• 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!

Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

Papa bull said:
Matrimony only makes sense from a heterosexual perspective. It establishes the union of a man and woman as support for having children. It derives from motherhood, which can only naturally occur through a heterosexual union.
Click to expand...

Which, of course, is a ridiculous criteria because heterosexuals who don't want children or can't have children are not denied the ability to get married. That's total nonsense and you know it.
 
Papa bull said:
Note that the states aren't banning homosexual liaisons. A state's ban on gay marriage is a statement that it is not going to be coerced into normalizing homosexuality and sanctioning homosexual unions and giving tax incentives for people to enter into homosexual unions. The "benefit" is that they don't have to jump through whatever hoops homosexuals want. Unless a state sees a benefit in doing so, it shouldn't be made to do so and this state sees no benefit in sanctioning homosexual unions as "marriage" and
I think my state's decision is a wise one.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Most people in the USA don't agree with you and that means that you lose.
 
Papa bull said:
I just cut to the chase. I know this argument. Try to pretend that denying homosexuals state sanction of their marriage is like denying otherwise normal heterosexual couples from marrying because one of them isn't the "right" race. It's not a racial issue. Forbidding marriage among interracial couples that are in every other way qualified to be married just because they're not both the same race is not constitutional. I don't find the "race" angle to be useful at all for proponents of homosexual marriage.
Click to expand...
If this conversation were taking place in 1965, it would be very much about race. Your sentiments mirror those who were against interracial marriage. Conservatives fought it right up until 1967 when the Supreme Court invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
 
AGENT J said:
if you think i posted a strawman all you have to do is factually prove so, your posts prove you do not support equal rights :shrug:
we will wait for that proof, thanks lol
Click to expand...

The fact that you posted something I didn't say and don't agree with is all the proof necessary that your English to Strawman translator is working just as good as it always does.
 
Papa bull said:
I should have restricted that to the multitude of homosexuals who use slurs like "breeders" when referring to heterosexuals.... and those like my brother that think marriage is a farce that homosexuals are too smart to get involved in.... or at least that was his position before homosexual marriage became the politically correct cause for homosexuals like himself. It is a generalization. But it's not an "overgeneralization" nor is it a prejudice. I know there are exceptions, but most homosexuals I've known (and I've known a LOT of them) always thought marriage was a "hetero" thing until very recent years and I'm very suspicious of the motivation for this sudden embracing of homosexual marriage by a community that previously thought it was the dumbest institution man ever created.
Click to expand...

I am guessing you belong to an older generation. Many older gay activists were sexual liberationists which probably gave rise to your particular perspective of gay rights activists. There is nothing "sudden." Younger gay folks came into a world that was more accepting of homosexuality and they have saught stable unions. Rather than having to fight for the privacy and legitimacy of their sex lives they have been able to fight for their relationships. They generally have different values than the older generation.
 
HenryChinaski said:
If this conversation were taking place in 1965, it would be very much about race. Your sentiments mirror those who were against interracial marriage. Conservatives fought it right up until 1967 when the Supreme Court invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. This isn't 1965. This isn't about race. Homosexuality is not a race.
 
Papa bull said:
I know. That's really the crux of it. It's not about equal rights for people. It's about demanding society consider their relationships to be sanctioned just like heterosexual relationships. I just don't believe the state has to sanction them if the state doesn't want to sanction them. Heterosexual family units make perfect sense. Homosexual "family units" don't. I think it's unrealistic to expect society to consider them both to be the same.
Click to expand...

But sometimes homosexual "family units" do make "perfect sense." If you have a gay brother (as do I), you must know of gay couples with adopted, or even biological, children. It makes perfect sense for the couple to marry and officially take responsibility for the child(ren), be entitled to make decisions on their behalf, for the same reasons straight couples marry. And why wouldn't it make "perfect sense" for a childless gay couple to get married for the same reasons many childless straight couples get married? My mother (a widow) is 76, and I fully expect her to marry her boyfriend (a widower) who is a friend from childhood and also 76. If that makes 'perfect sense' to sanction (and it does!), so does it make perfect sense to sanction a gay couple with no children.
 
CriticalThought said:
I am guessing you belong to an older generation. Many older gay activists were sexual liberationists which probably gave rise to your particular perspective of gay rights activists. There is nothing "sudden." Younger gay folks came into a world that was more accepting of homosexuality and they have saught stable unions. Rather than having to fight for the privacy and legitimacy of their sex lives they have been able to fight for their relationships. They generally have different values than the older generation.
Click to expand...

I'm over 50 and I'm sure that you are right about my age having a bearing on my perspective and opinions. Homosexual marriage was a ridiculous idea clear up until sometime after 2000. Then somehow it seemed like overnight, it became all the rage as the PC crusade du jour.
 
shrubnose said:
Only to the detriment of the far-right evangelicals who would like to get the US government off of Wall Street's back and into every American bedroom.

That's not going to happen. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. :roll:

Wait and see.
Click to expand...

well, I am not quite sure that it is only far right evangelicals that find the idea of gay marriage rather off the wall. Since the beginning of the last century my family has been strongly equal rights for Blacks, gays and other minorities. But I must say that I can hardly see marriage something that fits for gays' equality. As a matter of fact, I believe that if gays are to have it, we should take it out of the government portfolio and privatize it.
 
Papa bull said:
We disagree. The justices of the supreme court disagree with each other on this, too. Homosexuals already have equal rights. No one is barred from marriage because they are homosexual. If you don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex, you don't really want to be married. You want to be in some other sort of a relationship but you don't want MARRIAGE. And it's not a violation of your rights that you can't dictate to the state what sorts of relationships they must sanction as marriage.

So that's that. You have your opinion. I have mine. And it's a pitched battle across the country. I think eventually the homosexuals will win this one but I think it's not because people think that homosexual marriage is a good thing for this country. I think they're just ready to acquiesce and move on to more important issues. I can relate to that. I don't think this is anywhere near the most important issue facing this country, either.
Click to expand...

You can't see the forest through the trees. How many straight couples jump into marriage realizing it wasn't meant to be or just get hitched on a lark? Tons, divorce rates should be a clue. Two people truly love one another(straight or gay) that want to take that next step into marriage do so because they wan't to seal the deal and show their commitment. If it's meant to be, it will be. Gays still have the right to marry if it works out or not. Two male close friends of mine have been a couple since 1978. They always wanted to be married and have that marriage be recognized the same as a straight couple. Last year they were married in New York, and good for them. You're really making a mountain out of a molehill here.
 
JasperL said:
But sometimes homosexual "family units" do make "perfect sense." If you have a gay brother (as do I), you must know of gay couples with adopted, or even biological, children. It makes perfect sense for the couple to marry and officially take responsibility for the child(ren), be entitled to make decisions on their behalf, for the same reasons straight couples marry. And why wouldn't it make "perfect sense" for a childless gay couple to get married for the same reasons many childless straight couples get married? My mother (a widow) is 76, and I fully expect her to marry her boyfriend (a widower) who is a friend from childhood and also 76. If that makes 'perfect sense' to sanction (and it does!), so does it make perfect sense to sanction a gay couple with no children.
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't know of any homosexual couples with adopted children. I know there are some, but I don't know them. I don't see the sense in male/male or female/female relationships being considered "marriage". That's not what marriage is. Not in my state and not in most of the world. And not anywhere until 2001 when Canada hosted the very first homosexual marriages in modern times. For the life of me, I don't know what got into this country to want to be on the cutting edge of liberal social re-engineering in such a way. I always considered this country to be a conservative country but it seems we're actually trying to push ahead of Europe to take the lead in radical social liberalism. I think it's a really bad mistake that we aren't dancing with the babe that brought us to the ball and that babe is social and economic conservatism.
 
Papa bull said:
1.)The fact that you posted something I didn't say and don't agree with is all the proof necessary that your English to Strawman translator is working just as good as it always does.
Click to expand...

1.) you did say it
2.) denying that you agree with it doesnt change the facts

would you like proof?

answer these simply questions

should SSM be equal to OSM? yes or no?
do you want SSM to be equal to OSM? yes or no?
is marriage a right? yes or no?
do gays currently have equal rights in all the states? yes or no?

I bet you dodge the questions or deflect

so once again all you have to do is simply post ONE fact that shows I posted a straw man, and dont forget the questions :D
 
HenryChinaski said:
You can't see the forest through the trees. How many straight couples jump into marriage realizing it wasn't meant to be or just get hitched on a lark? Tons, divorce rates should be a clue. Two people truly love one another(straight or gay) that want to take that next step into marriage do so because they wan't to seal the deal and show their commitment. If it's meant to be, it will be. Gays still have the right to marry if it works out or not. Two male close friends of mine have been a couple since 1978. They always wanted to be married and have that marriage be recognized the same as a straight couple. Last year they were married in New York, and good for them. You're really making a mountain out of a molehill here.
Click to expand...

I'll go along with the last statement. I think we're all making mountains out of molehills here. I don't think homosexual marriage is really a huge issue for this country despite how much attention it's gotten. While I'm solid in my opinion, the weight of the issue isn't one of great importance. That's probably one of the reasons why the Supreme Court isn't stepping in to legislate from the bench. They don't see this as anything but a molehill doing a mountain impersonation, either.
 
Papa bull said:
Actually, I don't know of any homosexual couples with adopted children. I know there are some, but I don't know them. I don't see the sense in male/male or female/female relationships being considered "marriage". That's not what marriage is. Not in my state and not in most of the world. And not anywhere until 2001 when Canada hosted the very first homosexual marriages in modern times. For the life of me, I don't know what got into this country to want to be on the cutting edge of liberal social re-engineering in such a way. I always considered this country to be a conservative country but it seems we're actually trying to push ahead of Europe to take the lead in radical social liberalism. I think it's a really bad mistake that we aren't dancing with the babe that brought us to the ball and that babe is social and economic conservatism.
Click to expand...
It was conservatives that fought against child labor laws, Women's suffrage, slavery, interracial marriage and civil rights. They were on the wrong side of history then and they are on the wrong side of history tpday with SSM.
 
Last edited:
joG said:
well, I am not quite sure that it is only far right evangelicals that find the idea of gay marriage rather off the wall. Since the beginning of the last century my family has been strongly equal rights for Blacks, gays and other minorities. But I must say that I can hardly see marriage something that fits for gays' equality. As a matter of fact, I believe that if gays are to have it, we should take it out of the government portfolio and privatize it.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. Reminds me of the childhood saying, "Cutting off your nose off to spite your face...."

Whether government should recognize straight marriages has literally NOTHING to do with gay marriage.
 
joG said:
well, I am not quite sure that it is only far right evangelicals that find the idea of gay marriage rather off the wall. Since the beginning of the last century my family has been strongly equal rights for Blacks, gays and other minorities. But I must say that I can hardly see marriage something that fits for gays' equality. As a matter of fact, I believe that if gays are to have it, we should take it out of the government portfolio and privatize it.
Click to expand...

I agree. You don't have to be religious for the idea of homosexual marriage to be an oxymoron.
 
Papa bull said:
I'll go along with the last statement. I think we're all making mountains out of molehills here. I don't think homosexual marriage is really a huge issue for this country despite how much attention it's gotten. While I'm solid in my opinion, the weight of the issue isn't one of great importance. That's probably one of the reasons why the Supreme Court isn't stepping in to legislate from the bench. They don't see this as anything but a molehill doing a mountain impersonation, either.
Click to expand...
I've been married three times. My gay friends have been a mutually exclusive couple three times longer than my combined marriages. If two dudes want to marry, then who cares let them.
 
Papa bull said:
Actually, I don't know of any homosexual couples with adopted children. I know there are some, but I don't know them. I don't see the sense in male/male or female/female relationships being considered "marriage". That's not what marriage is. Not in my state and not in most of the world. And not anywhere until 2001 when Canada hosted the very first homosexual marriages in modern times. For the life of me, I don't know what got into this country to want to be on the cutting edge of liberal social re-engineering in such a way. I always considered this country to be a conservative country but it seems we're actually trying to push ahead of Europe to take the lead in radical social liberalism. I think it's a really bad mistake that we aren't dancing with the babe that brought us to the ball and that babe is social and economic conservatism.
Click to expand...

That's surprising - I know many gay couples with children - but it's a moot point, really. As you say, they exist, and according to recent estimates, at least 100,000 gay couples are raising children. So why doesn't it make "perfect sense" for them to marry same as straight couples with children?

And why doesn't it make as much "perfect sense" for a gay couple to marry as my 76 year old mother and her 76 year old boyfriend? You say, "I don't see the sense" but that's not a reason. I don't see the "sense" in Rush Limbaugh's 4th marriage at age 59, but no one asked me about it and my views on it are irrelevant to the law and to Rush's decision to marry, again. For me to object to his 4th marriage being legally recognized by the state, I need a better reason than my personal views on whether I personally think it makes "sense."
 
HenryChinaski said:
It was conservatives that fought against child labor laws, Women's suffrage, slavery, interracial marriage and civil rights. They were on the wrong side of history then and they are on the wrong side of history with SSM.
Click to expand...

Conservatives have kept liberals from running this country straight off a cliff. All political systems need conservatives as the force for preserving the status quo and liberals as the voice for change. Because of the tension between the two and the heated and pitched battles over the issues, we are able to navigate the treacherous waters of change with reasonable caution. We conservatives need you liberals to fight for change as much as you liberals need us conservatives to make you prove the change will be beneficial or at least not detrimental. It's not that conservatives have been on "the wrong side of history". It's that you only count the battles liberals have won. Liberals are on the wrong side of many issues like advancing socialism and deleting the 2nd amendment. But we still need to hear your arguments as much as you need to hear ours.
 
Papa bull said:
Conservatives have kept liberals from running this country straight off a cliff. All political systems need conservatives as the force for preserving the status quo and liberals as the voice for change. Because of the tension between the two and the heated and pitched battles over the issues, we are able to navigate the treacherous waters of change with reasonable caution. We conservatives need you liberals to fight for change as much as you liberals need us conservatives to make you prove the change will be beneficial or at least not detrimental. It's not that conservatives have been on "the wrong side of history". It's that you only count the battles liberals have won. Liberals are on the wrong side of many issues like advancing socialism and deleting the 2nd amendment. But we still need to hear your arguments as much as you need to hear ours.
Click to expand...
You don't disagree with my points. Thank's for confirming while trying to flip it.
 
Papa bull said:
Actually, I don't know of any homosexual couples with adopted children. I know there are some, but I don't know them. I don't see the sense in male/male or female/female relationships being considered "marriage". That's not what marriage is. Not in my state and not in most of the world. And not anywhere until 2001 when Canada hosted the very first homosexual marriages in modern times. For the life of me, I don't know what got into this country to want to be on the cutting edge of liberal social re-engineering in such a way. I always considered this country to be a conservative country but it seems we're actually trying to push ahead of Europe to take the lead in radical social liberalism. I think it's a really bad mistake that we aren't dancing with the babe that brought us to the ball and that babe is social and economic conservatism.
Click to expand...

To the contrary same-sex marriage is extremely conservative. As one conservative commentator has said, "Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it."
 
HenryChinaski said:
You don't disagree with my points. Thank's for confirming while trying to flip it.
Click to expand...

And thank you for not paying any attention to what I was really saying. Arguing that "conservatives were wrong about XYZ" isn't a logical argument that they must also be wrong about "ABC", too. I think it is also a little sleazy to try to pin racism on conservatives but that's another pissing contest completely. But hey... since it's a pissing contest you seem to really want, why don't you try starting a thread about that.
 
CriticalThought said:
To the contrary same-sex marriage is extremely conservative. As one conservative commentator has said, "Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it."
Click to expand...

I disagree. There's nothing conservative about redefining marriage from one man and one woman to "any two people that want to play husband and wife regardless of their actual sex".
 
Papa bull said:
I disagree. There's nothing conservative about redefining marriage from one man and one woman to "any two people that want to play husband and wife regardless of their actual sex".
Click to expand...

You are entitled to your personal opinion but you do not have a monopoly on defining conservative values. You are also under no obligation to respect same-sex relationships but as a man who has been in a relationship with his partner for 4 years, I can tell you that I do not practice a "husband and wife" relationship. I have a family with my partner.
 
CriticalThought said:
You are entitled to your personal opinion but you do not have a monopoly on defining conservative values. You are also under no obligation to respect same-sex relationships but as a man who has been in a relationship with his partner for 4 years, I can tell you that I do not practice a "husband and wife" relationship. I have a family with my partner.
Click to expand...

And I respect your right to your own opinion even though you don't have a monopoly on defining conservative values, either. My respect for homosexual relationships isn't the issue and your relationship is your business. Only when people want the state to sanction their relationship does that become their business - not the relationship; just the sanction. And with homosexual marriage being a novel concept only realized for the first time in modern history since 2001, I think it's more than a little unreasonable for anyone to think that failure to embrace it must be purely because of bigotry or a desire to oppress anyone. It's a social experiment so novel that it will take some time for everyone to get used to it. Where it takes us is anyone's guess. Will the whole world end up promoting homosexual marriages? Will it be a mistake that we rescind? Will it be something that turns out to be so insignificant that we'll all wonder what the fuss was about? No one knows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom