• 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!

Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

Both sexes have the same restrictions. Both sexes have the same allowances. Equality between the sexes already exists.

The truth is SSM isn't about the sexes, it's about sexual orientation, and there is not equality between the sexual orientations. Heteros can marry whom they are naturally attracted too but gays cannot. That's inequality, that's where the 14th Amendment comes in. Why can't pro-SSM just be honest about that for a change?

Because that is only part of it. Anyone can legally marry someone they are not attracted to for various reasons, so long as they are of the opposite sex. Attraction is not a requirement of marriage. It is just as valid to show that the bans discriminate based on sex as it is to say they discriminate against mainly those who are not heterosexual.
 
Because that is only part of it.
If you have to lie about any part of your cause, then your whole cause is bull****.

Anyone can legally marry someone they are not attracted to for various reasons, so long as they are of the opposite sex.
You should know that's not true. That's a bad claim, and you should feel bad.

Attraction is not a requirement of marriage.
No one said it was.

It is just as valid to show that the bans discriminate based on sex as it is to say they discriminate against mainly those who are not heterosexual.
It's not valid at all. The sexes already enjoy equality. It's the orientations which don't.
 
If you have to lie about any part of your cause, then your whole cause is bull****.


You should know that's not true. That's a bad claim, and you should feel bad.


No one said it was.


It's not valid at all. The sexes already enjoy equality. It's the orientations which don't.

You are either ignorant or in denial if you believe people don't legally marry for reasons other than attraction. Never has anyone ever been punished in the US for getting married just to have a father or mother for their child. Never has anyone ever been legally punished for agreeing to enter into an arranged marriage due to their sense of tradition and/or cultural beliefs. Neither require attraction to happen. Plus there is no way to accurately measure attractiveness. Knowing information about a person does not prove you are attracted to them.

I'm not lying at all. The sexes are treated differently under same sex marriage bans. Unequal treatment by the law.
 
It has not been decided that not changing the definition of marriage violates the equal protection clause.

No, the SCOTUS hasn't decided this yet. But other courts have.
 
Both sexes have the same restrictions. Both sexes have the same allowances. Equality between the sexes already exists.

The truth is SSM isn't about the sexes, it's about sexual orientation, and there is not equality between the sexual orientations. Heteros can marry whom they are naturally attracted too but gays cannot. That's inequality, that's where the 14th Amendment comes in. Why can't pro-SSM just be honest about that for a change?

That argument was tried in the Loving case. The law was equal since all races were treated the same, no one could marry someone of the other race.

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.
History News Network | Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation
 
You are either ignorant or in denial if you believe people don't legally marry for reasons other than attraction.
I've never denied such people exist, but they are statistically insignificant. The pro-SSM movement is filled with gay people who are in love. Take your strawman elsewhere.

I'm not lying at all.
You just said:
Why can't pro-SSM just be honest about that for a change?
Because that is only part of it.
You just said that pro-ssm has to lie about equality among the sexes because equality among the sexes is only part of the total argument. You defended pro-ssm lying. There's no point in saying you don't lie when you just defended lying.

The sexes are treated differently under same sex marriage bans. Unequal treatment by the law.
The sexes are treated the same. The orientations are not.
 
And it didn't work then, why would it work now?
Did I say it would? Don't start applying logic and reason to the law, you're head will explode.

The sexes are being treated equally, and that being a fact doesn't mean the Court will pay it any attention. The Court will base it's decision on politics, as it always does, and politics are based on who can make the most noise and load the biggest diaper (that's why we have texting-while-driving bans instead of a general distracted-driving ban).
 
Last edited:
Did I say it would? Don't start applying logic and reason to the law, you're head will explode.

The sexes are being treated equally, and that being a fact doesn't mean the Court will pay it any attention. The Court will base it's decision on politics, as it always does, and politics are based on who can make the most noise and load the biggest diaper (that's why we have texting-while-driving bans instead of a general distracted-driving ban).

But the sexes are not being treated equally since a man can do something I can not, marry a woman. That is treating the sexes differently.
 
But the sexes are not being treated equally since a man can do something I can not, marry a woman. That is treating the sexes differently.
Both can marry the opposite sex, neither can marry the same sex. That's equality.

All unmarried people can marry unmarried people, but not married people, and married people can marry neither unmarried nor married people. That's exactly like saying men can marry men but men cannot marry women, and women cannot marry women, either. That's inequality, and marital status is a federally protected class, too, while sexual orientation is not. So let's stop pretending the law is based on a common system of rational thought.


So hey, great, let's expand marriage to include same-sex couples, no problem, but's just not an equality issue, nor does it have to be.
 
Last edited:
Both can marry the opposite sex, neither can marry the same sex. That's equality.

All unmarried people can marry unmarried people, but not married people, and married people can marry neither unmarried nor married people. That's exactly like saying men can marry men but men cannot marry women, and women cannot marry women, either. That's inequality, and marital status is a federally protected class, too, while sexual orientation is not. So let's stop pretending the law is based on a common system of rational thought.

SEX is a federally protected class, and using the same tired argument that was used to keep the interracial laws and failed won't work.
 
SEX is a federally protected class, and using the same tired argument that was used to keep the interracial laws and failed won't work.
I'm still editing that last post. Calm yourself.
 
SEX is a federally protected class...
So is marital status but polygamy remains banned. So is familial relation yet incest remains banned even-though people with other inheritable genetic disorders can marry and have defective children. Again, stop trying to apply logic to the law, the two are incomparable.
 
I've never denied such people exist, but they are statistically insignificant. The pro-SSM movement is filled with gay people who are in love. Take your strawman elsewhere.


You just said:

You just said that pro-ssm has to lie about equality among the sexes because equality among the sexes is only part of the total argument. You defended pro-ssm lying. There's no point in saying you don't lie when you just defended lying.


The sexes are treated the same. The orientations are not.

Why are you being dishonest about what I obviously was replying to? It isn't that hard to figure out that what you quoted from me had to do with other comments you made, since I do not break up my arguments. No lying is being done here.

And it doesn't matter how few people marry for other reasons, it still occurs and doesn't change my argument. Sex/gender is still being used to discriminate against people.

The sexes are not treated the same. Each sex cannot do something the other can do. It doesn't matter that each are prevented from doing something similar connected to their sex/gender, just as it didn't matter that a white man couldn't marry a black woman but neither could a black man marry a white woman.
 
So is marital status but polygamy remains banned. So is familial relation yet incest remains banned even-though people with other inheritable genetic disorders can marry and have defective children. Again, stop trying to apply logic to the law, the two are incomparable.

Laws limiting number of legal spouses would be at the lowest level of scrutiny and do apply to all people equally, regardless of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation. Even if you use the argument of marital status, that would still ignore the arguments for those restrictions to be in place. Those are significant to this argument. It is not just unequal treatment that causes a violation. The unequal treatment can't be shown to further some legitimate at least state interest.
 
Both can marry the opposite sex, neither can marry the same sex. That's equality.

All unmarried people can marry unmarried people, but not married people, and married people can marry neither unmarried nor married people. That's exactly like saying men can marry men but men cannot marry women, and women cannot marry women, either. That's inequality, and marital status is a federally protected class, too, while sexual orientation is not. So let's stop pretending the law is based on a common system of rational thought.


So hey, great, let's expand marriage to include same-sex couples, no problem, but's just not an equality issue, nor does it have to be.

No one can marry someone who currently married just as no one can legally marry a five year old
 
If you look at the wording of the question before the supreme court, they are not looking at sexual orientation, but at the sex of people getting married.

The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of
certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:
1)
Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a
marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the
Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was
lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011615zr_f2q3.pdf

No mention of sexual orientation.
 
Things that have been mostly good for the people and individual rights more often than against them. And since the majority seems to support a good amount of their interpretations, then too bad for those who prefer state rights triumph over individual rights.

Doesn't really matter if it's been mostly good or not, the question is does it pass Constitutional muster. This does not, in my opinion.

I always find it funny how so many antigay and/or state rights people are so opposed to an interpretation of the Constitution that grants individuals more rights. It just proves that those people want to live in tyrannies ruled by a majority, as long as they are part of the majority.

I find it quite juvenile when people start pointing fingers and resorting to name-calling, as in you are anti-gay or a bigot if you don't suspend the Constitution for my cause. When you resort to those tactics, it hints at a lack of a well reasoned argument.
 
Doesn't really matter if it's been mostly good or not, the question is does it pass Constitutional muster. This does not, in my opinion.

I find it quite juvenile when people start pointing fingers and resorting to name-calling, as in you are anti-gay or a bigot if you don't suspend the Constitution for my cause. When you resort to those tactics, it hints at a lack of a well reasoned argument.

Actually it does matter because the only reason the Constitution works is because of the Court and it's interpretations and how willing the people are to accept those interpretations. Otherwise, the Constitution is just words on paper.

I think it's juvenile to try to use state laws and "power of the majority" to restrict others from activities that do not affect them or do any harm then try to claim victim hood in getting called something that matches the side they are on. Are you against same sex marriage and/or homosexuals getting married? If so "antigay" as a label fits fairly well.

Claiming victim hood is what shows you have no legitimate argument and are trying to deflect.
 
Both can marry the opposite sex, neither can marry the same sex. That's equality.

All unmarried people can marry unmarried people, but not married people, and married people can marry neither unmarried nor married people. That's exactly like saying men can marry men but men cannot marry women, and women cannot marry women, either. That's inequality, and marital status is a federally protected class, too, while sexual orientation is not. So let's stop pretending the law is based on a common system of rational thought.


So hey, great, let's expand marriage to include same-sex couples, no problem, but's just not an equality issue, nor does it have to be.

People made exactly this argument about interracial marriage. "Everyone has equal right to marry someone of the same race." But this argument is rejected because race is a protected classification and the government needs a good enough reason to make a distinction like that.

Well, gender is also a protected classification, and this is an issue of gender. You said it yourself, a man cannot marry a man. That's gender, not sexuality. You should know, marriage and sex aren't the same thing, right? So yes, actually, this is a 14th amendment issue.

"Is this person married already" is not a protected classification, so no, it's not the same argument. The lowest tier of scrutiny would apply to challenges to polygamy statutes. The rational basis test, which is a pretty low hurdle. I suspect the state could clear this hurdle if needed.
 
Last edited:
And it didn't work then, why would it work now?

Did I say it would? Don't start applying logic and reason to the law, you're head will explode.

The sexes are being treated equally, and that being a fact doesn't mean the Court will pay it any attention. The Court will base it's decision on politics, as it always does, and politics are based on who can make the most noise and load the biggest diaper (that's why we have texting-while-driving bans instead of a general distracted-driving ban).

So Jerry why are you arguing for something that you agree didn't work before and probably won't work now? I hesitate to call you a troller, but really - what's the point except to irritate people with an illogical argument? Why is this even a part of this thread?

No, the courts won't say that because neither gender can marry the same gender it isn't discrimination.

Did you want to throw up another straw man argument?
 
Actually it does matter because the only reason the Constitution works is because of the Court and it's interpretations and how willing the people are to accept those interpretations. Otherwise, the Constitution is just words on paper.

Really, the Constitution only works because of the Supreme Court (which was created through the Constitution)? Like slavery, segregation, Japanese internment camps, all interpreted by the SC to be Constitutional? Yep, stellar record there, Constitution can't work without all that. I'll give you a Mulligan on that one, it's so far off.

I think it's juvenile to try to use state laws and "power of the majority" to restrict others from activities that do not affect them or do any harm then try to claim victim hood in getting called something that matches the side they are on. Are you against same sex marriage and/or homosexuals getting married? If so "antigay" as a label fits fairly well.

Claiming victim hood is what shows you have no legitimate argument and are trying to deflect.

Oh, yes, quite juvenile, wanting the government to obey that which created it. Victim hood? Oh, people throw around the personal insults and what you see is victim hood? Like those lousy cry babies in France?

It doesn't matter how I feel about ssm, I'm against the federal government doing things that it was not granted the power to do. You seem to be okay with that, as long as it's something you support. How are you going to feel if one day the government says this is too much of a mess, and there are too many people, so people with incomes under $50k can't have kids, with the power you gave them?
 
watching the last minute fear of the bigots and those that are against equality is hilarious

equal rights will soon be national and i cant wait for such a great thing to be accomplished and to witness and live this history. I for one will be watching the bridges for jumpers lol
 
Really, the Constitution only works because of the Supreme Court (which was created through the Constitution)? Like slavery, segregation, Japanese internment camps, all interpreted by the SC to be Constitutional? Yep, stellar record there, Constitution can't work without all that. I'll give you a Mulligan on that one, it's so far off.

Oh, yes, quite juvenile, wanting the government to obey that which created it. Victim hood? Oh, people throw around the personal insults and what you see is victim hood? Like those lousy cry babies in France?

It doesn't matter how I feel about ssm, I'm against the federal government doing things that it was not granted the power to do. You seem to be okay with that, as long as it's something you support. How are you going to feel if one day the government says this is too much of a mess, and there are too many people, so people with incomes under $50k can't have kids, with the power you gave them?

Actually, the majority would be the ones giving any state/government the power to limit people with incomes under 50K from having kids, since that is where all laws start and are only challenged on their consitutionality up to the SCOTUS. You obviously have no clue how the Federal Court system works.

You show how juvenile your argument is when you blatantly ignore what I said, which included that it wasn't just the SCOTUS and their decisions, but also how well the people took those decisions as to what was or wasn't constitutional. If the people did not approve in supermajorities of a decision the SCOTUS made, then the people could blatantly change the Constitution or simply ignore the decision if they wanted to do so. But the key is they have to have the numbers to back up their defiance, whether it is defying a ruling legally (say not issuing marriage licenses to interracial couples) or changing the Constitution via Amendment (such as perhaps an Amendment that plainly stated that states controlled who could get married in their state completely, by popular vote or legislative action or that marriage was only between x person and y person, and no others were eligible to be recognized).
 
Back
Top Bottom