• 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 strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287:411]

Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

My question is... why is this even being taken by the courts as Wisconsin already permits domestic partnerships. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't a domestic partnership have the same legal status and rights as a married couple?? If so... than isn't this lawsuit frivilous to begin with and therefore should be thrown out?

I support Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions, but am opposed to gay 'marraige' for namesake purposes only. Marraige is solely exclusive to heterosexual couples and has been for thousands of years of human history. If gays have the same rights and are simply referred to differently in regards to their union status I see no reason for this lawsuit to be relevant.

Civil unions MAY have the same rights at the state level, in Wisconsin, and probably in other states that recognize civil unions. They won't have the same rights in states that don't recognize civil unions. However, states do generally recognize ALL marriages, even those that wouldn't be legal in that state (cousins, etc.). I could go into it, but the point is they just are not equivalent legal institutions, especially outside the state that granted the civil union.

And I really appreciate the sentiment (no sarcasm intended) about granting these couples equal rights, but marriage/married/spouse are just simplifying labels (besides the many legal ramifications). Are they married or single? Neither, so are they 'unioned?' All kinds of things divide between married and single, spouses or not. There is no real purpose in the distinction for equivalent legal relationships, in my view.

FWIW, I don't think it's all that important an issue - what we call it. But I've come to accept the position of gays - it's reserving a higher or special status for marriage between 'traditional' couples and denying it for SS couples. Or, more bluntly, maintaining same sex unions as second class. But, again, not a big deal. The big step, the 90% solution, is about rights. The vocal activists might spend a lot of time on that last 10%, but I can tell you my brother doesn't care, and his position, per him, isn't unusual at all. They'll refer to them as marriages, so will their friends and family, and if others call it something else - eh, whatever. His view in a nutshell.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

so using your own failed rational what about religions that already allow ssm? do you then support "overreaching into a religious practice" since its a marriage you deem not equal?
what about religions different from yours?

what about marriages that already dont involve religion? are you claim that only religious marriages should also be legal? no more marriages by judges or magistrates or anybody with a license?

Good points, and important ones! I've been to a same sex marriage in a church that recognizes them, and long before the states did.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

There is nothing loving in confirming people in causing their own damnation.

theirs nothing loving about damming people for being together with someone of the same gender its immoral
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Your point?

its nor moral for a judge to uphold laws based on religious principles alone
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

theirs nothing loving about damming people for being together with someone of the same gender its immoral

I think that reformation will take awhile.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

I think that reformation will take awhile.

for some and that's a shame
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

I lived in Mid-town Atlanta, the French Quarter, had a homosexual roommate in the Army before don't ask, don't tell and had various and sundry homosexuals trotted into the barracks by him most weekend nights. I've known quite a few homosexuals, so another swing and a miss by the good captain.

No, this actually goes to my SECOND point.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Then shouldn't the focus be on suing the fed for not recognizing civil unions or domestic partnerships?? If that were the plaform the LGBT movement was trying to push then I'm sure that the middle-right wing of the GOP would have less to object to and the religious right wouldn't really have anything to yell about. The solution is to sue the FED for Civil Union and Domestic Partnership recognition.... NOT suing states for marraige status.

Did that already when "DOMA" was conquered. This is more fun now, pissing off the redneck southern states one by one. The bigots in GOP and the church object? Good! They are lucky they aren't being sued individually, as they deserve.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

How am I opposed to equal rights if I support equal treatment and only differ on the namesake of the situation???

Because you care more about a word than equality, since what you propose is impossible, given how many laws would have to be changed. For instance, the sack of **** governor in my state is denying state benefits to DPs. He can do that because the state law requires "marriage". So every single state's law would have to be changed just for equal treatment in that one aspect. Our governments are way too worthless for that to happen.

The reality is separate but unequal, in that there's no attempt to even pretend equality by those states or their republican politicians. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 1960s.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

My reason behind this would be a seperation of church and state. Marraige is a religious ceremony and has only recently in the past 60 or so years been granted priviledges by the federal government and "recognition." To understand why the feds interviened in this religious practice you have to understand what they wanted to do. These benefits are no less than subsidies to encourage same sex couples to spur population growth and to stablize american family life. Same sex couples have no reproductive capabilities and thus offering them the same subsidies would be a waste of time and money. The distinction in name would be to appease the needs and "rights" of same sex couples while at the same time not overreaching into a religious practice where government has no real business interloping.

Recommend you actually check a list of the 1000+ rights denied by pseudo-marriage. Only a fraction have anything to do with government funds. I guess you also support forcefully divorcing hetero couples who cannot reproduce too then? How about couples in their 80s? Let's just divorce everyone once they can't pop out kids! And annul the marriage for good measure.

I love how you put it as "rights" too, like nothing will more quickly give away that you actually don't give a damn. So obvious when someone suddenly "supports" DPs as a desperate compromise to preserve marriage inequality.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Given the changes that I proposed care to explain how they would be inferior?? If they are given all the same legal rights?? Prove to me that the statement I made was wrong without simply stating otherwise, thank you.

How about heterosexual couples have their marriages annulled and be given the civil union option and homosexuals can have marriages?

Separate but equal is inherently unequal, my friend. It creates a state-sanctioned stigma, declaring that homosexual couples just aren't good enough to use our word. If you need proof, just think about your first reaction to the question above.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

i really don't believe a word of what he said there

I always find it something of a statistical anomaly how those most opposed to same sex marriage always manage to have the largest number of gay friends, or at least have come across a larger number of gay people in their lives than anyone else has while living in Portland or San Francisco.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

How about heterosexual couples have their marriages annulled and be given the civil union option and homosexuals can have marriages?

Separate but equal is inherently unequal, my friend. It creates a state-sanctioned stigma, declaring that homosexual couples just aren't good enough to use our word. If you need proof, just think about your first reaction to the question above.

I asked about this, no response.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

I asked about this, no response.

Sorry had to sleep. Anyways I'm awake and ready for some action let me first start by saying I have many homosexual friends half of whom have made the very same arguement that I made to you and YES my friends happen to be CONSERVATIVE HOMOSEXUALS. Something that must be very foreign and quite oxymoronical to those of you on the left. However they make the case that the core of the LGBT wishes to do as much as possible to destroy conventional views and family lifestyles (keep in mind those conservatives IN the LGBT get shunned by the largely liberal group). One arguement that I have been presented with by people who are gay themselves is that this opens a very slippery slope. If we let gays marry then what? Polygamy? Beastiality? What about the man who is quite partial to that foot mannequin?? When you open something like marraige up to redefinition you open the flood gates for other objectors outside of the norm.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Sorry had to sleep. Anyways I'm awake and ready for some action let me first start by saying I have many homosexual friends half of whom have made the very same arguement that I made to you and YES my friends happen to be CONSERVATIVE HOMOSEXUALS. Something that must be very foreign and quite oxymoronical to those of you on the left. However they make the case that the core of the LGBT wishes to do as much as possible to destroy conventional views and family lifestyles (keep in mind those conservatives IN the LGBT get shunned by the largely liberal group). One arguement that I have been presented with by people who are gay themselves is that this opens a very slippery slope. If we let gays marry then what? Polygamy? Beastiality? What about the man who is quite partial to that foot mannequin?? When you open something like marraige up to redefinition you open the flood gates for other objectors outside of the norm.

That has nothing to do with what I posted to you, which had actual questions in it. However it is a retread of just about every SSM cliche I've read! LMAO

Because your 'civil unions,' if the "equal" as you claim would prevent none of those things! :lamo

Try more coffee.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Master Liberty, do these ring any bells?

So you propose 'separate but equal?' The decision was that it is not equal.

And why should tax payers pay for the bureaucracy to maintain two systems? I thought Republicans and conservatives wanted smaller govt?

So then all new straight civil ceremonies would also be moved to the new civil unions?

And you are incorrect about reproduction. There are millions of families headed by gay couples. They have bio kids, step-kids, adopted kids, and use in-vitro and surrogacy. Gay couples wish to have families just as much as straight people...being gay doesnt damage your reproductive instincts.

Next question would be tho...would any sterile couples, couples beyond reproductive years, and couples who chose not to have kids also have to have a civil union? It seems "equal.'
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Master Liberty, do these ring any bells?

Ahhh yes thanks ^_^. The two systems would be treated the same only the name would be different which is as simple as adding an extra box to check on forms so that won't cost tax payers anything.

Straight couple may pursue a civil union if they wish to over a conventional marraige although the two are the same thing.

While you have listed many ways for Gays to "procure" kids as I would say not "reproduce". Artificial production of children has opened the door for them to be more family oriented and to have kids that may have 1 of the parent's DNA so yes that does help.

As legal marraige is SOLELY for tax purposes I would suppose that sterile couples, and older couples, as well as couples who do not wish to have kids would be EXCLUDED from having any benefits associated with having children however their union would still be referred to as a marraige as this is still the legal precedent in place today and to change precedent would upset the balance.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Sorry had to sleep. Anyways I'm awake and ready for some action let me first start by saying I have many homosexual friends half of whom have made the very same arguement that I made to you and YES my friends happen to be CONSERVATIVE HOMOSEXUALS. Something that must be very foreign and quite oxymoronical to those of you on the left. However they make the case that the core of the LGBT wishes to do as much as possible to destroy conventional views and family lifestyles (keep in mind those conservatives IN the LGBT get shunned by the largely liberal group). One arguement that I have been presented with by people who are gay themselves is that this opens a very slippery slope. If we let gays marry then what? Polygamy? Beastiality? What about the man who is quite partial to that foot mannequin?? When you open something like marraige up to redefinition you open the flood gates for other objectors outside of the norm.

the fastest way to not be taken seriously on ths equal rights topic is to bring up "beastilaty". Nobody honest and educated will ever take that failed asinine argument seriously.

the fact is with dealing in legality there is no "slippery slope" its all made up just like the factually notequal solution you proposed.

Can you present any arguments that actually are accurate have merit and pertain to equal rights? or a solution that is equal besides simply granting equal rights?
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

the fastest way to not be taken seriously on ths equal rights topic is to bring up "beastilaty". Nobody honest and educated will ever take that failed asinine argument seriously.

the fact is with dealing in legality there is no "slippery slope" its all made up just like the factually notequal solution you proposed.

Can you present any arguments that actually are accurate have merit and pertain to equal rights? or a solution that is equal besides simply granting equal rights?

There is a "slippery slope" LAW IS by its very nature a SERIES of slippery slopes as all past law, and future law is based on PRECEDENT assuming you are a liberal this should be a very foreign idea to you. It is that past laws and present laws effect FUTURE laws in the same way that past decisions by SCOTUS are typically cited in current decisions by SCOTUS. And to single out the word "Bestiality" out of the other examples such as "polygamy" and the whole foot mannequin thing... anyways I find it rather disturbing that you try to discredit my opinion with by saying that no "educated or honest person" could take it seriously. No my good sir just no Progressive LibDems will take me seriously (Not that I care what the LibDems think).

Equal treatment under different names is still equal treatment. If we are going to argue for semantics purposes and semantics solely than it is not an arguement worth having. IF the LGBT wishes to throw my proposal away due to "semantics" then so be it it simply prooves how rigged, furvent, and blind progressive libdems of the LGBT truely are. Hopefully more people in the LGBT will realize that conservatives are simply concerned about the precedent this sets for future lawmakers and future activist groups.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

There is a "slippery slope" LAW IS by its very nature a SERIES of slippery slopes as all past law, and future law is based on PRECEDENT assuming you are a liberal this should be a very foreign idea to you. It is that past laws and present laws effect FUTURE laws in the same way that past decisions by SCOTUS are typically cited in current decisions by SCOTUS. And to single out the word "Bestiality" out of the other examples such as "polygamy" and the whole foot mannequin thing... anyways I find it rather disturbing that you try to discredit my opinion with by saying that no "educated or honest person" could take it seriously. No my good sir just no Progressive LibDems will take me seriously (Not that I care what the LibDems think).

Once you give men and women the right to marry, next thing you'll know people of different economic classes will want to marry. Just remember that the thing about slippery slopes is they start at the top.

Point being is that if a "slippery slope" law is, as you say, a series of slippery slopes of all past law, then all you've managed to successfully argue is that nothing should be legalized and no laws should be made. Much more sensible is to argue the merits of each proposed law.
 
Last edited:
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Once you give men and women the right to marry, next thing you'll know people of different economic classes will want to marry. Just remember that the thing about slippery slopes is they start at the top.

Point being is that if a "slippery slope" law is, as you say, a series of slippery slopes of all past law, then all you've managed to successfully argue is that nothing should be legalized and no laws should be made. Much more sensible is to argue the merits of each proposed law.

Finally someone says something that makes sense diggin your post Card thank you for making that point.

I suppose you are right that some laws DO have merit those laws which are specifically designed to PROTECT the rights of individuals are ones I'd say have the most merits. Laws that restrict the rights of citizenry are laws that are ones to be more vigilant against. I mean I suppose at the end of the day the only thing that really matters is people being happy. Mostly I am concerned about some of my less open and homophobic friends further to the right of myself I worry that something like this could cause more harm than good with enough outrage.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Finally someone says something that makes sense diggin your post Card thank you for making that point.

I suppose you are right that some laws DO have merit those laws which are specifically designed to PROTECT the rights of individuals are ones I'd say have the most merits. Laws that restrict the rights of citizenry are laws that are ones to be more vigilant against. I mean I suppose at the end of the day the only thing that really matters is people being happy. Mostly I am concerned about some of my less open and homophobic friends further to the right of myself I worry that something like this could cause more harm than good with enough outrage.

(bold mine)

I don't. After ssm was passed in Massachusetts, far from the collapse of society or revenge killings or whatever, what resulted was one giant yawn-a-thon. In fact you can even see it happening right here on this forum. Some of DP's most ardent past opponents of ssm are now acting supremely bored by the whole thing and just want to talk about anything else.
 
Last edited:
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Ahhh yes thanks ^_^. The two systems would be treated the same only the name would be different which is as simple as adding an extra box to check on forms so that won't cost tax payers anything.

Straight couple may pursue a civil union if they wish to over a conventional marraige although the two are the same thing.

While you have listed many ways for Gays to "procure" kids as I would say not "reproduce". Artificial production of children has opened the door for them to be more family oriented and to have kids that may have 1 of the parent's DNA so yes that does help.

As legal marraige is SOLELY for tax purposes I would suppose that sterile couples, and older couples, as well as couples who do not wish to have kids would be EXCLUDED from having any benefits associated with having children however their union would still be referred to as a marraige as this is still the legal precedent in place today and to change precedent would upset the balance.

So this isnt a serious proposal, right?

For one thing, you dont seem to realize that gay people reproduce 'naturally' all the time...men sire babies, women have babies. Unless you suggest NOW, that mixed straight families also have to settle for civil unions? You know, where they have adopted kids (none of their DNA!!!!), step-kids (only one's DNA), used artificial means to get pregnant, etc?

And I thought that marriage (it's legal...that's the entire discussion) was a strictly religious convention and to be used only for the religious. You wrote that.

If that's the case, let anyone who wants to marry do so...in their church, in the Eyes of God..and not worry about the legal aspect. Dont need any license. Why do they care? It's about love and babies and God....not tax benefits. Right?

You also demonstrate a vast ignorance of legal paperwork..where all letterhead, departments, titles, signage etc etc etc have to have the correct titles? And there will be a different bureaus overseeing them....otherwise, who will be checking the genders on all the paperwork? LMAO! $$$$$$$$ for the taxpayers.

It's utterly ridiculous to create another designation for no other reason than self-righteous indignation.
 
Back
Top Bottom