• 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 discussion is gay marriage, not incest or bestiality. Focus.

So the victim is...?

The state is not compelled to endorse someting merely because I am not victimized by it. Necrophelia, incest, polygamy and homosexuality are all examples of things that do not personally affect me. And they are all things that this state does not endorse through marriage. The fact that "the victim" is not clear to either you or me is not a mandate for state endorsement. If you still don't get it, I can't help you.

I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
 
I can't tell you how your marrying a goat would affect me, either but I don't think that's sufficient reason for the state to sanction goat marriage, either. I think it is incumbent upon the homosexuals to explain how their ability to marry furthers the goals if the state that marriage was created to further.

A goat cannot enter into any legal contract and marriage is a legal contract. Both parties must be able to sign into a contract legally.
 
Do you know what straw argument is? Do you know what a false premise is? You must since you do it so much. It was not "it should be legal since it does not affect you, i simply asked how does it affect you, you changed the question.


You avoided the question with a non sequitur.

Now there is the answer, everything else is a distraction.


I see the pattern that you are continuing to use a false premise and straw argument.

I can understand why you are upset and have to rely on straw/false premises, it is the only way to win, by changing the question.

I just cut to the chase on you, buddy. Your argument was, essentially, that if I can't produce a victim, then there should be no bar to making the state endorse it. That argument is bankrupt. If there was any other point to the question, go ahead and spit it out.

Homosexual marriage would not affect me, personally.
Someone marrying a goat would not affect me, personally.
Polygamous marriages would not affect me, personally.
You marrying your own mother would not affect me, personally.

Now go ahead and tell me what the point of the question was?
 
A goat cannot enter into any legal contract and marriage is a legal contract. Both parties must be able to sign into a contract legally.

Irrelevant. The argument was about "how it affects me". Your marrying a goat wouldn't affect me. So the point is?
 
The state is not compelled to endorse someting merely because I am not victimized by it. Necrophelia, incest, polygamy and homosexuality are all examples of things that do not personally affect me. And they are all things that this state does not endorse through marriage. The fact that "the victim" is not clear to either you or me is not a mandate for state endorsement. If you still don't get it, I can't help you.

I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

No, but those things do affect other people negatively or involve things that cannot legally enter into contracts. There doesn't have to be a victim, only a state interest being furthered and it must be legitimate. No legitimate legal state interest is being furthered by restricting marriage based on sex/gender. There are legitimate state interests being furthered by most other current restrictions on marriage. But if you or someone else doesn't think so, they are free to challenge those laws legally to determine the actual state interest the state is claiming to further in the restriction and whether the courts agree with them.
 
The fact that "the victim" is not clear to either you or me
So SSM does not affect you and you cannot identify a victim of it....and biological argument has failed....what rationale is left for continued banning?

Is bigotry a legitimate rationale?
 
I asked him for human victims, not abstract ones such as "freedom" or "religion" (and now "tradition").

And I ask you, what human victims would there be if mothers and daughters were allowed to marry?
 
So SSM does not affect you and you cannot identify a victim of it....and biological argument has failed....what rationale is left for continued banning?

Is bigotry a legitimate rationale?

Mother/Daughter marriage would not affect me and I cannot identify a victim of that, either. I don't see any reason why the state should be compelled to license such a marriage, though. Bigotry?
 
Irrelevant. The argument was about "how it affects me". Your marrying a goat wouldn't affect me. So the point is?

How legal marriage works is not about whether it affects you personally. It is how it legitimately may affect anyone negatively in itself or how it functions (or not) under our laws. Our laws concerning marriage function around adults agreeing to certain conditions of the marriage contract and how those conditions protect the couple from others and each other. If some party in the contract cannot fulfill the legal obligations of that contract, then it is within a state interest to deny access to that contract.

Despite your arguments to the contrary, there is no legal obligation in the marriage contract to procreate or even raise children. There is a legal obligation in the contract to be able to agree to enter into the contract, and understanding what exactly that contract means. A goat cannot give us any legal indication that they understand a contract of any kind.
 
Maybe it's time to change the question.

What restrictions should there be on marriage. And why? Clearly many of you think homosexual marriages should be licensed by the state and some of you claim the rationale is because there is no victim.

So what limitations should be put upon "marriage"? Why should incest, polyandry, polygyny, or just two brothers sharing a house and wanting to avoid taxes... why should anything be barred?

Go ahead and give it your best shot.
 
How legal marriage works is not about whether it affects you personally.

Finally someone got it. Thank you. :)

It is up to the state to define marriage and enforce the laws of marriage and divorce for the people of the state. Any arguments about who would be harmed must be fielded by the state and the state, itself, may claim to be the harmed party if it finds a sort of relationship unsuitable for sanction.
 
I just cut to the chase on you, buddy. Your argument was, essentially, that if I can't produce a victim, then there should be no bar to making the state endorse it. That argument is bankrupt. If there was any other point to the question, go ahead and spit it out.
No, again you are still changing the question. You said:

"The state will then get to make it's argument regarding it's effect."

I said "lets hear your argument about it's negative effects"

You go on talking about incest, bestiality...yadda....but you can't come up with negative affects that you can cite.


Homosexual marriage would not affect me, personally.
Someone marrying a goat would not affect me, personally.
Polygamous marriages would not affect me, personally.
You marrying your own mother would not affect me, personally.

Now go ahead and tell me what the point of the question was?
you can't come up with negative affects
 
Maybe it's time to change the question.

What restrictions should there be on marriage. And why? Clearly many of you think homosexual marriages should be licensed by the state and some of you claim the rationale is because there is no victim.

So what limitations should be put upon "marriage"? Why should incest, polyandry, polygyny, or just two brothers sharing a house and wanting to avoid taxes... why should anything be barred?

Go ahead and give it your best shot.
The reasons for banning a thing should be based on how it negatively effects society.

You are avoiding describing how SSM negatively effects society.
 
No, again you are still changing the question. You said:

"The state will then get to make it's argument regarding it's effect."

I said "lets hear your argument about it's negative effects"

You go on talking about incest, bestiality...yadda....but you can't come up with negative affects that you can cite.


you can't come up with negative affects

Actually, I can, but they're a whole can of worms all their own and just a lot more for me to explain and for you to naysay ranging from insurance and taxes to the stability of family units. It's best to just go ahead and let the state make the case as it may inevitably be forced to do. If you wish, you may go ahead and start naysaying now preemptively and get a head start on it.
 
Finally someone got it. Thank you. :)

It is up to the state to define marriage and enforce the laws of marriage and divorce for the people of the state. Any arguments about who would be harmed must be fielded by the state and the state, itself, may claim to be the harmed party if it finds a sort of relationship unsuitable for sanction.

Wrong. It is up to the state to show that the laws reflect that restrictions are relevant to the way marriage works. They cannot claim harm that they cannot prove, but they also can establish that marriages are not keeping with the purpose of marriage that is expressed through the laws of how marriage itself functions. Marriage functions legally around two adults, not an adult and a child, not more than two adults, not adults and animals or dead people or inanimate objects. There must be two parties of legal ability to take responsibility for the other, at least to a point.
 
The state is not compelled to endorse someting merely because I am not victimized by it. Necrophelia, incest, polygamy and homosexuality are all examples of things that do not personally affect me. And they are all things that this state does not endorse through marriage. The fact that "the victim" is not clear to either you or me is not a mandate for state endorsement. If you still don't get it, I can't help you.

I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

So far all you're doing is passing the buck. The "who is the victim?" question is aimed at the position of being against gay marriage.

So when you oppose gay marriage, one of the responses you should very much expect to to hear is "how does this affect you?" And you should have a response prepared. Saying, "Oh, I don't know, but I'm sure somebody else does." is not a legitimate response. Do your own work.
 
Mother/Daughter marriage would not affect me and I cannot identify a victim of that, either. I don't see any reason why the state should be compelled to license such a marriage, though.
There are lots of reasons why incest is illegal, but you continue to avoid the question, how does SSM negatively effect society?


Yes, I believe your opposition to SSM is based on bigotry.
 
And I ask you, what human victims would there be if mothers and daughters were allowed to marry?

The discussion is gay marriage, not incest.
 
Actually, I can, but they're a whole can of worms all their own and just a lot more for me to explain and for you to naysay ranging from insurance and taxes to the stability of family units. It's best to just go ahead and let the state make the case as it may inevitably be forced to do. If you wish, you may go ahead and start naysaying now preemptively and get a head start on it.

Again, I will refer you to the findings of fact in Hollingsworth V Perry, it has already been hashed out.
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf
 
The reasons for banning a thing should be based on how it negatively effects society.

You are avoiding describing how SSM negatively effects society.

If it was something you could do without a state license, you would have an argument. Sanctioned marriage is a creation and endorsement by the state. It never existed in the first place and what homosexuals are asking is for the state to expand the domain of marriage in new ways to encompass arrangements that were never endorsed before. The fact that you don't see any harm in it is not a compelling reason for the state to make a positive action on this.
 
There are lots of reasons why incest is illegal, but you continue to avoid the question, how does SSM negatively effect society?


Yes, I believe your opposition to SSM is based on bigotry.

You have a right to believe anything you would like. I think it's just so very special that you're sharing your beliefs with me. Thank you so much. It's really sweet of you. :)
 
If it was something you could do without a state license, you would have an argument. Sanctioned marriage is a creation and endorsement by the state. It never existed in the first place and what homosexuals are asking is for the state to expand the domain of marriage in new ways to encompass arrangements that were never endorsed before. The fact that you don't see any harm in it is not a compelling reason for the state to make a positive action on this.

The fact that you have been unwilling to state what that harm is (along with the lack of examples of victims) is significantly less compelling. The only message you're sending thus far is "I have no argument."
 
Back
Top Bottom