• 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!

Judges ask pointed questions about same-sex marriage bans in Wis., Ind.

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Wisconsin, Indiana gay marriage bans reviewed - Chicago Tribune

Judge Richard Posner waited just about a minute before interrupting the solicitor general from Indiana, beginning a line of questioning about why children of same-sex couples should not be allowed to have legally married parents, as do children of heterosexual couples.

To press his point, Posner asked the attorney to remember when he was six, and consider what it is like for young children of same sex parents to have to realize they are different than their classmates.


“Wouldn’t the children want their parents to be married,” Posner asked, also noting the thousands of children in foster care in Indiana who need to be adopted. “What do you think is psychologically better for the child?” Attorneys from both states were on the defense during much of the questioning.

....

The Indiana solicitor general defended the ban by linking marriage, as an institution, to procreation and the need for that to be regulated by the state.

Honestly seems like the end of the line for anti-gay marriage.

If having a man and a woman as a parent was so important to child raising, we'd have taken action to prevent people from having children out of wedlock. Also, anyone who's spouse died who has children would either have their children removed or be forced to marry soon after. If procreation is so vital to the state, why do we let anyone do it? Furthermore, why do social conservatives actively promote a sexual education curriculum that actually increases unwed teenage birth rates?

Another article reports this:
Appeals Panel Questions Wisconsin and Indiana's Gay Marriage Bans

"Frankly, we don't know if there is a harm," Samuelson said. Later, he said, the concept of marriage could be devalued by allowing same-sex marriage and lead to heterosexual couples deciding not to get married.

If you need government to tell you how to value your marriage, you are not ready for marriage.
 
If having a man and a woman as a parent was so important to child raising ... anyone who's spouse died who has children would either have their children removed or be forced to marry soon after.

My rebuttal:

2+2=4

Therefore, I'm smarter than everyone else

Therefore, all cows are orange

Therefore, you're wrong.

(aren't non-sequiturs fun)
 
My rebuttal:

2+2=4

Therefore, I'm smarter than everyone else

Therefore, all cows are orange

Therefore, you're wrong.

(aren't non-sequiturs fun)

Apparently the concept of logic is foreign to you.

I already provided the quotes by the solicitor general from Indiana on his rational for the bans on gay marriage.

I am merely using his logic against him. Often, those who never were taught logic or rhetoric, such as yourself do not understand the argumentative tactic of taking your opponent's argument to its logical conclusion. If he actually believed government should in fact regulate procreation to keep it limited between heterosexual married couples, then obvious certain actions would have been done. Thus suggesting the failure to even start hem as well as actively supporting counterproductive measures suggests that such an argument is entirely false and it is merely being used for argument's sake with no actual stock in its belief.
 
Apparently the concept of logic is foreign to you.

I already provided the quotes by the solicitor general from Indiana on his rational for the bans on gay marriage.

I am merely using his logic against him. Often, those who never were taught logic or rhetoric, such as yourself do not understand the argumentative tactic of taking your opponent's argument to its logical conclusion. If he actually believed government should in fact regulate procreation to keep it limited between heterosexual married couples, then obvious certain actions would have been done. Thus suggesting the failure to even start hem as well as actively supporting counterproductive measures suggests that such an argument is entirely false and it is merely being used for argument's sake with no actual stock in its belief.

There is a difference between a situation which is created deliberately, versus a situation which arises due to tragedy.
 
There is a difference between a situation which is created deliberately, versus a situation which arises due to tragedy.

Except that both still fall under the whole mantra of "a child is best raised with a father and a mother." If Samuelson actually believed that he'd be arguing for the "solutions" I stated.

Obviously he is not.

Furthermore, the data on absentience only is conclusive, teenagers with bad to wrong information make bad choices regarding their reproductive health. States who have only absteience only have substantially higher teen birth rates. Yet we see no reform by those like Samuelson. Thus suggesting he doesn't actually believe that procreation should in fact be regulated by the state.

Let's see if you can answer this:

How does letting gay marry devalue marriage?
 
Except that both still fall under the whole mantra of "a child is best raised with a father and a mother." If Samuelson actually believed that he'd be arguing for the "solutions" I stated.

Non-sequitur.

Furthermore, the data on absentience only is conclusive, teenagers with bad to wrong information make bad choices regarding their reproductive health. States who have only absteience only have substantially higher teen birth rates. Yet we see no reform by those like Samuelson. Thus suggesting he doesn't actually believe that procreation should in fact be regulated by the state.

What on Earth are you babbling about?
 
Honestly seems like the end of the line for anti-gay marriage.

It's been the end of the line for some time.

Everything until full nationwide legalization is just legal formality.

Gay Marriage will be legal and that's the end of the story, the bigots can thrash all they want, the debate is over.
 
Non-sequitur.

I say so isn't an argument. Furthermore, you are ignoring the statements given by those trying to defend the ban.

What on Earth are you babbling about?

Let's recap because you seem to be slow today.

The solicitor general from Indiana who was defending the ban argued that procreation should be regulated by the government. Except policies around the country, especially in states with such mentality actually favor the opposite. Thus suggesting they don't actually believe that at all.

You omitted this:

Let's see if you can answer this:

How does letting gays marry devalue marriage?


Omit it again and I will start pointing out your failure.
 
>


Anyone that want's to actually listen to the oral arguments can use the links below. The States rationale wasn't strong.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/rt.1.14-2386_08_26_2014.mp3

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/rt.2.14-2526_08_26_2014.mp3

Thanks. Let's be totally honest. There was never a strong rationale in the first place. Fundamentally, all of the bans come down to people finding it icky. Which is not a reason to ban it. Or tradition. Jew hating is a tradition. Should we hate Jews because it is tradition? No.
 

For someone who is so virulently anti-gay marriage, you sure have a problem even acknowledging a question asking how gay marriage devalues marriage as a whole.

Your failure to answer a question that should be easy for you to answer has me questioning what you actually believe....or if you have enough courage to admit the very unflattering reasons you are against gay marriage.

For the THIRD TIME:

How does letting gays marry devalue marriage?
 
Frankly, we don't know if there is a harm," Samuelson said. Later, he said, the concept of marriage could be devalued by allowing same-sex marriage and lead to heterosexual couples deciding not to get married.

That's it. That's all they've got. A "concept" "could" be "devalued."
 
How does letting gays marry devalue marriage?

It's really not fair of you to ask a question that you know he has no answer for. Because there isn't an answer.
 
It's really not fair of you to ask a question that you know he has no answer for. Because there isn't an answer.

Of course. For seemingly religious people, they sure have a hard time being honest with the real reason they're against it. Maybe my time here has biased me against the overly religious as many of them here are just terrible people.
 
Back
Top Bottom