• 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!

SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

Polygamy was never widespread.

By definition. It causes tons of problems. Hence the laws and social biases against it. So your argument that it is equivalent to gay marriage is foolish.

You are mistaken in the homophobia. I'm not suggesting that homosexuality encourages pedophilia. I'm rejecting your suggestion that incest does any more than homosexuality does. Parents abusing their children isn't a product of their incestuous desire, but the incest is a result of their abusive desire.

Sure incest does for obvious reasons. If children can be viewed as legitimate future sex objects by a parent or sibling in a family, they can be viewed as current ones.
 
Right on the first part. Wrong on the second part. Ohio does not have to recognize a gay marriage from Connecticut.

Full Faith and Credit clause.
 
Um, polygamy existed before gay marriage, and polygamy was ended, in fact outlawed in the US by 3 statutes, for a number of reasons chiefly that polygamy restricted males from finding a female mate, a fact that is not changed today. Gay marriage does not change this reason.

Equal rights. You're forgetting about equal rights. Women may wish to marry more than one man, and, of course, they should have that right since people should be able to marry whomever they love, right? The problem is that this undoes your argument that it must naturally be one man and many women. You are making an unfair gender assumption and gender doesn't apply to marriage any more, right?
 
If the gay gene is discovered, trust me.... parents will be very happy if they could be sure their children wouldn't end up being homosexuals. Few parents hope they'll never have grandchildren. And why wouldn't it be good to eliminate this problem? It's an affliction that homosexuals say they have no control over and if parents could assure their children would never have this affliction, that would be good, right?

Oh for the love of "god." First, it doesn't matter if parents will be happy. Gay people can (and more could) if it weren't for people such as yourself that consider homosexuality a negative quality. Homosexuals say they have no control over this affliction? Who said this was an affliction? Smallpox is an affliction, homosexuality is not. I see your education on this subject is, much like others, non-existent.

Hey, Papa, you gonna reply or run away? I'm waiting.
 
Full Faith and Credit clause.

Homosexuals can try this avenue, but it's a bastardization of the purpose of the full faith and credit clause and there's no guarantee that it will work out for them.
 
Equal rights. You're forgetting about equal rights. Women may wish to marry more than one man, and, of course, they should have that right since people should be able to marry whomever they love, right? The problem is that this undoes your argument that it must naturally be one man and many women. You are making an unfair gender assumption and gender doesn't apply to marriage any more, right?
The SC has recognized the basic human right of marrying one person, I'm unaware that the court has recognized the right to marry multiple people....and again, the court has upheld federal laws against polygamy/bigamy.
 
Obamacare, blanket amnesty for illegals, same sex marriage and the financial implications, reduction of the military, tax hikes, IRS intimidation, NSA and privacy, JoP investigation of media.......

America is dead. Democrats have won. Troubling times lie ahead.
 
Hey, Papa, you gonna reply or run away? I'm waiting.

Either one would be my prerogative and none of your business to challenge. Actually, I didn't see your post, if you really must know. You haven't impressed me to the point that you are on my "required reading list". So let's see what you've got here:

Oh for the love of "god." First, it doesn't matter if parents will be happy. Gay people can (and more could) if it weren't for people such as yourself that consider homosexuality a negative quality. Homosexuals say they have no control over this affliction? Who said this was an affliction? Smallpox is an affliction, homosexuality is not. I see your education on this subject is, much like others, non-existent.

Since homosexuality prevents the natural bearing of offspring by any organism afflicted with such a condition, if it was genetic, it would be a defect and any widespread propagation of it would result in potential extinction for a species.

Of course, this is all just academic because the dirty little secret is that homosexuality is not a genetic defect. It's simply a sexually deviant behavior.
 
The SC has recognized the basic human right of marrying one person, I'm unaware that the court has recognized the right to marry multiple people....and again, the court has upheld federal laws against polygamy/bigamy.

There was no statement by the Supreme Court that it had anything to do with ONLY "one person".

If the legal argument is that it is a human right to marry who/what you love, you've opened a can of worms.
 
There was no statement that it had anything to do with "one person".
By whom?

It certainly was the argument in Loving v Virginia.

Polygamy will be and has been an argument based on religious rights, not social rights.
 
Either one would be my prerogative and none of your business to challenge. Actually, I didn't see your post, if you really must know. You haven't impressed me to the point that you are on my "required reading list". So let's see what you've got here:

Since homosexuality prevents the natural bearing of offspring by any organism afflicted with such a condition, if it was genetic, it would be a defect and any widespread propagation of it would result in potential extinction for a species.

Of course, this is all just academic because the dirty little secret is that homosexuality is not a genetic defect. It's simply a sexually deviant behavior.

It does not prevent the natural bearing of offspring by any organism. Homosexual men have just as viable sperm as you or I (assuming you're a man) and, in the same way, homosexual women have just as viable eggs as other women. And, no, homosexuality would not result in the extinction of a population. In fact, quite the opposite is true, as you'd have more men available to protect and raise children.

Surely you have evidence that homosexuality "is simply a sexually deviant behavior?"
 
It was and is in the Islamic world, it is in Africa. It was widespread in the Mormon communities in the 1800's Utah territory.

That's still not "widespread". It has been an exception to the rule, although it has been much, MUCH more common than the virtually nonexistent "homosexual marriage" model we're being sold today.
 
So, endgame...Who here thinks that when all the court cases are finally resolved, it will work something like this: states can marry who they want, and not marry who they want. However, they cannot fail to recognize marriages performed in any state. That should manage to piss off pretty much every one, but does seem most likely entirely constitutional.

As I asked someone previously who made a similar point - If the court ruled that the federal government could not nullify or abrogate a state's definition of marriage, why would you assume that it would sanction one state nullifying or abrogating another state's definition of marriage? What you are suggesting is that California, as an example, can force recognition of their definition of marriage upon the state of Alaska, but the federal government can't. How does that make sense?
 
Obamacare, blanket amnesty for illegals, same sex marriage and the financial implications, reduction of the military, tax hikes, IRS intimidation, NSA and privacy, JoP investigation of media.......

America is dead. Democrats have won. Troubling times lie ahead.

Conservative America with its irrational biases and lack of progress is dead. Thank God, now we can join the modern world.
 
It does not prevent the natural bearing of offspring by any organism. Homosexual men have just as viable sperm as you or I (assuming you're a man) and, in the same way, homosexual women have just as viable eggs as other women.

If that is true, then homosexuality is a choice; a behavior rather than an immutable characteristic.
 
That's still not "widespread". It has been an exception to the rule, although it has been much, MUCH more common than the virtually nonexistent "homosexual marriage" model we're being sold today.

Since polygamy causes social disruptions that have nothing to do with gay marriage, this line of argument is invalid.
 
As I asked someone previously who made a similar point - If the court ruled that the federal government could not nullify or abrogate a state's definition of marriage, why would you assume that it would sanction one state nullifying or abrogating another state's definition of marriage? What you are suggesting is that California, as an example, can force recognition of their definition of marriage upon the state of Alaska, but the federal government can't. How does that make sense?

It doesn't and that's why the full faith and credit clause is almost a sure failure as a constitutional back-door to forcing same-sex marriage nationally.
 
If that is true, then homosexuality is a choice; a behavior rather than an immutable characteristic.

The desire to have children is separate from sexual orientation. Historical studies show gay men have always had children, just at a lower rate then heterosexual men. How does this promote your "argument"?
 
Since polygamy causes social disruptions that have nothing to do with gay marriage, this line of argument is invalid.

If three people love each other, how does it negatively impact you if they are allowed to marry? And before you go with the stupid argument that it means fewer females to go around, we can't assume that it's one man and two women. It could be three men, three women, two women and one man.... gender is irrelevant per the homosexual precursor argument.
 
It doesn't and that's why the full faith and credit clause is almost a sure failure as a constitutional back-door to forcing same-sex marriage nationally.

Let's hope. At some point the equal protection clause needs to be applied to gay marriage in general. It seems irrational to deny gay people marriage.

By the way, if it's any solace, I'd dump the word "marriage" from official language and use civil unions for ever qualified case. Let religions have the word "marriage" but get rid of the legal force of it. Should satisfy everybody.
 
The desire to have children is separate from sexual orientation. Historical studies show gay men have always had children, just at a lower rate then heterosexual men. How does this promote your "argument"?

So homosexual men can choose to have sex with women. Fine. That means that homosexuality is a behavior and a choice rather than an immutable characteristic. Since it is not an immutable characteristic they can't be a suspect class for judicial scrutiny.
 
So homosexual men can choose to have sex with women. Fine. That means that homosexuality is a behavior and a choice rather than an immutable characteristic. Since it is not an immutable characteristic they can't be a suspect class for judicial scrutiny.

Yep, people of any sexual orientation can actually have children. Que mirabile dictu! What does that biological fact have to do with sexual orientation?
 
Let's hope. At some point the equal protection clause needs to be applied to gay marriage in general. It seems irrational to deny gay people marriage.

By the way, if it's any solace, I'd dump the word "marriage" from official language and use civil unions for ever qualified case. Let religions have the word "marriage" but get rid of the legal force of it. Should satisfy everybody.

I agree with that. Too many of us old people consider marriage to be a fundamental social structure that's not subject to change by fashion or whim. I'd much rather "civil union" be implemented as the sanctioned unit of legal pairing. Let marriage be what it is "off the record" and let the government sanctioned version be changed to "civil union" and everyone should be satisfied.
 
That's still not "widespread". It has been an exception to the rule, although it has been much, MUCH more common than the virtually nonexistent "homosexual marriage" model we're being sold today.
You are getting pedantic since "widespread" is totally subjective.....and even though you recognize it is more "widespread" than SSM, I was never arguing that SSM was or was not "widespread".

You skipped over the argument that polygamy was and more than likely will be argued on the basis of religious rights, not social rights.

I just find it funny that those arguing against SSM bring up polygamy (something that was outlawed long before SSM was an issue in the US) which was recognized as assault on monogamy. Here we have SSM advocates arguing FOR monogamy and not for polygamy, while those who are against SSM bring up polygamy as being the next step......towards LESS monogamy.
 
Back
Top Bottom