• 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

MrVicchio said:
I hadn't seen that before, I've seen some other stuff but not numbers on that level. Thank you for the info.
Click to expand...

Since we are on the topic...

An estimated 27 percent of same-sex couples identified in Census 2000 have a child under 18 living in the home with them (Gates and Ost, 2004).3 Data from the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics in 2002, show that over 35 percent of lesbians aged 18-44 have given birth, compared with 65 percent of heterosexual and bisexual women. Among gay men, 16 percent have had a biological or adopted child compared to 48 percent of heterosexual and bisexual men.

In other words, more than one in three lesbians have given birth and one in six gay men have fathered or adopted a child.

Same sex couples have kids, and those kids are denied the benefits of the social and cultural standing of marriage. The American Pediatric Association conveys that children of same sex couples can benefit from marriage.

Sources:

http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/FinalAdoptionReport.pdf

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
Maybe I missed it. Where in this thread prior to my post was the topic of children being raised by same sex couples brought up as an argument in favor of same sex marriage?
Click to expand...

Quite a few pages back.

CriticalThought said:
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.
Click to expand...

You never argued anything about same sex couples raising children until I brought it up. You argued that marriage was an institution for raising children and that a definition of marriage that excludes same sex couples could be imposed only because same sex couples can't procreate. The fact that same sex couples are denied marriage even though they have and raise children and can do so just as well as opposite sex couples furthers the case that California discriminates against same sex couples based only on their sex.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Quite a few pages back.



You never argued anything about same sex couples raising children until I brought it up. You argued that marriage was an institution for raising children and that a definition of marriage that excludes same sex couples could be imposed only because same sex couples can't procreate.
Click to expand...

I brought up the fact that an effective argument must counter the legitimate arguments against allowing SSM. Since I did that, you have shifted toward just such an argument.
 
Tucker Case said:
I brought up the fact that an effective argument must counter the legitimate arguments against allowing SSM. Since I did that, you have shifted toward just such an argument.
Click to expand...

No, you brought up the exact same argument that Walker brought up, you just want to take "gender discrimination" out of it. The fact that same sex couples are denied marriage even though they have and raise children and can do so just as well as opposite sex couples furthers the case that California discriminates against same sex couples based only on their sex. You have not provided any reason why this argument is insufficent, only that you personally do not like it and prefer to argue only on the grounds of the rights of children of same sex couples.
 
CriticalThought said:
No, you brought up the exact same argument that Walker brought up, you just want to take "gender discrimination" out of it. The fact that same sex couples are denied marriage even though they have and raise children and can do so just as well as opposite sex couples furthers the case that California discriminates against same sex couples based only on their sex. You have not provided any reason why this argument is insufficent, only that you personally do not like it and prefer to argue only on the grounds of the rights of children of same sex couples.
Click to expand...

At this point, all I can say is that you should go back and read all of my posts in this thread, but this time, throw away your preconceptions about what I've been saying and read them without creating your own meaning.
 
Tucker Case said:
At this point, all I can say is that you should go back and read all of my posts in this thread, but this time, throw away your preconceptions about what I've been saying and read them without creating your own meaning.
Click to expand...

I've read your posts. You went on a rant about how the same sex marriage side does not listen to the arguments of the anti same sex marriage side. You then made the fallacious argument that "procreation" is a legitimate government interest for denying same sex couples the right to marry. The fact is that Walker laid out every argument presented by the anti same sex side in his ruling. Specifically he stated this....

"Proponents pointed only to a difference between same sex couples (who are incapable through sexual intercourse of producing offspring biologically related to both parties) and opposite sex couples (some of whom are capable of producing such offspring.) Proponents did not, however, advance any reason why the government may use sexual orientation as a proxy for fertility or why the government may need to take into account fertility when legislating." pg 122

In other words, you made precisely the same fallacious argument that the proponents of Prop 8 made in this case. That fertility needs to be taken under consideration with same sex couples even though fertility is not taken into consideration with opposite sex couples. No opposite sex couples are denied marriage on the basis that they are infertile, and so there is no basis to deny same sex couples the right to marry on the basis that they are infertile. That is not equal protection under the law. That is discrimination based solely sex and sexual orientation.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
I've read your posts. You went on a rant about how the same sex marriage side does not listen to the arguments of the anti same sex marriage side. You then made the fallacious argument that "procreation" is a legitimate government interest for denying same sex couples the right to marry. The fact is that Walker laid out every argument presented by the anti same sex side in his ruling. Specifically he stated this....
Click to expand...

I asked to to re-read my posts, and this time "throw away your preconceptions about what I've been saying and read them without creating your own meaning".

That's very important for understanding. You are debating a strawman of your own creation. If you'd rather do that than have a discussion, so be it. Just let me know.

"Proponents pointed only to a difference between same sex couples (who are incapable through sexual intercourse of producing offspring biologically related to both parties) and opposite sex couples (some of whom are capable of producing such offspring.) Proponents did not, however, advance any reason why the government may use sexual orientation as a proxy for fertility or why the government may need to take into account fertility when legislating." pg 122
Click to expand...

As you noted before, we're not discussing sexual orientation.

In other words, you made precisely the same fallacious argument that the proponents of Prop 8 made in this case. That fertility needs to be taken under consideration with same sex couples even though fertility is not taken into consideration with opposite sex couples. No opposite sex couples are denied marriage on the basis that they are infertile, and so there is no basis to deny same sex couples the right to marry on the basis that they are infertile. That is not equal protection under the law. That is discrimination based solely sex and sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

No, as you noted before, we aren't discussing sexual orietnation. My argumetn was about the validity of making a gender qualification.
 
Tucker Case said:
No, as you noted before, we aren't discussing sexual orietnation. My argumetn was about the validity of making a gender qualification.
Click to expand...

Bull****. And I quote...

Tucker Case said:
This is the crux of the anti-SSM argument. SSM marriages are guaranteed to be be an "infertile" coupling.
Click to expand...

The key words here is fertility. Not sexual orientation or sex. You are arguing just as the proponents did that fertility needs to be taken under consideration with same sex couples even though fertility is not taken into consideration with opposite sex couples. No opposite sex couples are denied marriage on the basis that they are infertile, and so there is no basis to deny same sex couples the right to marry on the basis that they are infertile. That is not equal protection under the law. That is discrimination based solely on sex and sexual orientation.

And you continue to fail to support your point just as the proponents of Prop 8 failed to support theirs. Why does the state have an interest in taking fertility into consideration with same sex couples when it does not do so with opposite sex couples? How is that not discrimination on the basis of sex?
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Bull****. And I quote...



The key words here is fertility. Not sexual orientation or sex. You are arguing that just as the proponents did that fertility needs to be taken under consideration with same sex couples even though fertility is not taken into consideration with opposite sex couples. No opposite sex couples are denied marriage on the basis that they are infertile, and so there is no basis to deny same sex couples the right to marry on the basis that they are infertile. That is not equal protection under the law. That is discrimination based solely sex and sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

Fertility as it relates to gender and marriage.

Please, please, please go back and reread after removing your preconceptions. If you reread my posts with a clear mind devoid of preconceptions, you might even come to understand why your approach to this debate is detrimental for it.

Bacause as it is, you haven't even begun to understand my points.

Why does the state have an interest in taking fertility into consideration with same sex couples when it does not do so with opposite sex couples?
Click to expand...

This was addressed. You removed the second sentence in your quote.

But again, I implore you to remove your preconceptions of what I'm trying to say. Once you understand what I was actually saying, (not your made-up version of things) you'll realize that you have since supported every single thing I was getting at.

But if you don't get rid of your preconceptions about what I was getting at, you will continue to be a detriment to your cause.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
Fertility as it relates to gender and marriage.

Please, please, please go back and reread after removing your preconceptions. If you reread my posts with a clear mind devoid of preconceptions, you might even come to understand why your approach to this debate is detrimental for it.
Click to expand...

I quoted your ****ing post! You are just using a red herring to get around the fact that you have no argument. Address my questions! Why does the state have an interest in taking fertility into consideration with same sex couples when it does not do so with opposite sex couples? How is that not discrimination on the basis of sex?
 
CriticalThought said:
I quoted your ****ing post!
Click to expand...

Really, you quoted all of it? Like the sentence that addressed what you claim I didn't adress?

Seriously, take my advice. Remove your preconceptions and reread all of my posts. Until you do that, you'll continue to use an approach which is detrimental to your cause.
 
Tucker Case said:
Really, you quoted all of it? Like the sentence that addressed what you claim I didn't adress?

Seriously, take my advice. Remove your preconceptions and reread all of my posts. Until you do that, you'll continue to use an approach which is detrimental to your cause.
Click to expand...

That is it. I'm starting a new thread. If you are not going to be man enough to answer my questions, then I will find someone who is.
 
CriticalThought said:
That is it. I'm starting a new thread. If you are not going to be man enough to answer my questions, then I will find someone who is.
Click to expand...

Seriously, reread my posts. Your questions directed at me have no value when one actually understands what I've been saying. Starting another thread will only exacerbate your errors here.
 
Tucker Case said:
Seriously, reread my posts. Your questions directed at me have no value when one actually understands what I've been saying. Starting another thread will only exacerbate your errors here.
Click to expand...

It would take you two minutes to simply answer the questions. I have no interest in rereading your posts a third time. I am posting in a new thread in hopes that someone can answer my questions.
 
CriticalThought said:
It would take you two minutes to simply answer the questions. I have no interest in rereading your posts a third time. I am posting in a new thread in hopes that someone can answer my questions.
Click to expand...

It's not simply a matter of rereading them, it's doing so with the intention of understanding them. To do this, you need to remove your preconceptions about them. REad them without prejudgment of what I'm trying to say.

If you do this, and actually end up understanding my point, you'll see that your questions aren't valid in response to them.
 
Tucker Case said:
It's not simply a matter of rereading them, it's doing so with the intention of understanding them. To do this, you need to remove your preconceptions about them. REad them without prejudgment of what I'm trying to say.

If you do this, and actually end up understanding my point, you'll see that your questions aren't valid in response to them.
Click to expand...

I'm done debating with you in this thread. If you wish to provide your rational anew in this thread...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/78985-fertility-and-same-sex-marriage.html

...otherwise there is nothing left to be said. You have failed to provide an answer to why the state has an interest in taking fertility into consideration with same sex couples when it does not do so with opposite sex couples
 
Tucker Case said:
the question itself was the strawman given my points in this thread.
Click to expand...

Here was your argument in your own words...

Tucker Case said:
This is the crux of the anti-SSM argument. SSM marriages are guaranteed to be be an "infertile" coupling.
Click to expand...

You made a quip about illegal searches and seizures. Was that suppose to be your real argument? If the state has genuine interest in fertility in marriage it can require proof of fertility before issuing a marriage license.
 
Tucker Case said:
No it can't.
Click to expand...

Why not? If the government is issuing marriage licensees on the basis of fertility alone then by all means, it would be justified to require some level of proof of fertility before issuing them.
 
CriticalThought said:
Why not? If the government is issuing marriage licensees on the basis of fertility alone then by all means, it would be justified to require some level of proof of fertility before issuing them.
Click to expand...

Because it would be a violation of the fourth amendment.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Oh, for pete sake.

You support forcing same sex couples into the lower social and cultural standing of civil unions simply because they can't make babies. Not on the basis of their parenting ability but on the basis that they can't do what two horny opposite sex teenagers in the back seat of a car can unintentionally do.
Click to expand...
Belittle it all you want, but the act between those "two horny opposite sex teenagers" has the potential to put a huge burden on the state depending on how the child is raised. Two horny same sex teenagers are of no consequence as far as state interest is concerned.

If anything, you've strengthened my argument. This is another illustration of why the state should have greater interest in a heterosexual couple than a homosexual couple.

And leave Pete out of this!
 
Taylor said:
Belittle it all you want, but the act between those "two horny opposite sex teenagers" has the potential to put a huge burden on the state depending on how the child is raised. Two horny same sex teenagers are of no consequence as far as state interest is concerned.

If anything, you've strengthened my argument. This is another illustration of why the state should have greater interest in a heterosexual couple than a homosexual couple.

And leave Pete out of this!
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom