• 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!

Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

Lursa said:
When gays are 'out', they are often denied apts/condos in 'certain' buildings and they are certainly denied good jobs. It's just not as visible a difference but the prejudice is still there...this thread and the fact that so many still object to SSM is proof of that.

How about the interracial couples...why did they have to have that piece of paper? Why couldnt they just be happy being with who they loved?
Click to expand...

But I'm not talking about interracial couples, and as evidenced by my posts on this subject, I obviously wouldn't support a ban on interracial couples.

If gays are denied jobs and housing now because of prejudice against their lifestyle, how would making SSM legal change that?
 
roguenuke said:
I was supporting it. Defended same sex marriage as an issue in 1997, while in 11th grade. There was a case in Hawaii that led to DOMA. It overturned state marriage law that restricted same sex couples from getting married as violating Hawaii state constitution. There was a case that got turned down by the SCOTUS in the 1970s, when homosexuals could still be institutionalized for just coming out as gay in some places.

Less people supported it then, than now. But that number has slowly risen over the last two decades. The main thing that led to the major push on same sex marriage was Lawrence v Texas. Striking down sodomy laws meant that there was no legal prohibition on same sex relationships allowable anywhere in the US.
Click to expand...

So what.

Now how many push back? How many bothered to go to the polls and cast their vote against allowing SSM in their state?
 
tres borrachos said:
I support labelling the coupling of two people (of consenting age) as a civil union for precisely this reason. Then the debate about "marriage" becomes irrelevant. Call your union whatever you want, and leave it at that.
Click to expand...

It simply shifts to being about civil unions for no other reason except some people want to whine about sharing a word and its meaning. That is childish. We should not waste the time and money to change something to appease people who cannot behave as adults and accept that they have to share a word.
 
vesper said:
That's just it, the government would no longer enforce any definition of marriage everything becomes neutral in the government's eyes. What your union is to you is your business. You just no longer have the right to define what marriage is to another.
Click to expand...

That's not an answer to what I asked, so I clarified it, in brackets....Can you tell me what effect that 'redefinition' [of marriage] would have? What would happen?

You seem to be describing what would happen if the govt made civil unions legal for gays. That is the opposite of what I asked. Sorry if I wasnt clear.
 
WCH said:
So what.

Now how many push back? How many bothered to go to the polls and cast their vote against allowing SSM in their state?
Click to expand...

Who cares? It doesn't matter. Those laws are still against the US Constitution. Many are realizing that and pushing back against those who decided to prevent same sex couples from marrying because it scared them. The Constitution is on our side with this one. It doesn't matter the support of the majority or the amount who pushed back (in the past).

The majority did not support interracial marriage in the 1960s. Support nationwide for allowing blacks and whites to marry each other was around 20%. That is below the support for same sex marriage. Heck, that is below the support for same sex marriage in the 1990s, when these bans started getting enacted.
 
tres borrachos said:
But I'm not talking about interracial couples, and as evidenced by my posts on this subject, I obviously wouldn't support a ban on interracial couples.

If gays are denied jobs and housing now because of prejudice against their lifestyle, how would making SSM legal change that?
Click to expand...

I'm drawing a direct parallel to where you questioned gays comparison with the civil rights movement in your previous post.
 
roguenuke said:
Prove it. I bet you there isn't support. I bet that most people would not want to change marriage at all. They are simply going to forget about it within a few years of same sex marriage bans being struck down all over the US, at least most of those currently saying that they would support it. And even that is a small number.

We already have civil unions within our current laws. Changing "marriages" to "civil unions" means those would have to change for at least a few states, because those who enter into civil unions do so for a reason, generally one that includes not wanting to be considered legally married. So they would require something else that covers them.

And why? Because some people are whining about having to share a word.
Click to expand...

I see support for it on both sides of the political aisle. After all since the institution of marriage as defined for centuries no longer exists, all the government really needs is civil unions for legal purposes and need not define marriage any longer. Then it is up to the individual to define what their union should be. Those in favor of such a thing could take a page or two out of the leftist's handbook in changing one state at a time to civil unions and as the people try to ban such a thing, search for an activist judge that will overturn their state ban claiming it unconstitutional and before you know it there will be 20 some states doing away with marriage licenses altogether. Brahahahahahahahaha.
 
vesper said:
I see support for it on both sides of the political aisle. After all since the institution of marriage as defined for centuries no longer exists, all the government really needs is civil unions for legal purposes and need not define marriage any longer. Then it is up to the individual to define what their union should be. Those in favor of such a thing could take a page or two out of the leftist's handbook in changing one state at a time to civil unions and as the people try to ban such a thing, search for an activist judge that will overturn their state ban claiming it unconstitutional and before you know it there will be 20 some states doing away with marriage licenses altogether. Brahahahahahahahaha.
Click to expand...

And I see opposition to it on both sides. Most people are for simply allowing same sex couples to marry. It is the easiest thing to do. It also doesn't cost anything extra.

We are humans. Our "institutions" change with time. Our words change meanings with time. You don't get to claim a timeless definition of any word.

The government would need to do a lot of things. Marriage is used in many laws in the federal government, and all 50 states. And civil unions, that differ from marriage itself, exist in several of those states already.

You want to get the change enacted, push for it. We'll see how much "support" for it is truly there. I'm willing to bet not a whole lot. Especially after same sex marriage bans are struck down by the SCOTUS. After that, it will become basically a non-issue.

In fact, I challenge you to find a single state where the support for doing away with marriage licenses is in any way significant, and not just some really loud idiots calling for it. Marriage is needed, so long as we recognize legal family at all. Spouses become the most important legal family member to most people once they reach adulthood. Eliminating marriage altogether would cause major issues with our family laws.
 
Fenton said:
I wasn't refering to marriage in the context of being legal or illegal dependening on a couples ability to have children.

I was really refering to the original and fundamental definition of marriage, that AGAIN, predates our Laws and Constitution.

What I was refering to was the definition that transends cultures, religions and race.

The natural definition of marriage.

I realize what this small group of activist is trying to do which is to corrupt that natural definition and defy thousands of years of societal evolution.

Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

And your argument decends into "my religious belief says...". Same sex marriage has existed through out recorded human history and across multiple cultures in the world. Your ignorance if this history is no excuse to pretend it does not exist. Even two different Roman emperors married men.
 
WCH said:
Well, IT'S BACK!

Hellenism (religion) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Good for it! I always liked the Greek gods. ;) But this doesn't change the fact that there is a whole pantheon of religious beliefs that are no longer followed. Greeks were just one example. I hadn't realized that there was a push to bring it back. The Christian religion has only been around for 2 thousand years. Catholicism has been around slightly longer, yet humans have been around for ALOT longer than both.
 
The federal and state governments shouldn't even be recognizing marriage in the first place.

They never had the right to and still don't.

This whole marriage debate is nothing more than pandering and politics.

Marriage should be considered a religious instituted bond not a state endorsed bond.
 
Mr.Nick said:
The federal and state governments shouldn't even be recognizing marriage in the first place.

They never had the right to and still don't.

This whole marriage debate is nothing more than pandering and politics.

Marriage should be considered a religious instituted bond not a state endorsed bond.
Click to expand...

Religions do not own marriage. They never actually did. Usurping authority over marriage because they came into power is not the same thing as owning marriage.
 
Lursa said:
I'm drawing a direct parallel to where you questioned gays comparison with the civil rights movement in your previous post.
Click to expand...

I have no idea why, because to me the civil rights movement wasn't about interracial marriage. I thought my examples in my post would have made it clear.

How would legalizing SSM change any prejudice against gay people?
 
CriticalThought said:
And your argument decends into "my religious belief says...". Same sex marriage has existed through out recorded human history and across multiple cultures in the world. Your ignorance if this history is no excuse to pretend it does not exist. Even two different Roman emperors married men.
Click to expand...

How does 2 Emperors marrying men (outside of the normal societal acceptance) make him "ignorant"? Emperor Caligula made his horse a Senator, but that doesn't mean that society accepted horses as having the same rights as humans. He made that decision as an Emperor.

In which societies was SSM legal, commonplace, and accepted as the norm?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Good for it! I always liked the Greek gods. ;) But this doesn't change the fact that there is a whole pantheon of religious beliefs that are no longer followed. Greeks were just one example. I hadn't realized that there was a push to bring it back. The Christian religion has only been around for 2 thousand years. Catholicism has been around slightly longer, yet humans have been around for ALOT longer than both.
Click to expand...

Zeus was the bomb. I'd be all for bringing him back. Didn't he marry his sister?
 
roguenuke said:
Religions do not own marriage. They never actually did. Usurping authority over marriage because they came into power is not the same thing as owning marriage.
Click to expand...

Religion was generally ALWAYS behind marriage, except in a few instances such as arranged marriage to join powerful families, however outside of that - religion was the bond. It certainly wasn't government, except for the few aforementioned examples.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Religion was generally ALWAYS behind marriage, except in a few instances such as arranged marriage to join powerful families, however outside of that - religion was the bond. It certainly wasn't government, except for the few aforementioned examples.
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't. Even the Christian religion did not get involved in marriage until after about the 11th Century or so. And there are religions that may bless marriages, but they don't really have rules for marriages.

Religion was not the main bond in marriage for most of its existence. It may have been involved in some small ways in many cultures, but the main bond was the family.

Society/communities/families had the majority of control over family. However, there also wasn't the same concerns back in those cultures as we now have. Identity theft wasn't really a big issue. Who made medical care decisions didn't really come up. And so many other things that we now face that they didn't back in the past.
 
Lursa said:
It's not the best option IMO because it creates 2 different govt agencies overseeing the same thing. more bureaucracy, bigger govt, more wasted taxpayer $.

The opposite of what most conservatives/Republicans support.
Click to expand...

Oh but you see, what I am proposing is no legal marriages, only civil unions. After a couple is married, or right before, they go to the court house and get their civil union as well. The marriage would be for their personal satisfaction and the civil union would be for the law.
 
tres borrachos said:
With all due respect (don't you hate when someone says that before a thought?), it's a long long long way from gay marriage rights to the civil rights movement.
Click to expand...
No, not at all, Judge Walker cited Loving v Virginia which established that marriage is one of our most basic human rights.
 
Amandi said:
Oh but you see, what I am proposing is no legal marriages, only civil unions. After a couple is married, or right before, they go to the court house and get their civil union as well. The marriage would be for their personal satisfaction and the civil union would be for the law.
Click to expand...

Which is pointless. It does nothing but make things more complicated, and only to appease some people who don't want to share. Whiners who don't want same sex couples being called "married".
 
roguenuke said:
We are humans. Our "institutions" change with time. Our words change meanings with time. You don't get to claim a timeless definition of any word.

.
Click to expand...

Yes. The institution of Western marriage has changed in a huge way in the past few hundred years....HUGE. Women used to basically be the property of their husbands. Period. Property. Not even able to consent fully on their own behalf.

Women gained more personal recognition and liberty in society and that is reflected in marriage today.

Gays have gained more personal recognition and liberty in society and that is being reflected in marriage today.

Institutions change.

And you know what...there are religious people, and alot of men in general, that believe things would still be better if women were completely subordinate, legally, to their husbands. And blame society today on that change. Does that mean the change was wrong? Or was it the right thing for women, the right thing to do?
 
roguenuke said:
And I see opposition to it on both sides. Most people are for simply allowing same sex couples to marry. It is the easiest thing to do. It also doesn't cost anything extra.

We are humans. Our "institutions" change with time. Our words change meanings with time. You don't get to claim a timeless definition of any word.

The government would need to do a lot of things. Marriage is used in many laws in the federal government, and all 50 states. And civil unions, that differ from marriage itself, exist in several of those states already.

You want to get the change enacted, push for it. We'll see how much "support" for it is truly there. I'm willing to bet not a whole lot. Especially after same sex marriage bans are struck down by the SCOTUS. After that, it will become basically a non-issue.

In fact, I challenge you to find a single state where the support for doing away with marriage licenses is in any way significant, and not just some really loud idiots calling for it. Marriage is needed, so long as we recognize legal family at all. Spouses become the most important legal family member to most people once they reach adulthood. Eliminating marriage altogether would cause major issues with our family laws.
Click to expand...

Nope it wouldn't cause major issues for our family laws. There would still be mothers and fathers and heads of household. Every relationship with a civil union would be treated equally under the law no matter how you define your relationship because marriage no longer means the same thing to all people.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Religion was generally ALWAYS behind marriage, except in a few instances such as arranged marriage to join powerful families, however outside of that - religion was the bond. It certainly wasn't government, except for the few aforementioned examples.
Click to expand...

Yep, religion has always been behind the concept of marriage, but that doesn't matter anymore, we take a more secular viewpoint on marriage nowadays.
 
Amandi said:
Oh but you see, what I am proposing is no legal marriages, only civil unions. After a couple is married, or right before, they go to the court house and get their civil union as well. The marriage would be for their personal satisfaction and the civil union would be for the law.
Click to expand...

This is what I would support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom