. And you really haven't been listening if you haven't heard these arguments before.

    Lets face it, most people oppose the concept of SSM. That's why these states keep voting the issue down (I mean California of all places lost that vote).
    The fact that most people oppose same sex marriage is irrelevant. Constitutional rights are not up for a vote.

    In order to change their minds, one must actually listen to their argumetns and create their rebuttals to address those arguments. The SSM proponents have only increased the opposition with their current approach.
    Actually they don't provide any rational arguments. I have begged people on this forum who oppose same sex marriage to provide a rational argument. I'm still waiting to hear your rational argument.

    Ultimately, they are going to push this too far without stating their case effectively (using gender discrimination as their basis for their arguments will ultimately fail because the only reason that the state even has an interest in marriage in the first place is beecause of how it relates to raising children). If they don't formulate their arguments to adress this issue in this way, they will probably lose when it goes to the supreme court because they won't be prepared to defend against this legitimate argument.
    You want to hear an interesting fact? 8 to 10 million children in this country are being raised by gay parents or same sex couples. The American Pediatric Association has argued that same sex marriage would greatly benefit those children. I think you just made a superb argument for the institution of same sex marriage in this country.

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...full/118/1/349

    http://www.enotalone.com/article/9874.html

    Now do you want to explain to me why you feel that imposing a definition of marriage that does no include same sex couples, and thereby denying children raised by same sex couples the same benefits provided to children raised by married heterosexual couples is justified?

    And just to head off your next arguments, the latest 30 years of research has shown that same sex couples can raise children just as well as heterosexual couples.

    http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/ffp10b.pdf

    Thank you Tucker for making such an excellent case for same sex marriage. Just so you know, this is the exact same argument I have been using on this forum for 2 years. These were also included in the 80 findings of fact that Judge Walker included in his ruling. Trust me, the case for same sex marriage is iron clad.
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 08-11-10 at 11:57 PM.

  5. #115
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Marriage didn't make much sense if the couple was infertile.
    That right there is the most important part of your post, CT.

    This is the crux of the anti-SSM argument. SSM marriages are guaranteed to be be an "infertile" coupling.

    Short of an illegal search and seizure (to determine fertility), we can never really make that guarantee with regard to opposite-sex marriages. Some 70 year old lady had a kid in India a couple of years ago.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  6. #116
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Now do you want to explain to me why you feel that imposing a definition of marriage that does no include same sex couples, and thereby denying children raised by same sex couples the same benefits provided to children raised by married heterosexual couples is justified?
    You cut out an important sentecen in my response.

    "While I don't get their opposition myself, it seems to be what people think."
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #117
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,118

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    That right there is the most important part of your post, CT.

    This is the crux of the anti-SSM argument. SSM marriages are guaranteed to be be an "infertile" coupling.

    Short of an illegal search and seizure (to determine fertility), we can never really make that guarantee with regard to opposite-sex marriages. Some 70 year old lady had a kid in India a couple of years ago.
    Actually Tucker, this is the most important part of my post. If you are going to argue that marriage exists for the benefit of raising children then you need to address this part of my argument...

    You want to hear an interesting fact? 8 to 10 million children in this country are being raised by gay parents or same sex couples. The American Pediatric Association has argued that same sex marriage would greatly benefit those children. I think you just made a superb argument for the institution of same sex marriage in this country.

    The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children -- Pawelski et al. 118 (1): 349 -- Pediatrics

    Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents

    Now do you want to explain to me why you feel that imposing a definition of marriage that does no include same sex couples, and thereby denying children raised by same sex couples the same benefits provided to children raised by married heterosexual couples is justified?

    And just to head off your next arguments, the latest 30 years of research has shown that same sex couples can raise children just as well as heterosexual couples.

    http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/ffp10b.pdf

    Thank you Tucker for making such an excellent case for same sex marriage. Just so you know, this is the exact same argument I have been using on this forum for 2 years. These were also included in the 80 findings of fact that Judge Walker included in his ruling. Trust me, the case for same sex marriage is iron clad.
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 08-12-10 at 12:02 AM.

  8. #118
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,118

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    You cut out an important sentecen in my response.

    "While I don't get their opposition myself, it seems to be what people think."
    Tucker if you hold the position that it is irrational to deny same sex couples the right to marry, then don't debate that it is rational.

    The Walker ruling holds not only the fact that imposing a definition of marriage the excludes same sex couples is gender discrimination but also the fact that same sex couples have children and those children would benefit from having married parents.

    1. Marriage is not about procreation, it is about providing a stable home to raise children. The state does not require that heterosexual couples be able to procreate. Same sex couples are just as capable as heterosexual couples at raising children.

    2. The fact that same sex couples cannot procreate does not inhibit them from being able to adopt or use a surrogate.

    3. This law is based on gender discrimination as it restricts marriage based soley on a person's sex, without any legitimate interest to the state for doing so. Denying same sex couples the right to marry does not increase or decrease the likelihood that married heterosexual couples will procreate. Allowing same sex couples to marry would satisfy a legitimate state interest because it provides benefits to up to 8 to 10 million children.
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 08-12-10 at 12:16 AM.

  9. #119
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:08 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,157

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    1. Marriage is not about procreation, it is about providing a stable home to raise children. The state does not require that heterosexual couples be able to procreate.
    Does the state require that heterosexual couples be able to provide stable homes to raise children?
    Last edited by Taylor; 08-12-10 at 12:22 AM.

  10. #120
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,118

    Re: Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    And... the state does not require that heterosexual couples be able to provide stable homes to raise children, either.
    True. A male serial killer in prison can marry a female prostitute who is working the street. What does it say about our country that they have more right to marry than a loving same sex couple with adopted children?
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 08-12-10 at 12:28 AM.

Page 12 of 22 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •