• 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]

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.
This is the same distraction you used before, so I will make the point again, discrimination has to be justified when challenged. You have not justified it. Saying that it has been a discriminatory practice in the past is not justification for continuing a discrimination going forward.
 
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."

And I don't need one. The onus to produce a compelling argument is on those advocating homosexual marriage. If they can successfully produce an argument that there is a significant state benefit by expanding their marriage criteria to include same-sex couples, they'll win. Arguing that if the state can't explain why it doesn't want to, that it must make those changes isn't going to win. And there are... what.... 38 states that don't feel homosexuals have made a compelling argument.
 
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. :)
It is a belief draw from your own words, I had no idea what your beliefs were until you expressed them.

I can understand why you are now limiting your responses to the questions at hand, you feel you have described yourself too clearly.
 
And I don't need one. The onus to produce a compelling argument is on those advocating homosexual marriage. If they can successfully produce an argument that there is a significant state benefit by expanding their marriage criteria to include same-sex couples, they'll win. Arguing that if the state can't explain why it doesn't want to, that it must make those changes isn't going to win. And there are... what.... 38 states that don't feel homosexuals have made a compelling argument.
Wrong, the state has justify a continuing of a discriminatory practice. In CA, the state declined to so because it understood the practice is unconstitutional, the proponents found that out also.
 
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.

Incestuous relationships involve undue influence when intimate pairings is the expectation of a marriage (as we do actually require, proven by our laws pertaining to fraud marriages, you cannot marriage someone openly for the sole purpose of benefits). Now, personally I support giving siblings and even parent/child marriages an ability to receive exceptional recognition of their marriages when they can show that they were raised in different households for the entire childhood of both people in the marriage. But we could even see just allowing siblings at least to marry without regard to anything else or even parent/child, it just isn't likely because the state can show state interests being furthered by most laws on incest, and therefore maintain a ban on those marriages as well.

Polygamy is about the way the laws work regarding marriage and how it legally functions. It is designed legally (even today) around two people being each other's closest legal relative and having the sole ability to make certain decisions for/pertaining to that person at certain times. This is a legitimate state interest, maintaining this restriction on number of spouses a person can have.
 
This is the same distraction you used before, so I will make the point again, discrimination has to be justified when challenged. You have not justified it. Saying that it has been a discriminatory practice in the past is not justification for continuing a discrimination going forward.

I think homosexuals will get their opportunity to make this challenge and the states will get to respond. We'll see how it goes. I don't see it as discrimination against anyone because homosexual marriage is an oxymoron.
 
And I don't need one. The onus to produce a compelling argument is on those advocating homosexual marriage. If they can successfully produce an argument that there is a significant state benefit by expanding their marriage criteria to include same-sex couples, they'll win. Arguing that if the state can't explain why it doesn't want to, that it must make those changes isn't going to win. And there are... what.... 38 states that don't feel homosexuals have made a compelling argument.

Actually, the state not being able to explain exclusion of gays from marriage is winning. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention.

2000: 0 states with legalized gay marriage and a minority of the population in support of it. 2013: 13 states and one jurisdiction with legal ssm and a majority of the population in favor of it. That's a trend.

And I don't need one.

That thought process is why you're losing (which is really just fine by me).
 
Incestuous relationships involve undue influence when intimate pairings is the expectation of a marriage (as we do actually require, proven by our laws pertaining to fraud marriages, you cannot marriage someone openly for the sole purpose of benefits). Now, personally I support giving siblings and even parent/child marriages an ability to receive exceptional recognition of their marriages when they can show that they were raised in different households for the entire childhood of both people in the marriage. But we could even see just allowing siblings at least to marry without regard to anything else or even parent/child, it just isn't likely because the state can show state interests being furthered by most laws on incest, and therefore maintain a ban on those marriages as well.

Polygamy is about the way the laws work regarding marriage and how it legally functions. It is designed legally (even today) around two people being each other's closest legal relative and having the sole ability to make certain decisions for/pertaining to that person at certain times. This is a legitimate state interest, maintaining this restriction on number of spouses a person can have.

I don't think any of those arguments would hold up if the concept of marriage becomes "consenting adults who wish to enter into a domestic partnership". Any legal argument that homosexuals put forward, if compelling, paves the way to virtually any arrangement being endorsed and maybe some people think that's swell, too. I don't.
 
I don't think any of those arguments would hold up if the concept of marriage becomes "consenting adults who wish to enter into a domestic partnership". Any legal argument that homosexuals put forward, if compelling, paves the way to virtually any arrangement being endorsed and maybe some people think that's swell, too. I don't.

They have held up in court. Both incest laws and polygamy have been challenged. Arguments regarding these and other things as state interests furthered by those restrictions have held up in court.

In fact, even after Lawrence, incest laws against just stepparent and child held up.
 
I think homosexuals will get their opportunity to make this challenge and the states will get to respond. We'll see how it goes. I don't see it as discrimination against anyone because homosexual marriage is an oxymoron.
Ah, a new distraction/tangent/rabbit hole, the prohibition against SSM....is based upon the argument that it would be an "oxymoron".

Please, enlighten us with this new moronic argument.

I mean, when you have nothing left, you change the topic.
 
Ah, a new distraction/tangent/rabbit hole, the prohibition against SSM....is based upon the argument that it would be an "oxymoron".

Please, enlighten us with this new moronic argument.

I've done this already. Marriage makes no sense for same sex pairings.

If marriage is not for creating a family, not for bearing children, not for the sake of anything but a willingness to agree to a contract, then anything goes with it. Marriage always had a focus and that focus was to establish state approved couples in pairings that made biological sense. But hey, we've been over this already many times and you're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change your mind. Some states agree with you. Some states agree with me. Eventually it will come down to arguments in our courts and we'll see if homosexuals will be able to bend the will of the states to their whims. I'm sure in your mind, it's all crystal clear that you are absolutely right about all this. That's your prerogative. ;)
 
And I don't need one. The onus to produce a compelling argument is on those advocating homosexual marriage. If they can successfully produce an argument that there is a significant state benefit by expanding their marriage criteria to include same-sex couples, they'll win. Arguing that if the state can't explain why it doesn't want to, that it must make those changes isn't going to win. And there are... what.... 38 states that don't feel homosexuals have made a compelling argument.


It seems like so far the state has been agreeing with SSM
 
I've done this already. Marriage makes no sense for same sex pairings.

If marriage is not for creating a family, not for bearing children, not for the sake of anything but a willingness to agree to a contract, then anything goes with it. Marriage always had a focus and that focus was to establish state approved couples in pairings that made biological sense. But hey, we've been over this already many times and you're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change your mind. Some states agree with you. Some states agree with me. Eventually it will come down to arguments in our courts and we'll see if homosexuals will be able to bend the will of the states to their whims. I'm sure in your mind, it's all crystal clear that you are absolutely right about all this. That's your prerogative. ;)
We already went over this, the fact is that every day in every state sterile couples get married, the argument that the state should limit marriage to procreation purposes has already been settled. Again I will refer to the previously cited findings of facts where it was established that the state has a multitude of reasons for marriage other than procreation and SSM shares in all of those reasons.

Why you keep repeating arguments we already settled today is beyond me.
 
We already went over this, the fact is that every day in every state sterile couples get married, the argument that the state should limit marriage to procreation purposes has already been settled. Again I will refer to the previously cited findings of facts where it was established that the state has a multitude of reasons for marriage other than procreation and SSM shares in all of those reasons.

Why you keep repeating arguments we already settled today is beyond me.

Your repeated assertions that arguments are settled just because you say so doesn't get us anywhere.
 
Your repeated assertions that arguments are settled just because you say so doesn't get us anywhere.
Your inability to counter the argument and instead whine about not getting anywhere is a capitulation.

Either counter the argument or concede, don't distract.
 
We already went over this, the fact is that every day in every state sterile couples get married, the argument that the state should limit marriage to procreation purposes has already been settled. Again I will refer to the previously cited findings of facts where it was established that the state has a multitude of reasons for marriage other than procreation and SSM shares in all of those reasons.

Why you keep repeating arguments we already settled today is beyond me.

when a persons only argument completely fails and gets destroyed the desperation move is to keep repeating it, hoping it will magically stick one time or that the focus will be deflected from the fact it failed.
 
when a persons only argument completely fails and gets destroyed the desperation move is to keep repeating it, hoping it will magically stick one time or that the focus will be deflected from the fact it failed.

I noticed that myself and already commented on the fact that is what a number of people have been reduced to doing.
 
FFS, your counter-arguments are getting so weak that they are nonexistent.

I'm getting tired of hearing the same rubbish arguments ad nauseum from you. It's getting extremely redundant. Time to agree to disagree and retire from this. It is stale.
 
I noticed that myself and already commented on the fact that is what a number of people have been reduced to doing.

but you are the only one doing it, your argument was destroyed by many posters many times many ways and you just keep repeating it in desperation. nice try though but nobody is buying it.

You argument loses to facts while you keep repeating fantasy and opinion.
 
Back
Top Bottom