• 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]

The very fact that childless marriages were "not something to be proud of", is something that we or whoever felt that way should not be proud of. That belief that childless couples deserve to feel shame or embarrassment for not having children is horrible and shameful itself.

True, but it goes to show the roots and purpose of marriage. It really was all about procreation. You don't have to like the truth for it to be the truth.
 
True, but it goes to show the roots and purpose of marriage. It really was all about procreation. You don't have to like the truth for it to be the truth.

Procreation is why interracial marriage was banned?
 
You are wrong. While the homosexual agenda is being pushed forward by insisting that tradition is meaningless, the origins and purposes of things are important when considering what is right and what is not going forward with them. Why marriage was created and the purpose of marriage in the first place should be a consideration in determining what marriage should or shouldn't be going forward and this new trend is a complete breakdown of the entire purpose of marriage. I have no doubt that in another generation, marriage will be seen as something completely different than we saw it 20 years ago, but it's going to take time to legislate the changes and legislation is the right way to go about such an important change to the fabric of our society as cutting marriage off from it's purpose and intent, divorcing it, so to speak, from it's actual reason for being.

No, they aren't. What is important is that people who want to be together and who want protection from the government as a married couple, legally recognized as spouses get that option. It is wrong to limit marriage to procreating couples because there is no reason to do this. Legal marriage is for the adults in the marriage, not mainly for the children. Children, any children whether bio children or not, benefit from the legal marriage recognition of their parents/those raising them, but that doesn't mean that marriage is required to raise children well, nor that children are required for a marriage.
 
True, but it goes to show the roots and purpose of marriage. It really was all about procreation. You don't have to like the truth for it to be the truth.

If it was shameful, then it needed to be changed, as it has, and shows that those roots, no matter either our beliefs on them truly, were not noble and need not be considered valid in this argument.
 
Your gayness is showing. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

Marriage is a sanctioned partnership for heterosexuals. "Breeders" as homosexuals like to call them. (also known to homosexuals as "straights", like you seem to prefer calling them).

Homosexuality is the "alternative lifestyle". An alternative to marriage seems entirely appropriate.
The entirety of this post is an ad hom with no substance and a lot of unsupported assertions and falsehoods. I don't see the point in taking it seriously, to be honest.

Sorry my little gay friend, but the rest of the supreme court did not make a statement showing their stupidity or dishonesty and claim that marriage was NOT designed to support procreation. Only homosexuals are making that argument.
Au contraire, the court opinion states that

"By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States".

and describes marriage as being wanted so that people could "affirm their commitment to one another". It summarises gay marriage, when permitted by NYC, as:

"For same-sex couples who wished to be married, the State acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful status. This status is a far-reaching legal acknowledgment of the intimate relationship between two people, a relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the community equal with all other marriages. It reflects both the community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality"​

In fact, Alito agrees with me. He references both views of marriage - the 'traditional' view which you are insisting is the only one, and the 'consent-based' view, which is gender-unbiased. He then goes on to say that "Windsor and the United States implicitly ask us to endorse the consent-based view of marriage and to reject the traditional view" - in other words, he thinks that the Majority opinion is an implicit endorsement of a view of marriage which you refuse to admit exists, except for as a homosexual ploy.
 
The right wing insanity.

PC LIBBs want to control our thoughts and language. We cant use the N word.

Marriage is our word we want a law that you can't use it.
 
If you dont want to get gay married why not just not get gay married?

What harm is someone else's gay marriage do to you?

None to me, personally, but it's the state's call because it's the state's institution. They define it. They regulate it. They deal with the fallout from the divorces that clog their courts. They deal with the tax issues. They know what they created it to accomplish. It's not my decision or your decision, it's "the peoples" decision. The people are the state. My personal opinion is that it does not further the design or intent of marriage to call two homosexual partners "married" and treat them as though they were. And while you may find the argument "why not" to be compelling, I think the onus is on homosexuals to prove that there is a win for the state in doing this. So far, all I've seen is an adversarial stance and militant rhetoric.... I was actually in favor of giving any couple the same rights if they wanted to sign up for it before getting engaged by some militant homosexual mouthpieces that made it clear to me that it wasn't about rights at all, but about the same attention-seeking behavior that drives gay pride parades and flamboyant drag queens. Leaders of the "homosexual community" actually declined civil unions because it would interfere with their chances to win on gay "marriage". The "rights" could have been secured quite some time ago, but that wasn't really the purpose. I think it's a shame that homosexuals have so little respect for our civilization and culture that they would use marriage as political football just to make another attention-seeking statement. But that's what's happening. It's never been about rights. That's just the argument they decided would work best.
 
None to me, personally, but it's the state's call because it's the state's institution. They define it. They regulate it. They deal with the fallout from the divorces that clog their courts. They deal with the tax issues. They know what they created it to accomplish. It's not my decision or your decision, it's "the peoples" decision. The people are the state. My personal opinion is that it does not further the design or intent of marriage to call two homosexual partners "married" and treat them as though they were. And while you may find the argument "why not" to be compelling, I think the onus is on homosexuals to prove that there is a win for the state in doing this. So far, all I've seen is an adversarial stance and militant rhetoric.... I was actually in favor of giving any couple the same rights if they wanted to sign up for it before getting engaged by some militant homosexual mouthpieces that made it clear to me that it wasn't about rights at all, but about the same attention-seeking behavior that drives gay pride parades and flamboyant drag queens. Leaders of the "homosexual community" actually declined civil unions because it would interfere with their chances to win on gay "marriage". The "rights" could have been secured quite some time ago, but that wasn't really the purpose. I think it's a shame that homosexuals have so little respect for our civilization and culture that they would use marriage as political football just to make another attention-seeking statement. But that's what's happening. It's never been about rights. That's just the argument they decided would work best.

We the people are the state.

I think it's a shame that some are so right wing PC about a word they would deny liberty to other humans so others cant use the word in a country with freedom if speech.
 
The entirety of this post is an ad hom with no substance and a lot of unsupported assertions and falsehoods. I don't see the point in taking it seriously, to be honest.

Au contraire, the court opinion states that

"By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States".

and describes marriage as being wanted so that people could "affirm their commitment to one another". It summarises gay marriage, when permitted by NYC, as:

"For same-sex couples who wished to be married, the State acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful status. This status is a far-reaching legal acknowledgment of the intimate relationship between two people, a relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the community equal with all other marriages. It reflects both the community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality"​

In fact, Alito agrees with me. He references both views of marriage - the 'traditional' view which you are insisting is the only one, and the 'consent-based' view, which is gender-unbiased. He then goes on to say that "Windsor and the United States implicitly ask us to endorse the consent-based view of marriage and to reject the traditional view" - in other words, he thinks that the Majority opinion is an implicit endorsement of a view of marriage which you refuse to admit exists, except for as a homosexual ploy.

The new view of marriage isn't a homosexual ploy. It is merely marriage morphing from it's roots to something else and this change is something that homosexuals are exploiting. I actually agree with the way it's happening, too. Through legislation state by state. When society is ready to agree that marriage has changed into the consent-based view from it's origins, then it will be ready to accept that gay marriage makes some sense. It's not going to happen overnight though because it's too big of a change to happen that quickly.

I know the homosexual community is crowing and throwing parties.... but I also know that despite all the claims of overwhelming victory, this wasn't the victory they wanted. I know that what homosexuals really wanted was for the Supreme Court to force the hand of all 50 states. It's not going to happen. Not anytime soon, anyway. Maybe in another 20-40 years.
 
The new view of marriage isn't a homosexual ploy. It is merely marriage morphing from it's roots to something else and this change is something that homosexuals are exploiting. I actually agree with the way it's happening, too. Through legislation state by state. When society is ready to agree that marriage has changed into the consent-based view from it's origins, then it will be ready to accept that gay marriage makes some sense. It's not going to happen overnight though because it's too big of a change to happen that quickly.

I know the homosexual community is crowing and throwing parties.... but I also know that despite all the claims of overwhelming victory, this wasn't the victory they wanted. I know that what homosexuals really wanted was for the Supreme Court to force the hand of all 50 states. It's not going to happen. Not anytime soon, anyway. Maybe in another 20-40 years.

10 years it will be legal in all 50.
 
We the people are the state.

I think it's a shame that some are so right wing PC about a word they would deny liberty to other humans so others cant use the word in a country with freedom if speech.

I think it's a shame that we care so little about the traditions of society that we would redefine marriage on the whim of the minority rather than extend equal rights in an appropriate alternative to marriage.
 
If it was shameful, then it needed to be changed, as it has, and shows that those roots, no matter either our beliefs on them truly, were not noble and need not be considered valid in this argument.

Nonsense. You can't judge yesterday's societal more's by today's hypersensitivities. Well, you can, if you want, but it's not intellectually honest to do so.
 
It was a very big step.

It's exactly what I predicted would happen and most people predicted would happen. I understand why homosexuals claim it's a big step. In reality, it was a big disappointment, but not a total loss for the "homosexual community". Politically, they have to put on their game face and call it a huge win, though. It's how the game gets played.
 
You can call it a silly argument, but it's a fact that marriage was designed to create a suitable environment for procreation and support of that family Like I said before, the fact that procreation is not a condition of marriage does not refute the fact that it was the purpose of marriage. Nor does the fact that people have children out of wedlock refute that fact. Again, as I said before, there was a time not so long ago that having a child out of wedlock was a horrible disgrace and having a marriage with no children... a great pain and personal embarrassment. Childless marriages were not something to be proud of.

Homosexuals might not be willing to admit these facts since they run counter to their agenda, but denying the facts doesn't make the facts go away or render them false. All it does is demonstrate an utter contempt for honesty by advocates of homosexuality.

Irrelevant. That argument wouldn't make it 5 minutes in front of the Supreme Court which is exactly why the opponents of marriage equality chose wisely not to attempt to make them. They would have been laughed out of the courtroom.
 
It's exactly what I predicted would happen and most people predicted would happen. I understand why homosexuals claim it's a big step. In reality, it was a big disappointment, but not a total loss for the "homosexual community". Politically, they have to put on their game face and call it a huge win, though. It's how the game gets played.

It was a big step.

The cause will advace more in the next 10 years than it has in the last 10 years.

We have come a very long way.

It was only 16 years ago Ellen came out on tv. Wow things have changed.
 
It's exactly what I predicted would happen and most people predicted would happen. I understand why homosexuals claim it's a big step. In reality, it was a big disappointment, but not a total loss for the "homosexual community". Politically, they have to put on their game face and call it a huge win, though. It's how the game gets played.

LOL....are you seriously buying your own spin? "Not a total loss"? The only people who don't see yesterday's decision as a HUGE win for marriage equality and gay rights in general are the bigots who are desperately clinging to the last vestiges of government sponsored discrimination. 90% of the nation see gay marriage as an inevitability. The 10% who don't have their blinders on and are praying in vain for a miracle. Why do you think Scalia was so vitriolic in his dissent? Even Scalia said that the writing is on the wall.
 
Irrelevant. That argument wouldn't make it 5 minutes in front of the Supreme Court which is exactly why the opponents of marriage equality chose wisely not to attempt to make them. They would have been laughed out of the courtroom.

That argument wasn't pertinent to the case at hand. It very likely WILL be pertinent when the next suit in the future comes up requiring the state (any of the 50 states that do not allow gay marriage) to argue the case that the state sees no benefit or purpose to gay marriage. The purpose of marriage will very much be in play at that time. It is a state sanctioned and state defined institution and I have no doubt the state will be forced to defend it's definition. That's when we'll be hearing all about the purpose of marriage and why the state gets to choose which relationships it deems appropriate to sanction.
 
It was a big step.

The cause will advace more in the next 10 years than it has in the last 10 years.

We have come a very long way.

It was only 16 years ago Ellen came out on tv. Wow things have changed.

It won't take 10 years. I suspect big changes will occur in the next 1-3 years. The opponents of marriage equality are losing the war in every arena, including public opinion. The next year will see more and more legislatures make the changes, more and more ballot initiatives/popular vote granting marriage equality and most likely in the next couple of years, a Supreme Court decision making marriage equality the law of the land for the entire nation, even the backwoods southern states.
 
That argument wasn't pertinent to the case at hand. It very likely WILL be pertinent when the next suit in the future comes up requiring the state (any of the 50 states that do not allow gay marriage) to argue the case that the state sees no benefit or purpose to gay marriage. The purpose of marriage will very much be in play at that time. It is a state sanctioned and state defined institution and I have no doubt the state will be forced to defend it's definition. That's when we'll be hearing all about the purpose of marriage and why the state gets to choose which relationships it deems appropriate to sanction.

LOl...are you serious? If you are...you are fooling yourself. The opponents of marriage equality considered making the argument but wisely decided against it. They were even public in announcing that the claim wouldn't hold water. You either don't get out much or are desperately trying to grasp for straws. Don't know which.
 
LOL....are you seriously buying your own spin? "Not a total loss"? The only people who don't see yesterday's decision as a HUGE win for marriage equality and gay rights in general are the bigots who are desperately clinging to the last vestiges of government sponsored discrimination. 90% of the nation see gay marriage as an inevitability. The 10% who don't have their blinders on and are praying in vain for a miracle. Why do you think Scalia was so vitriolic in his dissent? Even Scalia said that the writing is on the wall.

I know better than to buy YOUR spin that this is a "huge win". It's a win. But it's not what you wanted. I know it and you know it. I was talking and debating and arguing this a long time before the hearing and I know that you and your "community" going into this considered anything short of striking down DOMA in it's entirety, a loss. Your "community" felt that gay marriage was going to be the law of the land eventually and if the supreme court didn't make it happen the first chance it had, that it would be a sad day and a big loss. They had the chance and they made the narrowest rulings possible and I know this was a big disappointment despite the charade of major victory. It was a minor victory but a lot less than you hoped for and a lot less than you expected.
 
I know better than to buy YOUR spin that this is a "huge win". It's a win. But it's not what you wanted. I know it and you know it. I was talking and debating and arguing this a long time before the hearing and I know that you and your "community" going into this considered anything short of striking down DOMA in it's entirety, a loss. Your "community" felt that gay marriage was going to be the law of the land eventually and if the supreme court didn't make it happen the first chance it had, that it would be a sad day and a big loss. They had the chance and they made the narrowest rulings possible and I know this was a big disappointment despite the charade of major victory. It was a minor victory but a lot less than you hoped for and a lot less than you expected.

ROTFL.... Even FauxNews called it a huge win for gay marriage. Who are you trying to kid? No one is buying your desperate attempts here. You are just exposing your desperation.
 
The new view of marriage isn't a homosexual ploy. It is merely marriage morphing from it's roots to something else and this change is something that homosexuals are exploiting. I actually agree with the way it's happening, too. Through legislation state by state. When society is ready to agree that marriage has changed into the consent-based view from it's origins, then it will be ready to accept that gay marriage makes some sense. It's not going to happen overnight though because it's too big of a change to happen that quickly.
Agreed.

I know the homosexual community is crowing and throwing parties.... but I also know that despite all the claims of overwhelming victory, this wasn't the victory they wanted. I know that what homosexuals really wanted was for the Supreme Court to force the hand of all 50 states. It's not going to happen. Not anytime soon, anyway. Maybe in another 20-40 years.
Time will tell. I would certainly see the ruling as a victory for SSM though - not as big as it could have been (especially given the not-total-thrashing dealt to Prop 8), but certainly a step in the right direction.
 
LOl...are you serious? If you are...you are fooling yourself. The opponents of marriage equality considered making the argument but wisely decided against it. They were even public in announcing that the claim wouldn't hold water. You either don't get out much or are desperately trying to grasp for straws. Don't know which.

I'm serious. When the states are required to defend their definition and requirements for marriage, you can bet your ass the intent and design of marriage as a state sanctioned institution will be the bulk of that defense. This case wasn't about that, which is why you didn't hear those arguments. This was all about whether the federal government could refuse to accept the definition of marriage that the states decided upon. The fact that the supreme court ruled that they couldn't isn't the silver bullet you may think it is. It actually strengthens the state's rights to define marriage even if it's not the definition you want it to be.
 
Back
Top Bottom