• 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!

Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

AGENT J said:
1.) correct, civil unions are not equal to marriage
2.) meaningless
3.) this makes no sense

let me know when you have something relevant to the topic
Click to expand...

No, those are not separate points, but all involving the same single point.

I was not addressing civil unions, but the fact that gay unions are not equal to marriage.


The FACT is you and everyone else on the planet came from heterosexual relationships, not gay relationships, and by that fact, society has a vested interest in those heterosexual relationships being committed - marriage, and no such vested interest in gay relationships.

You actually are the fact, and one fighting against the sense of his very existence.
 
Fisher said:
No what you are seeing is that they are going to have to do it state by state legislatively. The SCOTUS just said gays can marry in CA but not in 29 other states.
Click to expand...

No, they won't. They will only have to have one case where the SCOTUS rules that the state has no valid reason for restricting marriage access based on sex. It will only take one. The CA ruling was based on the challengers to the original court's decision having no legal standing because they were not the government representatives. In other states, such as Southern states, it is not likely that the government will refuse to defend their bans, so there will be legal standing and that would make a ruling that came out similar to DOMA applying to all the state bans that were relevant, which would most likely be all of them.
 
Trip said:
1.)No, those are not separate points, but all involving the same single point.

2.)I was not addressing civil unions, but the fact that gay unions are not equal to marriage.

3.)The FACT is you and everyone else on the planet came from heterosexual relationships, not gay relationships, and by that fact, society has a vested interest in those heterosexual relationships being committed - marriage, and no such vested interest in gay relationships.

4.)You actually are the fact, and one fighting against the sense of his very existence.
Click to expand...

1.) yes they factually are because you are trying to argue your opinion as fact and it has failed
2.) again your opinion on this is meaningless
3.) this is meaningless to legal marriage, you trying to change this fact will never work :shrug:
4.) 100% false this is NOT a fact because i could easily exist with out marriage and do
 
roguenuke said:
On the contrary, most know that they cannot prevent interracial couples from uniting but some would still seek to restrict them from legal marriages for the very same reasons that they wish to restrict same sex couples. In fact, many of those who wish to prevent same sex couples from getting married would gladly put back into place sodomy laws and enforce them against gays. So yours is the failed argument.
Click to expand...

What I find this to be about is the radical left trying to redefine anything they wish however they wish to accommodate whatever perversions they wish. Despite memorized talking points to the contrary that cite obscure "homosexual marriages in history", everyone talking about this was born at a time when marriage was absolutely one man plus one woman and had been for all our history. Homophiles can disingenuously pretend that marriage definitions that we have today are only some recent innovation for the sake of discriminating against homosexuals but that's just hyperbole and everyone knows it.

Some buy the argument "well, why not"? I think "well, why not" is a very bad reason for creating laws. Laws governing institutions like marriage should be based on "why" and homosexual "marriages" don't fit any of the "why" bullet points for the creation of marriage in the first place.

It's silly to argue that state sanctioned marriage was originally created to

* give homosexuality an appearance of normality
* give tax breaks to any two people that want to have a long term sexual relationship
* make a statement by a militant activist group of attention whores with narcissistic personality disorders.

But that's what the advocates of homosexual marriage are working toward.
 
Papa bull said:
What I find this to be about is the radical left trying to redefine anything they wish however they wish to accommodate whatever perversions they wish. Despite memorized talking points to the contrary that cite obscure "homosexual marriages in history", everyone talking about this was born at a time when marriage was absolutely one man plus one woman and had been for all our history. Homophiles can disingenuously pretend that marriage definitions that we have today are only some recent innovation for the sake of discriminating against homosexuals but that's just hyperbole and everyone knows it.

Some buy the argument "well, why not"? I think "well, why not" is a very bad reason for creating laws. Laws governing institutions like marriage should be based on "why" and homosexual "marriages" don't fit any of the "why" bullet points for the creation of marriage in the first place.

It's silly to argue that state sanctioned marriage was originally created to

* give homosexuality an appearance of normality
* give tax breaks to any two people that want to have a long term sexual relationship
* make a statement by a militant activist group of attention whores with narcissistic personality disorders.

But that's what the advocates of homosexual marriage are working toward.
Click to expand...

The same arguments given for legalization of interracial marriage. It isn't. It is about fairness in laws. Marriage is in no way gender dependent legally. Allowing same sex couples to marry will not harm anyone. Your arguments go much further in exposing your own selfishness in wanting to maintain your personal definition of marriage as the only one.
 
roguenuke said:
They didn't rule on any of those particular laws at all. They were not addressed.
Click to expand...

They left the portions of the federal law allowing states to ban SSM in place, so yes they effectively did. If you want to be a obtuse technocrat, they did not rule that gays could marry in California either.

Keep dreaming though. Progressive understanding of rights are even more laughable than the extreme gun nuts who think they have a right to a missile defense systems.
 
roguenuke said:
No, they won't. They will only have to have one case where the SCOTUS rules that the state has no valid reason for restricting marriage access based on sex. It will only take one. The CA ruling was based on the challengers to the original court's decision having no legal standing because they were not the government representatives. In other states, such as Southern states, it is not likely that the government will refuse to defend their bans, so there will be legal standing and that would make a ruling that came out similar to DOMA applying to all the state bans that were relevant, which would most likely be all of them.
Click to expand...

And it will only take one case to ban same sex marriage or abortion or affirmative action or Voter Rights too.......and the trend is not going the left's way of late now is it? BTW, the standing issue is why you will see a billion challenges to Obamacare in the next two years. Better hope Ginsburg hangs on awhile. Until then, The SCOTUS just ruled in effect that marriage is a state issue, not a federal one.
 
Fisher said:
They left the portions of the federal law allowing states to ban SSM in place, so yes they effectively did. If you want to be a obtuse technocrat, they did not rule that gays could marry in California either.

Keep dreaming though. Progressive understanding of rights are even more laughable than the extreme gun nuts who think they have a right to a missile defense systems.
Click to expand...

They left it in place because it was not involved in the challenge. They had no place to address that particular part.

That does not change the fact that when another case reaches the SCOTUS pertaining to the constitutionality of one of the state bans, it could very well take down all the state bans in one fell swoop.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) yes they factually are because you are trying to argue your opinion as fact and it has failed
2.) again your opinion on this is meaningless
3.) this is meaningless to legal marriage, you trying to change this fact will never work :shrug:
4.) 100% false this is NOT a fact because i could easily exist with out marriage and do
Click to expand...

I didn't' offer my opinion at all, and didn't "argue" anything.

I simply stated that I could say with 100% certainty that you are the byproduct of a heterosexual relationship, and not a gay relationship.

I'm correct, aren't I?

There's a reason I'm correct, and that reason removes my recognition from being only "my opinion" to being the actual fact of why marriage has invariably, without exception, been recognizes as a man and woman, throughout mankind's history.

And your last point is itself 100% false, as I was referencing "heterosexual relationship" and not marriage.

However you hit on a crucial point: the fact that you "could easily exist without marriage" is precisely why marriage is recognized and promoted by societies throughout mankind's history.
 
Fisher said:
And it will only take one case to ban same sex marriage or abortion or affirmative action or Voter Rights too.......and the trend is not going the left's way of late now is it? BTW, the standing issue is why you will see a billion challenges to Obamacare in the next two years. Better hope Ginsburg hangs on awhile. Until then, The SCOTUS just ruled in effect that marriage is a state issue, not a federal one.
Click to expand...

Wrong. There is no legal standing to challenge the Constitutionality of legal same sex marriage. Without legal standing, those laws cannot be ruled unconstitutional.

I'm against Obamacare, just so you know. I want to see a NHS, not mandatory health insurance.
 
roguenuke said:
The same arguments given for legalization of interracial marriage. It isn't. It is about fairness in laws. Marriage is in no way gender dependent legally. Allowing same sex couples to marry will not harm anyone. Your arguments go much further in exposing your own selfishness in wanting to maintain your personal definition of marriage as the only one.
Click to expand...

Like it or not, it's not my definition. It's the traditional definition of marriage by all mankind that I think should remain in place. It spans all cultures and all of history and I agree with the dissenting justice that said we are not qualified nor able to know where this is going to go or what the outcome of this kind of social experiment may be.

Despite all the crap being flung about this, I know that homosexual marriage is about 2 things and 2 things only:

1. tax breaks for a very small number of homosexuals
2. creating the appearance of normality for homosexuality by equating it to homosexuality.

I know quite a few homosexuals (not all of whom support SSM, by the way) and I don't know any of them that long to be married. Marriage, in fact, was one of the things eschewed by the "alternative lifestyle" advocates. Gee, now homosexuals have the right to drag each other through divorce court whenever they break up. Homosexuals get it. That's why most will never marry. It wasn't rights that were their real issue at all. It was more about busting the "breeder club".
 
Papa bull said:
And they should have. The definition and very nature of marriage didn't have to be changed in order to accomodate Loving. All that needed done was remove an illegal restriction against race. For this to equate to homosexuals and marriage, marriage would already have to be defined as "any two people of any sex" with an added exclusion "unless the couple is homosexual".
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to my statement. The fact that gay people can marry the opposite sex doesn't inherently make same-sex marriage bans constitutional.

This is a false statement. While a wife was often considered "property" in cultures in the past, a man could not marry anything other than a woman. Seriously... you show me a marriage between a man and his favorite chair somewhere in history and I'll change my mind.
Click to expand...

It's still a change in marriage. Appeal to tradition is a fallacy.

An argument about law and society is not inherently weak merely because someone can't define a personal effect of that law. What effect does it have on you if two guys take their dog to a pit and fight them to the death for the amusement of a crowd of bettors?
Click to expand...
I can demonstrate that dog fights cause harm.

You cannot demonstrate that same-sex marriage causes harm to you or to anyone else. You can't define a personal effect, but you also can't define any negative effect at all. Go ahead and try. I bet you use vague phrases like "moral fabric."
 
Deuce, appeal to tradition isn't an argument and, therefore, not a logical fallacy. Society does, in fact, have the right to legislate traditional values and there's no fallacy involved.

Dogfights don't harm YOU. And that was your position. That you must show how it harms YOU.
 
Papa bull said:
Like it or not, it's not my definition. It's the traditional definition of marriage by all mankind that I think should remain in place. It spans all cultures and all of history and I agree with the dissenting justice that said we are not qualified nor able to know where this is going to go or what the outcome of this kind of social experiment may be.

Despite all the crap being flung about this, I know that homosexual marriage is about 2 things and 2 things only:

1. tax breaks for a very small number of homosexuals
2. creating the appearance of normality for homosexuality by equating it to homosexuality.

I know quite a few homosexuals (not all of whom support SSM, by the way) and I don't know any of them that long to be married. Marriage, in fact, was one of the things eschewed by the "alternative lifestyle" advocates. Gee, now homosexuals have the right to drag each other through divorce court whenever they break up. Homosexuals get it. That's why most will never marry. It wasn't rights that were their real issue at all. It was more about busting the "breeder club".
Click to expand...

Appeal to tradition is a fallacy. It does not matter how marriage may have been traditionally. All that matters is how it operates currently within our laws.

Well I know same sex couples who want the option to be married, whether it ever happens for them or not. There is no single group where every person in that group wants the exact same things in life. It is called being different.
 
Trip said:
1.)I didn't' offer my opinion at all, and didn't "argue" anything.
2.)I simply stated that I could say with 100% certainty that you are the byproduct of a heterosexual relationship, and not a gay relationship.
3.) I'm correct, aren't I?
4.)There's a reason I'm correct, and that reason removes my recognition from being only "my opinion" to being the actual fact of why marriage has invariably, without exception, been recognizes as a man and woman, throughout mankind's history.
5.)And your last point is itself 100% false, as I was referencing "heterosexual relationship" and not marriage.

However you hit on a crucial point: the fact that you "could easily exist without marriage" is precisely why marriage is recognized and promoted by societies throughout mankind's history.
Click to expand...

1.) this is a lie, would you like me to qoute you? you suggested that legal marriage cares about procreation/off spring, it does not
2.) but the fact remains you cant, you are guessing
3.) in this case yes you are
4.) marriage is meaningless to your guess, marriage had nothing to do with me being born and history disagrees with you, so you are wrong twice
5.) again its not false its 100% true because its meaningless to my creation, 100% meaningless lol this fact will never change

again do you have anything thats on topic to legal marriage and matters to the topic? anything?
 
roguenuke said:
Appeal to tradition is a fallacy. It does not matter how marriage may have been traditionally. All that matters is how it operates currently within our laws.
Click to expand...

Tradition in this regard is not a logical argument. It is a fact of life. Society does, in fact, legislate based on tradition. In fact, the supreme court relies heavily on tradition and what has been decided in the past is the de facto standard going forward. For society, this means that the de facto standard of marriage is one man plus one woman.
 
roguenuke said:
Well I know same sex couples who want the option to be married, whether it ever happens for them or not. There is no single group where every person in that group wants the exact same things in life. It is called being different.
Click to expand...

I'm certain that there are exceptions to the rule. That's to be expected.
 
roguenuke said:
Appeal to tradition is a fallacy. It does not matter how marriage may have been traditionally. All that matters is how it operates currently within our laws.

Well I know same sex couples who want the option to be married, whether it ever happens for them or not. There is no single group where every person in that group wants the exact same things in life. It is called being different.
Click to expand...

Biological fact isn't tradition.

It's biological fact.

Stating that women binding their feet in China is a good thing, because they always have done so, is an example of fallacy by appeal to tradition.

This does not involve any sort of appeal to tradition.
 
roguenuke said:
Appeal to tradition is a fallacy. It does not matter how marriage may have been traditionally. All that matters is how it operates currently within our laws.

Well I know same sex couples who want the option to be married, whether it ever happens for them or not. There is no single group where every person in that group wants the exact same things in life. It is called being different.
Click to expand...

this is another failed argument people always make and it never works, nobody honest buys it, its laughable

tradition is a fallacy period. what its tradition in my marriage maybe not be in yours and vice versa its complete BS that never works
 
Trip said:
Biological fact isn't tradition.

It's biological fact.

Stating that women binding their feet in China is a good thing, because they always have done so, is an example of fallacy by appeal to tradition.

This does not involve any sort of appeal to tradition.
Click to expand...

100% false because your opinion of biology has no barring on marriage
 
Papa bull said:
Tradition in this regard is not a logical argument. It is a fact of life. Society does, in fact, legislate based on tradition. In fact, the supreme court relies heavily on tradition and what has been decided in the past is the de facto standard going forward. For society, this means that the de facto standard of marriage is one man plus one woman.
Click to expand...

No it is not a fact of life. Same sex couples can be and are married. There is no requirement to procreate as a condition of marriage.

It will only be a matter of time before all states in the US legalize same sex marriage, one way or another. It is going to happen.
 
Trip said:
Biological fact isn't tradition.

It's biological fact.

Stating that women binding their feet in China is a good thing, because they always have done so, is an example of fallacy by appeal to tradition.

This does not involve any sort of appeal to tradition.
Click to expand...

And since marriage is not about procreation, then that biological fact has no relevance to the issue of marriage.
 
Papa bull said:
I'm certain that there are exceptions to the rule. That's to be expected.
Click to expand...

The exceptions are those who never want the option of being able to get married. They exist in the heterosexual community as well.
 
roguenuke said:
No it is not a fact of life. Same sex couples can be and are married. There is no requirement to procreate as a condition of marriage.

It will only be a matter of time before all states in the US legalize same sex marriage, one way or another. It is going to happen.
Click to expand...

It's got to be a bitter pill for the haters to swallow, SCOTUS shoots down DOMA and let's stand the ruling declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional.


Great day for the rest of us thought. :)
 
Jetboogieman said:
Ah yes!

Nothing like waking up to the disgruntled nonsense of the American extremist far right.

It's going to be a great morning.

Freedom and justice has prevailed... On to prop 8!!!!
Click to expand...

You don't consider it extreme to overturn the will of the voters?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom