• 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!

Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

Lursa said:
Socially acceptable for whom? Many in our society support it and the trend is more and more all the time. There is no evidence that SSM is performed any differently nor has any additional negative (or positive) consequences than traditional marriage.

While I'd prefer that the govt was not involved in marriage at all, it is and as such, IMO and legally, it should do so without discrimination. I dont think there's any indication that the govt plans to 'get out of' marriage so I dont see it as a fight worth investing in.
Click to expand...

My "socially unacceptable" comment was not directed at ssm only. I think you missed the point of my post. The point is that there are arbitrary limits to what is acceptable as marriage. It is no more discriminatory to exclude gay marriage than it is to exclude polygamy, or any other arrangement that people could consent to. Therefore allowing SSM does NOTHING to remedy discrimination, it only moves the line between acceptable and unacceptable.
 
johndylan1 said:
My "socially unacceptable" comment was not directed at ssm only. I think you missed the point of my post. The point is that there are arbitrary limits to what is acceptable as marriage. It is no more discriminatory to exclude gay marriage than it is to exclude polygamy, or any other arrangement that people could consent to. Therefore allowing SSM does NOTHING to remedy discrimination, it only moves the line between acceptable and unacceptable.
Click to expand...

This is only true if you think all classifications of discrimination are equal. Discriminating on the basis of race is not the same as discriminating on the basis of shoe size. The world is not black and white, deciding that discrimination is always ok or always not ok is silly.
 
Deuce said:
Name one specific, tangible impact on your life.

I'm keeping count of how many times I ask that question and get a bull**** non-answer.
Click to expand...

I'm not morbidly self-centered. As such I don't restrict my concern to matters which directly affect me.
 
Paleocon said:
I'm not morbidly self-centered. As such I don't restrict my concern to matters which directly affect me.
Click to expand...

Name a single, tangible impact on my life. Or Bill down the street. Or any person.

Because you haven't named an impact. And Bill hasn't named an impact. And the people hired to argue the Prop 8 defense before the Supreme Court were unable to name an impact. Until one of you people steps up and gives a reason, the courts have no choice but to overturn your authoritarian restriction on individual liberty.
 
Deuce said:
Name a single, tangible impact on my life. Or Bill down the street. Or any person.

Because you haven't named an impact. And Bill hasn't named an impact. And the people hired to argue the Prop 8 defense before the Supreme Court were unable to name an impact. Until one of you people steps up and gives a reason, the courts have no choice but to overturn your authoritarian restriction on individual liberty.
Click to expand...

Encouraging people in grave immorality is harmful to them, as such impedes their fulfillment of their telos.
 
Deuce said:
This is only true if you think all classifications of discrimination are equal. Discriminating on the basis of race is not the same as discriminating on the basis of shoe size. The world is not black and white, deciding that discrimination is always ok or always not ok is silly.
Click to expand...

Only people marry. So what class of people do you wish to exclude without those people feeling discriminated against?
 
Paleocon said:
Encouraging people in grave immorality is harmful to them, as such impedes their fulfillment of their telos.
Click to expand...

You really fell in love with your new buzzword. :lamo

Makes you sound like some sort of new age hippie type. Don't go against your telos, brah.

Nothing you mentioned is specific or tangible, so another one in the "non-answer" column.
 
johndylan1 said:
Only people marry. So what class of people do you wish to exclude without those people feeling discriminated against?
Click to expand...

I am comfortable with discrimination on the basis of age. Children are emotionally and intellectually unable to properly assess a life-changing legal contract like marriage and therefore should be barred from it. I'm sorry if this offends you.

Why do you want to discriminate against people who wish to marry animals?
 
roguenuke said:
The church does not own marriage. They didn't invent it, despite some beliefs, nor do they hold any kind of copyright on it. It belongs to all of us, not just those who are religious. Marriage is what we call all unions of this certain type, not just those that are religious in nature. Heck, they started out as a private, social arrangement, no religious involvement at all. Even the Christian church didn't involve themselves in marriage in a mandatory manner until around the 10th Century, and then it was only to mandate that people needed to post announcements for their marriages in a town announcement, so that there was some sort of record of the marriage.
Click to expand...

Does it (the term marriage) belong to polygamists? Does it belong to straight males who want to marry one another for monetary benefit? Does it really belong to everyone for any reason?
 
Deuce said:
I am comfortable with discrimination on the basis of age. Children are emotionally and intellectually unable to properly assess a life-changing legal contract like marriage and therefore should be barred from it. I'm sorry if this offends you.

Why do you want to discriminate against people who wish to marry animals?
Click to expand...

Poor example. children cannot legally consent therefore there is no basis to charge discrimination. try again.
 
Deuce said:
You really fell in love with your new buzzword. :lamo

Makes you sound like some sort of new age hippie type. Don't go against your telos, brah.

Nothing you mentioned is specific or tangible, so another one in the "non-answer" column.
Click to expand...

Do you know what the word means?

Thomists are not hippies.

It was quite specific.
 
johndylan1 said:
Does it (the term marriage) belong to polygamists? Does it belong to straight males who want to marry one another for monetary benefit? Does it really belong to everyone for any reason?
Click to expand...

No, there isn't a specific group that is barred from using it or required to use it. But this isn't an argument of personal semantics, it's an argument about on what basis the government of the United States is allowed to discriminate. If a marriage contract were called a Beer Can Contract instead, it wouldn't matter. They still wouldn't be able to bar a man from entering into the contract with a man without an important state interest being indicated.
 
Paleocon said:
Do you know what the word means?

Thomists are not hippies.

It was quite specific.
Click to expand...

It sounds like a hippie word, and no. It wasn't specific. You said it was harmful to them, but gave no indication as to how.
 
Deuce said:
No, there isn't a specific group that is barred from using it or required to use it. But this isn't an argument of personal semantics, it's an argument about on what basis the government of the United States is allowed to discriminate. If a marriage contract were called a Beer Can Contract instead, it wouldn't matter. They still wouldn't be able to bar a man from entering into the contract with a man without an important state interest being indicated.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should have clicked back to get the context for what I wrote here, because you are totally out in left field. I have no idea how what you wrote applies to anything I wrote.
 
johndylan1 said:
Poor example. children cannot legally consent therefore there is no basis to charge discrimination. try again.
Click to expand...

Only because you discriminate against their right to consent. Sorry dude, you're doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. 18 is an arbitrary age for consent. Why not 17? Or 19? What magic change happened to me on my 18th birthday that made me capable of consenting to a lifetime legal contract that I couldn't do the day before?
 
johndylan1 said:
Maybe you should have clicked back to get the context for what I wrote here, because you are totally out in left field. I have no idea how what you wrote applies to anything I wrote.
Click to expand...

The point is that the word doesn't belong to any particular group.
 
Deuce said:
It sounds like a hippie word, and no. It wasn't specific. You said it was harmful to them, but gave no indication as to how.
Click to expand...

Google is your friend.

It makes their being unfulfilled.
 
Paleocon said:
Google is your friend.

It makes their being unfulfilled.
Click to expand...

Still nowhere near tangible or specific. Something I can measure, man.
 
Deuce said:
Only because you discriminate against their right to consent. Sorry dude, you're doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. 18 is an arbitrary age for consent. Why not 17? Or 19?
Click to expand...

two words: Societal norms. You are making my point. Arbitrary lines for socially acceptable behavior exist everywhere including in law. The push for SSM is not a push to remedy discrimination, it is a push to change social norms. If it were about discrimination all non traditional ideas of marriage would be in play, not just ssm.
 
johndylan1 said:
two words: Societal norms. You are making my point. Arbitrary lines for socially acceptable behavior exist everywhere including in law. The push for SSM is not a push to remedy discrimination, it is a push to change social norms. If it were about discrimination all non traditional ideas of marriage would be in play, not just ssm.
Click to expand...

Again, only if you see all forms of discrimination as being equal.

There is a clear precedent for discrimination on the basis of gender, and that's what's happening here. People are objecting to a specific form of discrimination. Yes, social acceptability plays an impact, because people are people.
 
Deuce said:
The point is that the word doesn't belong to any particular group.
Click to expand...

Why not? Why is it wrong to recognize the traditional role that the church plays in marriage? The vast majority of Americans believe marriage to be a church / God ordained activity.
 
Deuce said:
Still nowhere near tangible or specific. Something I can measure, man.
Click to expand...

Is it your position that only those statements of fact which can be empirically measured or tested, are true?
 
johndylan1 said:
Why not? Why is it wrong to recognize the traditional role that the church plays in marriage? The vast majority of Americans believe marriage to be a church / God ordained activity.
Click to expand...

Because the government doesn't have the authority to define marriage as between a man and a woman without indicating that doing so is "substantially related" to an "important state interest," else the measure in question is unconstitutional. The same would hold true for a business contract or a prenuptial agreement or a will.
 
Paleocon said:
Is it your position that only those statements of fact which can be empirically measured or tested, are true?
Click to expand...

It is my position that the Supreme Court of the United States of America cannot base its ruling on the repercussions it might have on someone's afterlife. Outside their jurisdiction, you see.

So yes, you need something in the mortal realm that I can actually assess.
 
Deuce said:
Again, only if you see all forms of discrimination as being equal.

There is a clear precedent for discrimination on the basis of gender, and that's what's happening here. People are objecting to a specific form of discrimination. Yes, social acceptability plays an impact, because people are people.
Click to expand...

Yes people are objecting to a specific form of discrimination, and in so doing are calling into question the character of those who oppose their point of view. Using terms like "bigot" to impugn the character of advocates of traditional marriage. Meanwhile, others are undergoing discrimination without anyone giving it a second thought. Why? Because as you said all discrimination is not equal. How do we decide? Social norms. Therefore the traditionalist is no more bigoted than the social liberal that does not believe that polygamy should be allowed. The courts are not ruling on the discriminatory nature of excluding consenting parties from marrying. The courts are actively working to adjust social norms for the benefit of a certain class of individuals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom