• 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!

Arkansas, Mississippi overturn gay marriage bans

Dayton3 said:
The ONLY purpose of the 14th amendment was to ensure that black Americans would have the same rights across the former Confederate states as they had in the rest of the nation.

Which was why the 14th was passed in conjunction with the 13th & 15th amendments.
Click to expand...

And yet the Courts have consistently ruled differently and applied the 14th to many situations, something most people agree with.
 
Hangin' Chad said:
How is telling a man who wants to have ten wives not 'discrimination'? Are you saying that SSM doesn't have 'legal complications such as divorce and custody"?
Click to expand...

Number of spouses is different than sex of spouses. Divorce and child custody for same sex couples are not additional complications faced solely by same sex couples. Having multiple spouses involves complications not faced by any two couple marriages, no matter their relative races, sexes, religions, other type classifications.
 
Dayton3 said:
So.

It has been incorrectly used in 1,000s of cases.
Click to expand...

Since the people of the US haven't said this, especially in any majority, I would say that the rest of the US disagrees, so any effort to try to change or repeal the 14th would fall flat on its face, going to show that the Constitution is supposed to be about restricting the government, not the people.
 
Dayton3 said:
Gods timeline isn't ours.

He waited 40 years before punishing Israel for their mistreatment of a neighboring nation (and a king later). See Chronicles regarding this.
Click to expand...

Funny how y'all want to believe God would smite us for this but not for so many other things, or other countries for that matter, which break many actual commandments including holding other gods above him. "Gods wrath" is an excuse used to scare people into believing a certain way and works mainly with those too ignorant to recognize the crock that such claims are.
 
roguenuke said:
Considering most of those fighting for same sex couples to get married are heterosexuals, this is an ignorant statement. Plus we aren't talking about matrimony here, which is part of personal marriages, but recognition of a relationship, legal kinship, which is absolutely legally the same as when it involves two people of the opposite sex because spouses are not treated by the law differently in their relation to their gender.
Click to expand...

All of that can as easily but much more efficiently be handled by civil contract. All we need do is put marriage, where it should be in modern society, namely, in the private sector.
 
joG said:
All of that can as easily but much more efficiently be handled by civil contract. All we need do is put marriage, where it should be in modern society, namely, in the private sector.
Click to expand...

this is just pure dishonesty or ignorance of the subject.

1 being many contracts are also banned if they are same sex
2 civil contracts when it comes to things as property, kids, kinship etc are not legal binding as precedence already prove
3 and there is no other contract that is as sound and inclusive as a marriage contract and somethings can be achieved any other way
 
roguenuke said:
Kids are not nor have they ever been in the US a legal requirement of marriage, and the ability to procreate is more likely to prevent at least some opposite sex couples from getting legally married than the inability to procreate.
Click to expand...

No, they were not formally a legal requirement. That does not mean, however, that that is not the way social instruments work. Marriage was a very good solution for reproduction in times gone by. That it was poorly constructed and not well understood does not mean that it did not have the function. Only that that is the sloppy way of progress. Now it no longer fulfills its function to the absurd point of sterile matrimony, which gay sex implies, it seems silly to have it. And it seems ridiculously childish to want the candy anyway.

PS: BTW, I revisited the report you mentioned on the costs of gay marriage to society. You do know that it seems to imply that a substantial number of gays act irrationally and marry in spite of the fact that they will lose considerable income. This may or may not occur, but my experience with gay men has been that they tend not to be irrational, which the report to some extent implies.
 
AGENT J said:
this is just pure dishonesty or ignorance of the subject.

1 being many contracts are also banned if they are same sex
2 civil contracts when it comes to things as property, kids, kinship etc are not legal binding as precedence already prove
3 and there is no other contract that is as sound and inclusive as a marriage contract and somethings can be achieved any other way
Click to expand...

I am truly sorry. I must have been unclear. I did not say, we live in an ideal world and nothing should be changed. Quite the contrary. It is just that gay matrimony is wrongheaded and the wrong direction. We should not be widening the state's mandate but getting it out of the marrying business altogether. Get its nose out of private citizens' affairs and free up.
 
joG said:
All of that can as easily but much more efficiently be handled by civil contract. All we need do is put marriage, where it should be in modern society, namely, in the private sector.
Click to expand...

If it can be much more efficiently handled by civil contract, why haven't you started that business yet?
 
joG said:
1.)I am truly sorry. I must have been unclear. I did not say, we live in an ideal world and nothing should be changed. Quite the contrary.
2.) It is just that gay matrimony is wrongheaded and the wrong direction.
3.) We should not be widening the state's mandate but getting it out of the marrying business altogether.
4.) Get its nose out of private citizens' affairs and free up.
Click to expand...

1.) nor did i make that claim i simply pointed out the fact your statement about efficient and civil contract was was wrong
2.) equal rights is never the wrong direction
3.) government will always be involved in marriage they are needed to protect the contract
4.) thats exactly what equal rights is doing, you seemed very confused on this issue
 
joG said:
No, they were not formally a legal requirement. That does not mean, however, that that is not the way social instruments work. Marriage was a very good solution for reproduction in times gone by. That it was poorly constructed and not well understood does not mean that it did not have the function. Only that that is the sloppy way of progress. Now it no longer fulfills its function to the absurd point of sterile matrimony, which gay sex implies, it seems silly to have it. And it seems ridiculously childish to want the candy anyway.

PS: BTW, I revisited the report you mentioned on the costs of gay marriage to society. You do know that it seems to imply that a substantial number of gays act irrationally and marry in spite of the fact that they will lose considerable income. This may or may not occur, but my experience with gay men has been that they tend not to be irrational, which the report to some extent implies.
Click to expand...

Are heterosexuals also irrational for getting married?
 
Deuce said:
If it can be much more efficiently handled by civil contract, why haven't you started that business yet?
Click to expand...

There is a rather lucrative business in marriage contracts. But to cream off the subsidies you need the government stamp. We should just get rid of the government intervention and misplaced subsidies. Subsidize behavior that furthers society and not just signature on a document.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) nor did i make that claim i simply pointed out the fact your statement about efficient and civil contract was was wrong
2.) equal rights is never the wrong direction
3.) government will always be involved in marriage they are needed to protect the contract
4.) thats exactly what equal rights is doing, you seemed very confused on this issue
Click to expand...

Oh! I am even more sorry. I didn't realize you adhered to the belief that treating two quite different situations the same amounted to applied equal rights. That is rather sad, you know. You do realize that girls and boys differ and that the results of intercourse are different?
 
joG said:
There is a rather lucrative business in marriage contracts. But to cream off the subsidies you need the government stamp. We should just get rid of the government intervention and misplaced subsidies. Subsidize behavior that furthers society and not just signature on a document.
Click to expand...

Ahh, so the government product is better.
 
In their heart of hearts I suspect most opponents of SSM realize that they lost the culture war and that this fight (and so many other fights) are either over or clearly heading that way. Its typical for the defeated to become angrier as their defeat becomes more apparent. One day it will simply disappear and be reclassified as a sort of bigotry in most of the country.
 
joG said:
All of that can as easily but much more efficiently be handled by civil contract. All we need do is put marriage, where it should be in modern society, namely, in the private sector.
Click to expand...

No it can't. No civil contract or even combination gives all the things recognition of legal spouse does. Marriage is exactly where it should be. It simply needs to be allowed for same sex couples.
 
joG said:
1.)Oh! I am even more sorry. I didn't realize you adhered to the belief that treating two quite different situations the same amounted to applied equal rights. That is rather sad, you know.
2.) You do realize that girls and boys differ and that the results of intercourse are different?
Click to expand...

1.) no need to apologize for your mistakes and ignorance of reality, law, rights and facts
2.) thank you again, by asking this questions you just proved how extremely ignorant you are of the subject of rights, law, and legal marriage.
intercourse has nothing to do withe legal marriage LOL

glad I could help educate you, let us know if theres anything else you need to know
 
joG said:
Oh! I am even more sorry. I didn't realize you adhered to the belief that treating two quite different situations the same amounted to applied equal rights. That is rather sad, you know. You do realize that girls and boys differ and that the results of intercourse are different?
Click to expand...

Actually no the results of the vast majority of all intercourse is the same for opposite sex and same sex couples. Very few times does opposite sex intercourse lead to babies.
 
roguenuke said:
No it can't. No civil contract or even combination gives all the things recognition of legal spouse does. Marriage is exactly where it should be. It simply needs to be allowed for same sex couples.
Click to expand...

- I thought that I had said further up, that there was no good reason to have Matrimony a state run show, as we have pretty much eliminated its characteristics as a public good. The state should only be doing public goods and not private ones. So get it out of the marriage business with all the complicated and messy laws, transfers and regulation. If people want to live together fine. But without the government interfering in any way.

- And that not withstanding, why should two unequal things be treated as equals? I understand a swindler wanting it thus, but as I understand you, you are not trying to cheat anyone and seem capable of rational thought. So where is the sense?
 
roguenuke said:
Actually no the results of the vast majority of all intercourse is the same for opposite sex and same sex couples. Very few times does opposite sex intercourse lead to babies.
Click to expand...

Maybe you would like to look into how probability works, what it means and then the probabilities of reproduction and all that. There lies the reason that matrimony was such a successful social tool to assure reproduction.
 
joG said:
- I thought that I had said further up, that there was no good reason to have Matrimony a state run show, as we have pretty much eliminated its characteristics as a public good. The state should only be doing public goods and not private ones. So get it out of the marriage business with all the complicated and messy laws, transfers and regulation. If people want to live together fine. But without the government interfering in any way.

- And that not withstanding, why should two unequal things be treated as equals? I understand a swindler wanting it thus, but as I understand you, you are not trying to cheat anyone and seem capable of rational thought. So where is the sense?
Click to expand...

Recognition of next of kin is a public affair. Many laws connected to it which is why government also handles birth certificates.
 
joG said:
Maybe you would like to look into how probability works, what it means and then the probabilities of reproduction and all that. There lies the reason that matrimony was such a successful social tool to assure reproduction.
Click to expand...

I know what means. And only in your subjective opinion is the reason for marriage (which is what we are discussing) for reproduction. Legally that is simply not true.
 
joG said:
- I thought that I had said further up, that there was no good reason to have Matrimony a state run show, as we have pretty much eliminated its characteristics as a public good. The state should only be doing public goods and not private ones. So get it out of the marriage business with all the complicated and messy laws, transfers and regulation. If people want to live together fine. But without the government interfering in any way.

- And that not withstanding, why should two unequal things be treated as equals? I understand a swindler wanting it thus, but as I understand you, you are not trying to cheat anyone and seem capable of rational thought. So where is the sense?
Click to expand...

Their relationships are not unequal legally. Legal marriage, no matter how much you wish to bitch and moan about it, is not about making babies, it is about the relationship of the two involved.
 
joG said:
Maybe you would like to look into how probability works, what it means and then the probabilities of reproduction and all that. There lies the reason that matrimony was such a successful social tool to assure reproduction.
Click to expand...

Oh and probability of something wasn't your argument. You claimed heterosexual intercourse resulted in babies, and that is why they get married. It fails since the vast majority of the time, over 99.9%, opposite sex couples have sex that does not result in babies. Around 15% of opposite sex! married couples don't have children due to their having sex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom