• 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

Fiddytree said:
Right now we have a better shot at undermining some of the arguments from the counter-culture Left of the 1960s and 1970s by encouraging strong marriages and two-parent family units. You didn't somehow think that this marriage institution was the same thing as those who were seeking to undermine social expectations entirely by questioning the entire concept of marriage and family structures, did you?
Click to expand...

I'm not questioning the concept of marriage. I'm questioning government's intervention into it - specifically with regard to tax benefits.

If people want to get married in a religious ceremony for the purpose of...I dunno, whatever women want it for - I'm good with it. Celebration of love, own a man's balls, free gifts from a registry...whatever. That's fine.

That is where it should end, however.
 
Gipper said:
So you're saying that there hasn't been a hyper-liberalization of the country, usually to its detriment, in the past 40 years.

Sure, sure. Go ahead and get me a tinfoil hat.
Click to expand...

Define detriment.

Do you think our society would be better off if we still treated women as second class citizens?
Do you think our society would be better off if we treated non-Whites as second class citizens?
Do you think our society would be better off if we gave people less control over their lives and bodies?
 
Gipper said:
I'm not questioning the concept of marriage. I'm questioning government's intervention into it - specifically with regard to tax benefits.

If people want to get married in a religious ceremony for the purpose of...I dunno, whatever women want it for - I'm good with it. Celebration of love, own a man's balls, free gifts from a registry...whatever. That's fine.

That is where it should end, however.
Click to expand...

And of course, I stand opposed to some left-wingers and libertarians on this. I believe it in the interest of the country to encourage stability and healthy relationships via the government.
 
obvious Child said:
Define detriment.

Do you think our society would be better off if we still treated women as second class citizens?
Do you think our society would be better off if we treated non-Whites as second class citizens?
Do you think our society would be better off if we gave people less control over their lives and bodies?
Click to expand...

You did read "40 years", right?
 
Fiddytree said:
And of course, I stand opposed to some left-wingers and libertarians on this. I believe it in the interest of the country to encourage stability and healthy relationships via the government.
Click to expand...

So a tax break encourages stability and healthy relationships?

If you know crap about marriage and relationships, a token check every April won't turn you into Masters and Johnson.
 
head of joaquin said:
Oh that canard.

There are social burdens involved in polygamy (the most obvious being creditors not knowing whom to collect from for marital debt).
Click to expand...

No problem they don't already have and haven't already resolved.... collect from whoever has the money.

Further, we tried polygamy (remember the bible) and it didn't work well for other reasons -- the wealthy wound up with lots of wives and the poor wound up with none -- a very volatile and unstable situation, as China is now learning due to its lack of marriageable females.
Click to expand...

You're going to cite the Bible as your argument against polygamy? Seriously?

As to incest, it obviously lends itself it abusing children so that's reason enough to ban it.
Click to expand...

Not any more than homosexuality lends itself to abusing children. This argument has no bearing on marriage between consenting adults (like brother and sister, father and daughter, daughter and daughter, mother and son, etc. etc. etc.).
 
roguenuke said:
Changing laws to accommodate same sex couples is only a change in the restriction. Changing laws to accommodate multiple spouses would take a complete overhaul of or at least affect our joint tax laws, our immigration laws pertaining to green cards/visas for spouses, our military dependent/spouse benefits, healthcare laws, qualifications for welfare/government assistance, housing laws, personal contracts covered by marriage, and more. These laws all operate the same for married couples, whether the spouses are a man and a woman, two men, or two women.
Click to expand...

So you are arguing that yes, the "right" to marry multiple people exists... but that it's just too hard to grant them the right?

And no, it wouldn't be very hard to implement it. All you would do is apply the marriage laws to two separate marriages that happen to share one spouse.

You mentioned bisexuals specifically. Since they are no more likely to want to be in a polygamous relationship than heterosexuals or homosexuals, then there would be no reason to single them out unless you have a misunderstanding of what being bisexual means.
Click to expand...

I only singled them out because the opposing argument was that polygamy is so different from gay marriage. I am pointing out that in the end the polygamist marriage is still between two people, I used the bisexual becuase their argument for polygamy would be the exact same as the argument for gay marriage as they even have a sexual justification for marrying two people.
 
head of joaquin said:
Oh that canard.

There are social burdens involved in polygamy (the most obvious being creditors not knowing whom to collect from for marital debt). Further, we tried polygamy (remember the bible) and it didn't work well for other reasons -- the wealthy wound up with lots of wives and the poor wound up with none -- a very volatile and unstable situation, as China is now learning due to its lack of marriageable females.

As to incest, it obviously lends itself it abusing children so that's reason enough to ban it.

NEXT VAPID RIGHTWING MEME!
Click to expand...

Don't be so sure. When I was a young man no one could even imagine same sex marriage, let alone support it. Now it enjoys broad support and faces no impediment in federal law. There is no immediately obvious reason why plural marriage could not follow the same path from anathema to acceptance. This is not a reason to be for or against same sex marriage, but it's a reasonable speculation.:cool:
 
Papa bull said:
This is true. We don't know if it's genetic or not. The good news is that if it does turn out to be genetic, then we will probably be able to cure it.
Click to expand...

Cure genes you consider faulty? Ah, the hidden side of RW Eugenics.
 
Jack Hays said:
Don't be so sure. When I was a young man no one could even imagine same sex marriage, let alone support it. Now it enjoys broad support and faces no impediment in federal law. There is no immediately obvious reason why plural marriage could not follow the same path from anathema to acceptance. This is not a reason to be for or against same sex marriage, but it's a reasonable speculation.:cool:
Click to expand...

It's true. 40 years ago, there was no concept of "gay marriage" at all. Gay marriage was the logical equivalent of "dry water". Only recently has the idea been marketed to us that two homosexuals should be allowed to mimic marriage with a marriage equivalent and only more recently than that was it sold to us that it must actually be considered to be the exact same thing. So there's no telling where this will go and to say it can't go anywhere else is just disingenuous.
 
Fiddytree said:
Good. Now that equality and love has taken over, now we can start once again encouraging a positive marriage culture for straight people and gay people.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be nice if after this marriage actually became important again, a big step in a person's life, an ever after commitment to one person until death do they part?

Unfortunately, in the "me-now" society in which we live, getting out of a commitment you no longer want to honor has become as easy as changing your car.

Why not make it harder to get out of marriage so that it's not so inconsequential to get into marriage in the first place?
 
Gipper said:
So a tax break encourages stability and healthy relationships?

If you know crap about marriage and relationships, a token check every April won't turn you into Masters and Johnson.
Click to expand...

Well, I wonder what all of the fuss is about, then, Gipper. Is it really only about a paycheck?
 
Jack Hays said:
Don't be so sure. When I was a young man no one could even imagine same sex marriage, let alone support it. Now it enjoys broad support and faces no impediment in federal law. There is no immediately obvious reason why plural marriage could not follow the same path from anathema to acceptance. This is not a reason to be for or against same sex marriage, but it's a reasonable speculation.:cool:
Click to expand...

Good afternoon 2M - always amazes me how some people can only see about 2 inches in front of their noses when considering the impact of their or other's actions.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Cure genes you consider faulty? Ah, the hidden side of RW Eugenics.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Papa bull said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Papa bull said:
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?
Click to expand...

And they could "cure" left handedness, and gingers, and hopefully libertarianism.
 
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.
 
Papa bull said:
No problem they don't already have and haven't already resolved.... collect from whoever has the money.
Click to expand...

So you think that's the rule, eh? It must be lovely to live in simplicityland.

You're going to cite the Bible as your argument against polygamy? Seriously?
Click to expand...

I'm quoting history, which is reflected in the bible on this issue. Are you pretending polygamy didn't exist in Europe up until the medieval period (and beyond in Asia). Pitiful.

Not any more than homosexuality lends itself to abusing children. This argument has no bearing on marriage between consenting adults (like brother and sister, father and daughter, daughter and daughter, mother and son, etc. etc. etc.).
Click to expand...

Wow, your true biases have come out. Glad I was able to force you to disclose them. Your brain on homophobia.
 
Papa bull said:
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?
Click to expand...

More ignorance from homophobeland. That there is a genetic component to sexual orientation is hardly at issue anymore. The only question is how extensive it is. Further, gay people have always had children, just at a lower rate than heterosexuals.

I see you are a compendium of misinformation about sexual orientation, a common tea party condition.
 
head of joaquin said:
So you think that's the rule, eh? It must be lovely to live in simplicityland.



I'm quoting history, which is reflected in the bible on this issue. Are you pretending polygamy didn't exist in Europe up until the medieval period (and beyond in Asia). Pitiful.



Wow, your true biases have come out. Glad I was able to force you to disclose them. Your brain on homophobia.
Click to expand...

Polygamy was never widespread.

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.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't. I think that now we'll see, over the next decade, many court challenges to state law that disallows SSM. What could not be achieved through legislative effort will now be gained through the courts who have signalled quite clearly they're willing to go along. The courts are no longer tethered to the Constitution, they can make up anything they wish since they have set themselves up as the ultimate arbiters. Add in lifetime appointment and we have precisely what the founders feared when they created the court and limited it's powers.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right on the first part. Wrong on the second part. Ohio does not have to recognize a gay marriage from Connecticut.
 
Jack Hays said:
Don't be so sure. When I was a young man no one could even imagine same sex marriage, let alone support it. Now it enjoys broad support and faces no impediment in federal law. There is no immediately obvious reason why plural marriage could not follow the same path from anathema to acceptance. This is not a reason to be for or against same sex marriage, but it's a reasonable speculation.:cool:
Click to expand...
Um, polygamy existed before gay marriage, and polygamy was ended, in fact outlawed in the US by 3 Federal 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.

You failed to address this point by joaquin.
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
I don't. I think that now we'll see, over the next decade, many court challenges to state law that disallows SSM. What could not be achieved through legislative effort will now be gained through the courts who have signalled quite clearly they're willing to go along. The courts are no longer tethered to the Constitution, they can make up anything they wish since they have set themselves up as the ultimate arbiters. Add in lifetime appointment and we have precisely what the founders feared when they created the court and limited it's powers.
Click to expand...

Just because people who know more about the constitution than you do not share you limited opinion on the constitution does not mean they are no longer "tethered to the constitution".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom