• 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

Taylor said:
False dilemma. Regardless, the vast majority of people who supported Prop 8 supported civil unions for gay couples that are indistinguishible from marriage in all respects other than name.
Click to expand...

So thy want to call a rose by another name.
 
Taylor said:
False dilemma. The vast majority of people who supported Prop 8 supported civil unions for gay couples that are indistinguishible from marriage in all respects other than name.
Click to expand...

No, it is the crux of the matter. The Prop 8 proponents see opposite sex unions as superior to same sex unions so they must designate same sex couples to culturally inferior civil unions. Nobody denies that marriage is symbolically superior than civil unions. The main reason they do so is because they perceive the ability to make children as superior to the ability to provide stable and loving homes for them. A male serial killer in prison can marry a female prostitute working the street, but same sex couples are only allowed to form a culturally inferior civil union that designates nothing other than their inability to make children. How is that justified?
 
winston53660 said:
So thy want to call a rose by another name.
Click to expand...
I'm pointing out that this case isn't about raising kids and creating happy homes, it's about changing the definition of marriage.
 
Taylor said:
I'm pointing out that this case isn't about raising kids and creating happy homes, it's about changing the definition of marriage.
Click to expand...

The definition of marriage has not changed. It is still about property rights like it always has been.
 
CriticalThought said:
The main reason they do so is because they perceive the ability to make children as superior to the ability to provide stable and loving homes for them
Click to expand...
This makes no sense. It's not one or the other. Both groups have "the ability to provide stable and loving homes " only one group has "the ability to make children"
 
Taylor said:
This makes no sense. It's not one or the other. Both groups have "the ability to provide stable and loving homes " only one group has "the ability to make children"
Click to expand...

Let me guess which one that is...... Ah, got it. It's the group with a greater than 60% divorce rate. :mrgreen:
 
Taylor said:
This makes no sense. It's not one or the other. Both groups have "the ability to provide stable and loving homes " only one group has "the ability to make children"
Click to expand...

You sidestepped the point. Why is it that a male serial killer in prison can marry a female prostitute but a loving same sex couple with adopted children can only form a culturally inferior civil union? Whether you want to admit it or not, our laws do place the perceived ability of opposite sex couples to procreate over the ability to provide loving and stable homes for children. If that were not the case, then a serial killer in prison would never be able to "marry" a prostitute working the street. Same sex couples are expected to wear the culturally inferior title of civil unions only because they can't make children. Why is that justified?
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Whether you want to admit it or not, our laws do place the percieved ability of opposite couples to procreate over the ability to provide loving and stable homes for children.
Click to expand...
Do you mean to say that our laws place the ability to procreate and provide loving and stable homes over the ability to provide loving and stable homes alone?

CriticalThought said:
Same sex couples are expected to wear the culturally inferior title of civil unions only because they can't make children. Why is that justified?
Click to expand...
Not only same sex couples, I think older adults can choose to get civil unions as well. Not everyone views it as a "culturally inferior" title, just a different one.

Two different names for two different types of unions.
 
Taylor said:
Do you mean to say that our laws place the ability to procreate and provide loving and stable homes over the ability to provide loving and stable homes alone?


Not only same sex couples, I think older adults can choose to get civil unions as well. Not everyone views it as a "culturally inferior" title, just a different one.

Two different names for two different types of unions.
Click to expand...

There are several gay churches here in Houston, whose members would strongly disagree with you. Denying marriage to them is, IMHO, showing preference for one interpretation of religion over another. I would agree with this. I believe all have the right to get married in the church of their choice, and a church that marries gays is, after all, worshiping God the way they believe he should be worshiped.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
There are several gay churches here in Houston, whose members would strongly disagree with you. Denying marriage to them is, IMHO, showing preference for one interpretation of religion over another. I would agree with this.
Click to expand...
Prop 8 doesn't outlaw gay marriage, it says that the state will only recognize "marriage" between a man and a woman. Thus, people could be married in churches like those in Houston, but it wouldn't be recognized by the state. I think they have a weak argument concerning preference as the vast majority of religious institutions from all major denominations recognize marriage as the joining of opposite sexes. Surely we can't expect the government to follow the beliefs of every single denomination.
 
Gardener said:
Actually the word "conserve" in the term conservative has to do with a person's attitudes towards social conventions and institutions. What a conservative wishes to conserve is social order, that above social justice, so by very description a conservative would support the status quo of defining marriage as it has long been defined. It is the desire for social justice - -a liberal trait -- that seeks to end the discrimination against gay people.
Click to expand...

So as a corollary, would you say that a conservative would want to support, or "conserve" the status quo of current abortion laws, progressive tax laws, current policies regarding prayer in public schools, current policies regarding teaching evolution in public schools, etc...?
 
Taylor said:
Do you mean to say that our laws place the ability to procreate and provide loving and stable homes over the ability to provide loving and stable homes alone?
Click to expand...

You keep trying to sidestep it, but you are ignoring the reality. Why is it that an opposite sex couple that theoretically can procreate but clearly can't provide a loving and stable home for children can marry but a same sex couple which can provide a loving and stable home for children is only allowed the culturally inferior designation of civil union?

As much as you try to get around the fact, the reality is that opposite sex couples are given the right to marry only because they can theoretically create children. They don't have to prove they can or will create children. Nor do they have to be able to provide a stable and loving home for children. They are entitled to the culturally superior title of marriage only because they can theoretically make babies.

Not only same sex couples, I think older adults can choose to get civil unions as well. Not everyone views it as a "culturally inferior" title, just a different one.

Two different names for two different types of unions.
Click to expand...

No, in California, opposite sex couples in California cannot form a civil union. Marriages are designated for opposite sex couples and civil unions are designated for same sex couples. What you are now arguing that the institutions are separate but equal. Where have I heard that line before? Especially since not only a few posts ago you admitted that the justification for civil unions was that same sex couples are inferior to opposite sex couples, simply for the fact that same sex couples can't produce children. No other reason. Now you want to pretend that civil unions are equal to marriage.
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
Prop 8 doesn't outlaw gay marriage, it says that the state will only recognize "marriage" between a man and a woman. Thus, people could be married in churches like those in Houston, but it wouldn't be recognized by the state. I think they have a weak argument concerning preference as the vast majority of religious institutions from all major denominations recognize marriage as the joining of opposite sexes. Surely we can't expect the government to follow the beliefs of every single denomination.
Click to expand...

Nor can we expect the government to respect the establishment of any particular religion, as per the First Amendment. According to the Constitution, all religions, denominations, and the way each religion is practiced by it's members, are equal.
 
CriticalThought said:
You keep trying to sidestep it, but you are ignoring the reality. Why is it that an opposite sex couple that theoretically can procreate but clearly can't provide a loving and stable home for children can marry but a same sex couple which can provide a loving and stable home for children is only allowed the culturally inferior designation of civil union?
Click to expand...
Ah - I wasn't sidestepping, just wasn't getting that you wanted me to answer specfically about the hypothetical. I don't get the relevance of the question. I could ask you a similar question regarding a loving and fertile young couple vs. a gay serial killer and the coke-head prostitute he wants to marry. In that case we're left to ask why we should extend marriage to a couple that can't procreate OR provide a loving and stable home for children.

I don't think extreme examples such as these are very helpful.

CriticalThought said:
As much as you try to get around the fact, the reality is that opposite sex couples are given the right to marry only because they can theoretically create children. They don't have to prove they can or will create children. Nor do they have to be able to provide a stable and loving home for children. They are entitled to the culturally superior title of marriage only because they can make babies.
Click to expand...
Most people do procreate and I would argue that (all else being equal) the best environment for kids is with their biological mother and father.
 
CriticalThought said:
No, in California, opposite sex couples in California cannot form a civil union. Marriages are designated for opposite sex couples and civil unions are designated for same sex couples.
Click to expand...
No, I believe I'm right and you're wrong:
A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship available to same-sex couples, and to certain opposite-sex couples in which at least one party is at least 62 years of age. It affords the couple most but not all of "the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law..." as married spouses.[1][2]
Click to expand...
Domestic partnership in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
danarhea said:
Nor can we expect the government to respect the establishment of any particular religion, as per the First Amendment. According to the Constitution, all religions, denominations, and the way each religion is practiced by it's members, are equal.
Click to expand...
Not so much "equal" as ignored, right?
 
CriticalThought said:
That doesn't really improve your case. The fact that opposite sex couples are privy to both marriage and civil unoins but same sex couples are only privy to civil unions is not exactly a shining beacon of equality.
Click to expand...
If I were arguing for equality you might have a point.
 
Taylor said:
If I were arguing for equality you might have a point.
Click to expand...

You are arguing against equality, obviously. You stated earlier that people have the right to favor straight marriage over gay marriage (If I am paraphrasing you correctly). I agree with that. People have the right to feel any way about it they want. However, the governmnent does not have that luxury.
 
danarhea said:
As in one version of how religion should be practiced cannot be favored over another.
Click to expand...
There's nothing wrong with laws that "favor" one religion or another, so long as the reason for that law isn't religion itself.
 
Taylor said:
Most people do procreate and I would argue that (all else being equal) the best environment for kids is with their biological mother and father.
Click to expand...

Thank you. That is exactly what I thought.

You know, I always wanted to meet one of those old southern racists. One of the ones who argued that the laws of segregation and interracial marriage bans were justified. I wanted to understand how they could justify such an obviously prejudiced view.

Now that I have debated this issue with you, I understand that kind of mentality. You aren't any different. You are prejudiced towards same sex couples. All prejudice really means it that you have a preconceived belief about the inferiority of a group that isn't founded on reason or evidence. The one part of Walker's ruling that I detested was the idea that the people of California who voted for Prop 8 were acting in animosity towards same sex couples. Now I have to accept that as a fact. They hold the same preconceived ideas as you. They believe same sex couples are inferior to opposite sex couples. That is a prejudice. They believe such only because same sex couples can't make children.

And just as National Socialists argue an "ideal" race. Prop 8 proponents argue an "ideal" couple. Opposite sex couples are the "ideal". Children being raised by opposite sex parents are the "ideal". Sure, same sex couples can raise children just as well as opposite sex couples, but it isn't the "ideal". Those inferior couples must be kept separate from the "ideal" couples. They must be recognized as having a lower social standing, because they don't fit in with the "ideal".

I desperately wanted to hear a rational argument from the anti gay marriage side justifying blatant inequality. I wanted to hear a valid reason as to why children of gay parents and same sex couples should be denied the benefits of marriage. Now I have to accept that it truly is just empty prejudice. Preconceived ideas of superiority that aren't based on reason or evidence. I pity the people who have to live with that mentality. If you want to make marriage a beacon of the perceived superiority of opposite sex couples to same sex couples then have at it. I would gladly wear a civil union just as a Jew would wear a Star of David or a black man would wear a lynch mob's noose. It's a symbol of persecution because of who I am, and that is how history will remember it.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
You are arguing against equality, obviously. You stated earlier that people have the right to favor straight marriage over gay marriage. I agree with that. People have the right to feel any way about it they want. However, the governmnent does not have that luxury.
Click to expand...
It does have that luxury so long as it's not a protected right. Not all judges will concur with Walker's opinion. Of course, it's the SCOTUS that matters.
 
Taylor said:
There's nothing wrong with laws that "favor" one religion or another, so long as the reason for that law isn't religion itself.
Click to expand...

Why would the law favor one religion over another, without the reason having to do with the religion in question. That does not make sense to me.
 
CriticalThought said:
Thank you. That is exactly what I thought.

You know, I always wanted to meet one of those old southern racists. One of the ones who argued that the laws of segregation and interracial marriage bans were justified. I wanted to understand how they could justify such an obviously prejudiced view.

Now that I have debated this issue with you, I understand that kind of mentality. You aren't any different. You are prejudiced towards same sex couples. All prejudice really means it that you have a preconceived belief about a group that isn't founded on reason or evidence. The one part of Walker's ruling that I detested was the idea that the people of California who voted for Prop 8 were acting in animosity towards same sex couples. Now I have to accept that as a fact. They hold the same preconceived ideas as you. They believe same sex couples are inferior to opposite sex couples. That is a prejudice. They believe such only because same sex couples can't make children.

And just as National Socialists argue an "ideal" race. Prop 8 proponents argue an "ideal" couple. Opposite sex couples are the "ideal". Children being raised by opposite sex parents are the "ideal". Sure, same sex couples can raise children just as well as opposite sex couples, but it isn't the "ideal". Those inferior couples must be kept separate from the "ideal" couples. They must be recognized as having a lower social standing, because they don't fit in with the "ideal".

I desperately wanted to hear a rational argument from the anti gay marriage side justifying blatant inequality. I wanted to hear a valid reason as to why children of gay parents and same sex couples should be denied the benefits of marriage. Now I have to accept that it truly is just empty prejudice. Preconceived ideas of superiority that aren't based on reason or evidence. I pity the people who have to live with that mentality. If you want to make marriage a beacon of perceived superior of opposite sex couples to same sex couples then have at it. I would gladly wear a civil union just as a Jew would wear a Star of David or a black man would wear a lynch mob's noose. It's a symbol of persecution because of who I am, and that is how history will remember it.
Click to expand...

I would not be so hard on her. She is not against gay marriage because she hates gays. She just does not understand that side of the fence. To be honest, neither did I for much of my life. If I wasn't a musician, I would not have met many gays, and would probably still not understand. This is a very difficult issue for some people, and honestly, it was for me too. It was not easy for me to overcome my own prejudice.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom