Same sex marriage: what is it really?

Zyphlin said:

First, It would take a significant rework of our laws regarding marriage, from tax code to court precedence and onwards. "Other countries" having it does not in any way negate the difficulty and amount of time spent in changing THIS countries laws. The vast majority of laws would require a mere tweaking to go from allowing only opposite sex to allowing any two people. An entire rework would be needed to allow for joining of 3 or more people. Minor rewrites for something that is discriminating as a Middle Tier category, sex, is far less of an argument against EPC than major rewrites applying to discrimination that would be questionable if it even registered as a group that could be considered under the lowest tier.

Click to expand...

So no equality under US law if someone thinks it too complicated. Got ya the first time. Still makes no sense.

Zyphlin said:

Secondly, yes...the difficulties in changing a law is certainly a feasible argument for discriminating against people under the law. Especially something, such as "number of people", which would fall under the least strict tier of the EPC if it would even reach that level. It is a "rational" basis in suggesting this discrimination serves a legitimate government interest, that of spending time and money on issues at a reasonable level of importance compared to cost. Seeing as how there is no strict constitutional protection towards "Numbers of people" that can enter into a government, the amount of time and effort to go into reworking an entire section of our legal, tax, and court systems to accommodate this is not reasonable. And such is all that would be required to constitutionally allow such discrimination.

Click to expand...

It's not like we did it with Obama care, Oh wait.

No excuse for discrimination. Or equal protection for people who's only crime is loving each other. It is not really any of your business how many wifes or husbands a person has anyway.

Zyphlin said:

Thirdly, this is not even toughing upon the other potential issues which I'm sure others who have studied those things more would be better apt to speak on, for example regarding family units and other such matters.

Click to expand...

Still waiting for proof on that as well since the larger the family as in extended family, seems to be better for rearing children according to gay marriage proponents.

The rest was pretty much nothing but off topic personal attacks so I ignored them.

Well I'm sure it was a lot of work to end slavery and give women the right to vote, too. So much work, in fact, it required constitutional amendments, and then a lot of regulation had to be redone so as to comply. Gosh darn it sometimes life just isn't easy.

Jerry said:

Well I'm sure it was a lot of work to end slavery and give women the right to vote, too. So much work, in fact, it required constitutional amendments, and then a lot of regulation had to be redone so as to comply. Gosh darn it sometimes life just isn't easy.

Click to expand...

Hey, if you and Blackdog wish to push for constitutional change, I applaud your efforts to do so.

Till that point, I'll be the one here actually dealing with reality and arguments based on actual constitutional law rather than poorly done satire or sarcastic antagonizing. The chances of getting any sort of constitutional change to recognize sexual orientation by itself as a higher tiered protected status under the EP is substantial, getting polygamy on there is astronomically higher. I'm not going to base a current modern argument concerning legality and constitutionality on a hypothetical that may or may not ever be constitutional.

Fact is, constitutionally, "number of people" nor "polygamst" are a protected group anywhere near the same level as sex nor race. Seriously, take your tired "Hur hur, we're trying to use the evil sinful gayz arguments against them" tactics to someone that is actually making those arguments. Cause right now they're nothing but foolish when debating my point, which is why Blackdog has to keep reuttering the same tired Colbert spin rather than actually addressing my points...because he can't, because he doesn't believe the **** that he's spewing, so can't actually think of an answer other than what he can regurgitate out of his stereotyped gay marriage supporter.

Blackdog said:

So no equality under US law if someone thinks it too complicated. Got ya the first time. Still makes no sense.

Click to expand...

Care to actually address my constitutional point? Or just wish to keep uttering your fallacy of appeal to emotion and expect me to give a damn?

Oh, by the way, constitutional point may be best dealt with by actually speaking with regards to constitutional law...so while I do suggest you go back to your actual honest beliefs, please remember, your opinion that what the bible says according to Blackdog does not, in this country, supersede the constitution.

It's not like we did it with Obama care, Oh wait.

Click to expand...

Yes, because Obama care was all about the the EPC-...

Oh wait, no it isn't. So appeal to emotion, and then a red hearing.

Seriously, you're making Colbert look bad with this sad impersonation of style.

No excuse for discrimination. Or equal protection for people who's only crime is loving each other. It is not really any of your business how many wifes or husbands a person has anyway.

Click to expand...

See, there you go again, making your comments directed at me showing your apparent ignorance, or inability to counter, what my actual argument is.

Let me spell it out for you once more.

I don't give two ****s about love with regards to marriage as a legal structure.

And when they're getting government benefits, you're damn right its my business. They're receiving perks, perks provided to them on the backs of tax payers, thus making them "my business". And they're "my business" as long as what I, and those I vote in, do to them stays within the realms of constitutional. And, on one hand, I've actually made a constitutional argument why its perfectly suitable and legitimate to discriminate against them. You on the other hand have done nothing but your poor imitation of a gay marriage supporter attempting to "appeal to emotion", hoping and begging as you hold onto it that it will somehow prove your point, and realizing sadly as you grasp onto it that its not because you're using it against someone that isn't arguing in the stereotypical way so I'm simultaneously showing your pathetic act to be worthless while also not hurting the arguments they make.

Seriously, just stop.

Still waiting for proof on that as well since the larger the family as in extended family, seems to be better for rearing children according to gay marriage proponents.

Click to expand...

Again, you have a problem with apples and oranges, which is why you fail so absolutely miserably with this worthless act you're putting on. Studies researching if two men or two women can have a health environment for a child != equal studies looking at families of 3 or more parents. Your own complete and utter hatred for the gay life style and thus illogical emotion filled response to anyone daring to question your infallible and perfect interpretation of what god really thinks makes you about a step up from mud in regards to explaining what "gay marriage proponents" are ACTUALLY arguing rather than what they appear to be arguing to you through the stereotypical lens through which you view it. As I said, I've not looked into it closely...as it appears you haven't either...which is why my argument is actually rooted in the constitution and the Equal Protection Clause which requires only a rational argument that its beneficial to the government to discriminate. Its impossible to suggest that forgoing rewriting large amounts of legal structure and the amount of time that it would take with regards to passing such things, sorting out the details, etc isn't beneficial. You could suggest that YOU don't think the benefit is enough to outweigh the discrimination...but that's not your call, nor does it matter for that level of the EPC. They just need to show a ration reason why it serves a legitimate state interest.

Zyphlin said:

Hey, if you and Blackdog wish to push for constitutional change, I applaud your efforts to do so.

Till that point, I'll be the one here actually dealing with reality and arguments based on actual constitutional law rather than poorly done satire or 4chan styled antagonizing.

Click to expand...

Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point. Of course the 1st section of the 14 amendment does mention "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Basically your argument has been it's to complicated. That has nothing at all to do with Constitutional law.

So where does that leave your argument? I'll tell you...

It's not bad to discriminate as long as YOU agree with it. eace

Why exactly would polygamous people need an actual marriage contract between all of them? Give me a situation where multiple people would actually need most of the various rights/responsibilities that come from marriage in a single marriage.

I am for making some sort of document to make them all legal family. I absolutely have no problem with this. The marriage contract itself though, is meant to specifically name a person as another's closest living relative. Legally speaking, a person cannot have multiple "closest" living relatives. It does not work. There is legal conflict in doing this.

Same sex couples need a legal marriage contract for their union to ensure that they get such rights as being the one person to make the decisions should the partner be incapacitated or dead and that their say means more than that of "blood" relatives. It ensures that a couple can be given priority in each other's lives and so that they can actually adopt each other's children.

I am not against some legal recognition for polygamists, with certain rules attached, but they cannot be given the same marriage contract that applies to a two people marriage. It won't work. They can still have a different type of "marriage" contract to give them some of the same rights that legal family members have. Not against this at all. In the meantime, while the rules for such multi-person marriage contracts and paperwork is being worked out, same sex couples can easily get their rights under the current marriage contract in place. Very little tweaking is involved at all.

Zyphlin said:

Care to actually address my constitutional point? Or just wish to keep uttering your fallacy of appeal to emotion and expect me to give a damn?

Oh, by the way, constitutional point may be best dealt with by actually speaking with regards to constitutional law...so while I do suggest you go back to your actual honest beliefs, please remember, your opinion that what the bible says according to Blackdog does not, in this country, supersede the constitution.

Yes, because Obama care was all about the the EPC-...

Oh wait, no it isn't. So appeal to emotion, and then a red hearing.

Seriously, you're making Colbert look bad with this sad impersonation of style.

See, there you go again, making your comments directed at me showing your apparent ignorance, or inability to counter, what my actual argument is.

Let me spell it out for you once more.

I don't give two ****s about love with regards to marriage as a legal structure.

And when they're getting government benefits, you're damn right its my business. They're receiving perks, perks provided to them on the backs of tax payers, thus making them "my business". And they're "my business" as long as what I, and those I vote in, do to them stays within the realms of constitutional. And, on one hand, I've actually made a constitutional argument why its perfectly suitable and legitimate to discriminate against them. You on the other hand have done nothing but your poor imitation of a gay marriage supporter attempting to "appeal to emotion", hoping and begging as you hold onto it that it will somehow prove your point, and realizing sadly as you grasp onto it that its not because you're using it against someone that isn't arguing in the stereotypical way so I'm simultaneously showing your pathetic act to be worthless while also not hurting the arguments they make.

Seriously, just stop.

Again, you have a problem with apples and oranges, which is why you fail so absolutely miserably with this worthless act you're putting on. Studies researching if two men or two women can have a health environment for a child != equal studies looking at families of 3 or more parents. Your own complete and utter hatred for the gay life style and thus illogical emotion filled response to anyone daring to question your infallible and perfect interpretation of what god really thinks makes you about a step up from mud in regards to explaining what "gay marriage proponents" are ACTUALLY arguing rather than what they appear to be arguing to you through the stereotypical lens through which you view it. As I said, I've not looked into it closely...as it appears you haven't either...which is why my argument is actually rooted in the constitution and the Equal Protection Clause which requires only a rational argument that its beneficial to the government to discriminate. Its impossible to suggest that forgoing rewriting large amounts of legal structure and the amount of time that it would take with regards to passing such things, sorting out the details, etc isn't beneficial. You could suggest that YOU don't think the benefit is enough to outweigh the discrimination...but that's not your call, nor does it matter for that level of the EPC. They just need to show a ration reason why it serves a legitimate state interest.

Click to expand...

#1 Obama care is not a fallacy or red herring. It is the perfect example of being to "complicated" is not an excuse or argument as the facts of government say different.

#2 I understand your argument as far as "it's your business" and yet when it comes to gay marriage proponents still say it's none of my business.

The rest is again another personal attack rant. So forgive me for ignoring it.

roguenuke said:

Why exactly would polygamous people need an actual marriage contract between all of them? Give me a situation where multiple people would actually need most of the various rights/responsibilities that come from marriage in a single marriage.

I am for making some sort of document to make them all legal family. I absolutely have no problem with this. The marriage contract itself though, is meant to specifically name a person as another's closest living relative. Legally speaking, a person cannot have multiple "closest" living relatives. It does not work. There is legal conflict in doing this.

Same sex couples need a legal marriage contract for their union to ensure that they get such rights as being the one person to make the decisions should the partner be incapacitated or dead and that their say means more than that of "blood" relatives. It ensures that a couple can be given priority in each other's lives and so that they can actually adopt each other's children.

I am not against some legal recognition for polygamists, with certain rules attached, but they cannot be given the same marriage contract that applies to a two people marriage. It won't work. They can still have a different type of "marriage" contract to give them some of the same rights that legal family members have. Not against this at all. In the meantime, while the rules for such multi-person marriage contracts and paperwork is being worked out, same sex couples can easily get their rights under the current marriage contract in place. Very little tweaking is involved at all.

Click to expand...

That sounds like separate but equal. Much like civil unions for gays?

Blackdog said:

Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point. Of course the 1st section of the 14 amendment does mention "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Click to expand...

Courts have the constitutional power to interpret the constitution. As it stands, the courts have found that marriage is a civil right, and as such is afforded constitutional protection (Loving v. Virginia). United States v. Carolene Products Co. created the classifications of various levels of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, with cases following it helping to flesh out what those various levels of scrutiny are. As of now, my entire argument has been based around the notion that marriage as it stands currently is unconstitutionally discriminating against sex, which is a middle tier scrutiny classification. Additionally, against your ridiculous act, I've been pointing out that "polygamsts" or "Numbers of people involved in a contract" are not classified under intermediate nor strict scrutiny tiers and thus would require but a rational basis-test.

It is a rational argument to suggest that the great and significant shift within our laws, court system, and tax code that would take place with the shift to polygamy with little benefit towards the governments interest in marriage (which is to propagate a stable family environment, where in two individuals is deemed suitable and would be met before the 3 or more would come into place with polygamy) and as such its rational to suggest the states interest is served by not expending the resources in time, man power, and money to institute such changes.

See, just because you didn't feel like taking the time to read my words and research them, in large part because you have nothing vested in this ridiculous act of yours, doesn't mean they're not constitutional. I've spelled out pretty clearly prior to this what I was basing it off of and now clear as day for you. My argument is based on constitutional law and actual facts...yours is based off a flawed interpretation of an argument you don't like and worthless appeals to emotion.

Blackdog said:

So you are saying Muslims and Mormons are generally harmfull to society how?

Click to expand...

First allow me to correct you. The Church of Latter Day Saints does not practice polygamy. Only fringe, fundamentalist Mormons practice polygamy.

As an individual who has lived in the area where such sects have existed, I can tell that they produce several societal problems. First off, they lead to younger men being ostracized from the community by older established members since they are competition for wives. In fact, in some cases boys in their early teens have been completely kicked out of the community by their own fathers. Second, it creates an imbalance of genders. Generally speaking, a society is composed of 50% males and 50% females. Polygamy is far, far more common than polyandry since men can sire several children. As such, it naturally creates a shortage of females and excess of males. Third, it creates a considerable mess as far as rights upon injury or death of the husband since several women who may have bared different numbers of children are innately put in conflict with each other over who makes decisions and who gets what portion of the estate. Fourth, it divides a father's time among several different families, inherently creating several single parent families headed by a mother and often absent father thereby proving detrimental to children. Fifth, it is usually only sustainable with a great amount of wealth, therefore wealthier men are far more likely to practice polygamy and poorer men. This of course creates further stratification across socioeconomic lines. Sixth, it has been found within currently existing polygamous sects that young women are pushed to marry at a young age to men much older than themselves, often resulting in young mothers left to take care of children left by men who pass on before the children are fully matured.

I could go on and on, but I seriously doubt you are actually here to have a legitimate debate on why polygamy is harmful to society. Same sex marriage in no way creates this degree of societal change or instability and if you can't see that, then you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself.

Zyphlin said:

Courts have the constitutional power to interpret the constitution. As it stands, the courts have found that marriage is a civil right, and as such is afforded constitutional protection (Loving v. Virginia). United States v. Carolene Products Co. created the classifications of various levels of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, with cases following it helping to flesh out what those various levels of scrutiny are. As of now, my entire argument has been based around the notion that marriage as it stands currently is unconstitutionally discriminating against sex, which is a middle tier scrutiny classification. Additionally, against your ridiculous act, I've been pointing out that "polygamsts" or "Numbers of people involved in a contract" are not classified under intermediate nor strict scrutiny tiers and thus would require but a rational basis-test.

Click to expand...

So if marriage is a civil right, anti bigamy laws should be found unconstitutional as they infringe on the pursuit of life and liberty.

Zyphlin said:

It is a rational argument to suggest that the great and significant shift within our laws, court system, and tax code that would take place with the shift to polygamy with little benefit towards the governments interest in marriage (which is to propagate a stable family environment, where in two individuals is deemed suitable and would be met before the 3 or more would come into place with polygamy) and as such its rational to suggest the states interest is served by not expending the resources in time, man power, and money to institute such changes.

Click to expand...

As Jerry pointed out it would not be the first time. So no it's not and the facts bear this out.

Zyphlin said:

See, just because you didn't feel like taking the time to read my words and research them, in large part because you have nothing vested in this ridiculous act of yours, doesn't mean they're not constitutional. I've spelled out pretty clearly prior to this what I was basing it off of and now clear as day for you. My argument is based on constitutional law and actual facts...yours is based off a flawed interpretation of an argument you don't like and worthless appeals to emotion.

Click to expand...

Excuses for no argument

Blackdog said:

#1 Obama care is not a fallacy or red herring. It is the perfect example of being to "complicated" is not an excuse or argument as the facts of government say different.

Click to expand...

Obama care has zero to do with the equal protection clause nor discrimination under the law and its constitutionality nor with the levels of scrutiny under the 14th amendment.

#2 I understand your argument as far as "it's your business" and yet when it comes to gay marriage proponents still say it's none of my business.

Click to expand...

I don't give a **** what gay marriage proponents are saying. I care what I'm saying. Of which your arguments make absolutely zero sense. And, your horrible attempt to mimic them does not equal their actual arguments. From my understanding there's far more evidence to suggest sexual orientation as something that's hardwired more so than polygamy, giving it a far more logical chance of being eventually added under the EPC then polygamy is. So even your attempt at making them the same doesn't work, and in and of itself is flawed because you THINK it works based off nothing but your own extremely narrow view of the issue based on your beliefs of what is "RIGHT" based on what YOU think your god wants.

The rest is again another personal attack rant. So forgive me for ignoring it.

Click to expand...

Dealing with your debate style isn't a "personal rant", its addressing the flaws and errors in your method of argument. Of course you don't want to address it, you think that somehow this little charade is proving anything other than your ignorance of what the other side is ACTUALLY arguing by anyone who isn't just that sides mirror counter part to the "GAYS ARE SINFUL! BUTTSEX WILL RUIN AMERICA" crowd and that you've apparently ran out of ways to actually defend your own point honestly and upfront.

When I'm the most calm, civil and truly sincere, that's when people think I'm joking around. It's oly when I lie that people take me seriously and accept me at face value.

Zyphlin said:

Till that point, I'll be the one here actually dealing with reality and arguments based on actual constitutional law rather than poorly done satire or 4chan styled antagonizing.

Click to expand...

Oh look which Mod wants to start trolling again...why do I ever bother even trying to be remotely sincere on this forum.


Kindly answer the challenges or excuse yourself from this discussion.

Blackdog said:

So if marriage is a civil right, anti bigamy laws should be found unconstitutional as they infringe on the pursuit of life and liberty. What 2 or more consenting adults do in private is not the concern of other

Click to expand...

Incorrect. Sorry blackdog, been over this three times now. Stop your at and actually read what I said. I'm tired of typing **** that you can ignore and spout the same stuff over and over again.

If a man wishes to be married under his church, PRIVATELY as you keep saying, I've got no problem. If he wants both those marriages to be recognized by the government, and gain the benefits of marriage under the government, then its no longer "private".

Blackdog said:

That sounds like separate but equal. Much like civil unions for gays?

Click to expand...

There is no "separate but equal" to it at all, since it wouldn't be equal, and it shouldn't be completely equal. There are a lot of problems that arise from making such a thing legal. Problems that do not in any way arise with same sex marriage.

BTW, are you going to ever address any of my actual points, instead of making these petty comments trying to imply that I don't truly want equality for everyone? Doing so would certainly make your argument look better.

Blackdog said:

Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point. Of course the 1st section of the 14 amendment does mention "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Basically your argument has been it's to complicated. That has nothing at all to do with Constitutional law.

So where does that leave your argument? I'll tell you...

It's not bad to discriminate as long as YOU agree with it. eace

Click to expand...

Wrong. And I'll tell you why.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."

Notice the key word there. Marriage is a law. As such, that puts it under the 14th amendment. Now let's look at that other part.

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Due process of law? What does that mean? Well it means that it has to stand up to the scrutiny of the courts. So what standard do the courts use to judge whether a law discriminates or not? They use the levels of Scrutiny.

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Three-Tiered Approach to Equal Protection Analysis
1. STRICT SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest.):
A. Suspect Classifications:
1. Race
2. National Origin
3. Religion (either under EP or Establishment Clause analysis)
4. Alienage (unless the classification falls within a recognized "political community" exception, in which case only rational basis scrutiny will be applied).
B. Classifications Burdening Fundamental Rights
1. Denial or Dilution of the Vote
2. Interstate Migration
3. Access to the Courts
4. Other Rights Recognized as Fundamental
2. MIDDLE-TIER SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.):
Quasi-Suspect Classifications:
1. Gender
2. Illegitimacy
3. MINIMUM (OR RATIONAL BASIS) SCRUTINY (The govenment need only show that the challenged classification is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.)

Click to expand...

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

Well, where do you suppose marriage laws restricting marriage to two people of the opposite sex falls on the levels of scrutiny? Well will you look at that, it fall unders the Middle Tier. So what does it have to do to meet court scrutiny and therefore respect due process of law?

The government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest

So Blackdog, how do same sex marriage bans which restrict the definition of marriage to a man and woman serve an "important state interest"?

Thank you. This lesson on Constitutional Law 101 was brought to you by CriticalThought.

Zyphlin said:

Obama care has zero to do with the equal protection clause nor discrimination under the law and its constitutionality nor with the levels of scrutiny under the 14th amendment.

Click to expand...

Interesting? Please point out where I said any of this? I said it was an example of laws getting complicated, nothing more.

Zyphlin said:

I don't give a **** what gay marriage proponents are saying. I care what I'm saying. Of which your arguments make absolutely zero sense. And, your horrible attempt to mimic them does not equal their actual arguments. From my understanding there's far more evidence to suggest sexual orientation as something that's hardwired more so than polygamy, giving it a far more logical chance of being eventually added under the EPC then polygamy is. So even your attempt at making them the same doesn't work, and in and of itself is flawed because you THINK it works based off nothing but your own extremely narrow view of the issue based on your beliefs of what is "RIGHT" based on what YOU think your god wants.

Click to expand...

No proof exists to this day being gay is hard wired, no more than any other sexual orientation really. No "gay gene" exists. So now it is OK to discriminate if something is more likely as well? Wow! Thanks for filling me in.

Zyphlin said:

Dealing with your debate style isn't a "personal rant", its addressing the flaws and errors in your method of argument. Of course you don't want to address it, you think that somehow this little charade is proving anything other than your ignorance of what the other side is ACTUALLY arguing by anyone who isn't just that sides mirror counter part to the "GAYS ARE SINFUL! BUTTSEX WILL RUIN AMERICA" crowd and that you've apparently ran out of ways to actually defend your own point honestly and upfront.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... nothing but a personal attack because you know you really have no real argument, and you don't.

CriticalThought said:

Wrong. And I'll tell you why.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."

Notice the key word there. Marriage is a law. As such, that puts it under the 14th amendment. Now let's look at that other part.

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Due process of law? What does that mean? Well it means that it has to stand up to the scrutiny of the courts. So what standard do the courts use to judge whether a law discriminates or not? The use the levels of Scrutiny.

Click to expand...

OK and this backs up my argument, thanks.

CriticalThought said:

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

Well, where do you suppose marriage laws restricting marriage to two people of the opposite sex falls on the levels of scrutiny? Well will you look at that, it fall unders the Middle Tier. So what does it have to do to meet court scrutiny and therefore respect due process of law?

The government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest

So Blackdog, how do same sex marriage bans which restrict the definition of marriage to a man and woman serve an "important state interest"?

Click to expand...

What does this have to do with my statement? :lol:

PS Gender has nothing to do with polygamy and it would also fall under a much higher tier "religion."

Blackdog said:

No proof exists to this day being gay is hard wired, no more than any other sexual orientation really. No "gay gene" exists. So now it is OK to discriminate if something is more likely as well? Wow! Thanks for filling me in.

Click to expand...

So what? Marriage laws don't discriminate based on sexuality. They discriminate based on sex. There is no law out there that says, "Two gays cannot marry each others." The law states that only a man can marry a woman.

roguenuke said:

There is no "separate but equal" to it at all, since it wouldn't be equal, and it shouldn't be completely equal. There are a lot of problems that arise from making such a thing legal.

Click to expand...

The "it's to complicated" argument has been refuted using historical precedent, sorry will not float.

roguenuke said:

Problems that do not in any way arise with same sex marriage.

Click to expand...

So what?

roguenuke said:

BTW, are you going to ever address any of my actual points, instead of making these petty comments trying to imply that I don't truly want equality for everyone? Doing so would certainly make your argument look better.

Click to expand...

Why? You don't want equality for everyone. You said it is OK to discriminate in certain circumstance. How is that equality for everyone???

CriticalThought said:

So what? Marriage laws don't discriminate based on sexuality. They discriminate based on sex. There is no law out there that says, "Two gays cannot marry each others." The law states that only a man can marry a woman.

Click to expand...

But it is OK to discriminate as long as you agree with it. Everyone is in agreement with that so far.

PS that also would depend in the state you are in.

Blackdog said:

What does this have to do with my statement? :lol:

PS Gender has nothing to do with polygamy and it would also fall under a much higher tier "religion."

Click to expand...

First off, had you not intentionally ignored my post on how polygamy is detrimental to society, you would not have made the ignorant statement you made above.

Second, I was making an argument as to why same sex marriage was Constitutional, not polygamy. Had you read my post you would realized such, but it seems you have become an antagonist rather than a legitimate debater.

Blackdog said:

Interesting? Please point out where I said any of this? I said it was an example of laws getting complicated, nothing more.

Click to expand...

Point me where I said laws weren't allowed to be complicated. I just simply stated that not needlessly entering into a complicated and resource draining action was a legitimate state interest. That is different then saying the government can never enter into complicated and resource draining actions.

See, if you're arguing for a law to be passed legalizing polygamy...well, go ahead. I'm all for you doing that, I'm all for people trying to pass a law to make gay marriage legalized. My arguments got jack **** to do with a law, its got to do with constitutionality. To get the law changed based on discrimination its gotta not reach the level of scrutiny needed. The fact that LAWS are passed that are complicated and resource draining is irrelevant to that because the very nature of them passing deems them necessary. If you're needing the courts to overturn it then the necessity is not nearly as high. Now, if this was talking about race...it wouldn't matter, because it'd still not meet the level of scrutiny needed. But since polygamist is bottom tier at best, there just needs to be a rational reason put forth of a legitimate state interest...and not completely rewriting huge amounts of law IS a legitimate interest of the state.

To put it another way. Is it in the states interest...not asking if its fair, if its right, if its okay, if you agree, if its mean, if its hateful, if its bigoted, or anything else...is it in the states interest to not have to rewrite heaps of legal and tax law?

If your answer is "no", its not in the states interest...I'd love an explanation specificlaly of how.

No proof exists to this day being gay is hard wired, no more than any other sexual orientation really. No "gay gene" exists. So now it is OK to discriminate if something is more likely as well? Wow! Thanks for filling me in.

Click to expand...

Far more proof is available suggesting that's likely the case then there is for polygamy being as such, which is why I said that there's a far more likely chance of one of them becoming higher tier in the future then the other.

My argument has not, will not, and does not have anything to do with sexual orientation in regards to it. While I recognize a higher likelihood that it will be added to a higher level of scrutiny under the EPC at some time sooner than polygamy would be...its not NOW. So my arguments NOW, under constitutional law as it stands NOW, has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation and everything to do with Sex.

Hmmm... nothing but a personal attack because you know you really have no real argument, and you don't.

Click to expand...

No, I have an argument. You are confusing my posts apparently with your own, which is no real argument, but rather a worthless parody of other peoples arguments.

Blackdog said:

But it is OK to discriminate as long as you agree with it. Everyone is in agreement with that so far.

PS that also would depend in the state you are in.

Click to expand...

Once again, I pointed out exactly why polygamy is objectively detrimental to society and same sex marriage is not. You simply intentionally ignored the post because it challenged your rant.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/88869-same-sex-marriage-really-91.html#post1059226140

Blackdog said:

OK and this backs up my argument, thanks.




What does this have to do with my statement? :lol:

PS Gender has nothing to do with polygamy and it would also fall under a much higher tier "religion."

Click to expand...

The law can't discriminate against religion...IE you can't allow a Catholic to get married but a Mormon can't.

It is not about religious beliefs being given government benefit. Marriage, under the government, is 100% non-religious. It is a secular contract under a secular government. If three radical Mormon's attempted to get married under their church and never once attempted to make any legal notation of it, there's no problem there. If the government someone did something to them for their private religious beliefs, then there'd be a constitutional issue. However, there's no discrimination in not letting them be recognized legally as such, because the governments marriage is not adhering to any particular religion.