• 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!

Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

well then ask anyone besides yourself and they will tell you. it was not an issue anyone heard of. stop it.


Yes, it absolutely was an issue. No amount of deflection on your part will skew that fact. Try debating more honestly - you're not fooling anybody but yourself.
 
God gets the last word, not the ungodly.

It is really quite ironic that someone named "Logicman" keeps relying upon a 2000 year old book from several authors, edited and translated by thousands of others, and multiple unsupportable assertions (like a stated assertion of what ****ing SATAN likes) to make his argument.
 
the idea of gay marriage wasn't conceived or thought of till the 90's. if you can show me one gay group in the 80's who demanded to get married I would love to see it. but since no evidence exists maybe you can see my point(who am I kidding. of course you don't)

3 couples involved in the Baker case in 1972. That pre-dates the 80s.
 
Well let me play devil's advocate and tell you why heterosexual marriage should have been protected and preserved as well as encouraged by the federal government in order to fulfill its constitutional obligation to promote the general welfare:

I will say it as IMO to avoid having to dig up numerous links and resources--most of which I have posted in other threads here over the years--that traditional (one man, one woman) marriage was recognized and encouraged by the federal government because:

- Study after study has shown a loving mother and father in the home is the very best circumstance for children growing up in that home. While there will always be exceptions, the children, whether straight or gay, are far less likely to have confusion about their own gender roles, are far less likely to experiment with harmful substances or engage in illegal activities, are more likely to form stable and healthy relationships themselves, and are far more likely to be socially and materially successful when they grow up in a traditional home. All traditional marriage laws in all 50 states were designed to be beneficial to any children born within the marriage.

- Study after study has shown that neighborhoods composed of mostly traditional families tend to be more prosperous and more stable, produce more voluntary social services, are more aesthetically pleasing, produce good neighbors, better schools, and provide a more secure and safe environment to bring up kids.

--Traditional marriage throughout the ages has always been the means of establishing bloodlines and how people are related and in more modern times has been invaluable in studying genetics, dna, and how various issues are transmitted from generation to generation. It has helped people keep track of who their relatives are and prevented the unwanted consequences of inadvertent incest or marrying somebody too closely related.

While single parents and gay parents can do exemplary jobs bringing up children, and I know of many examples in which they do, they cannot provide the same dynamics that a loving mom and dad in the home can do. And strong family ties with the child's natural family are rarely maintained.

And while I have long personally fought for gay people to have the necessary protections and benefits in our common society together, it is for the listed reasons and others that I have opposed changing the definition of marriage to something it never was before and was not intended to be.

I believe that the changed definition strongly signals to the young that marriage is pretty meaningless after all and is not a necessary or even a desirable goal. I cannot see how that will be a good or healthy thing for us as a society.

I respect your views and I have zero need to attempt to counter your points other than to say:

1. Young people today don't need any signals about marriage being pretty meaningless - they've come to that opinion themselves and have abandoned marriage in ever greater numbers as the years pass on.

2. None of your points require a government license or government reward for obtaining the government license.

I have great respect for people who marry, regardless of their sexual orientation. I was married a long time ago before tragedy struck so I understand the personal desire that leads to such commitments. But those commitments are made fleeting and fragile through government intervention in marriage.
 
It's good that gays get equality. I'm sick of hearing Christian Southern Conservatives sit there and lecture straight Atheists such as myself on their rigid versions morality then turn around and openly discriminate against gays for no better or more logical reason than they discriminate against atheists such as myself.

They're all Republicans too. So comical to see Christian Republicans sit here and claim conspiracy after conspiracy when we all know they're the ones out in real life that make life hard on everyone else simply because we don't share their Christian religiosity fanaticism.

:lamo

Of course...the fact that people like the president held those same views until he decided he needed campaign cash in 2012 is completely lost on you.
 
well then ask anyone besides yourself and they will tell you. it was not an issue anyone heard of. stop it.

Are you trying to be intentionally dense? If he is providing you actual citations to COURT CASES and WEB ARTICLES, then he is asking someone "besides himself" to prove his point.
 
How many homosexuals are even interested in marrying?

It will be interesting how this plays out with a growing Islamic influence in the country.
 
A dissenting opinion, even from the Chief Justice, does not hold any jurisprudential value. So no, any future challenge to polygamy laws would still need to address the previous Supreme Court holdings which note the State's legitimate interest in limiting fraud through the application of multiple licenses and obtaining the tax and inheritance benefits. You can try, again, to find language within the majority's opinion (and unlike the Chief Justice, stick to actual quotes as opposed to selectively edited quotes) to support new arguments, but I do not believe they exist.
I'd have agreed with you yesterday, but if you take a look at the majority opinion, it simply claims the right to marry is fundamental and all but ignores the question of a "legitimate state interest". Precedent schmecedent (as far as Kennedy is concerned at least). There's no reason to believe that a similar ruling could be made with respect to "marriage equality" for polygamists.
 
You are discriminating against people who are already married. Why can't they love another person and be able to express that love through another marriage? How does it affect you if I have 3 wives and one of my wives has 6 husbands?

The potential tax fraud and complications to inheritance laws are some pretty compelling reasons.
 
well then ask anyone besides yourself and they will tell you. it was not an issue anyone heard of. stop it.

No, I will not stop it. I will not let you deny history and the truth on this without opposition. Fact is that you demanded proof. You got your proof. Proof that shows it was an issue whether you want to admit it or not. You demanded that I ask someone who lived during the 80's because you assumed, wrongfully, that I was "too young" to remember.

Now you can deny history and the truth all that you want. But doing it openly on a debate site then you should expect to be challenged on it. Saying "stop it" will not stop it. Nor should it on a debate site.
 
:lamo

Of course...the fact that people like the president held those same views until he decided he needed campaign cash in 2012 is completely lost on you.

Meh. I used to be against gay marriage out of ignorance. My views evolved just as Obama's did. It's not a big deal. Why do you care hiding behind "Independent" yet espousing Christian conservative Republican views?

Why should I or any normal functioning modern person care what other people do in the privacy of their homes be it smoke weed or be gay? Why would I or anybody seriously care unless you have nothing better to care about in life?
 
Your post is riddled with errors

There are more than three cases which hold that marriage is a fundamental right


Well, duh, of course there is? Is said there are three well known cases.

States were not allowed to regulate who could marry outside of [their] race.

Actually they were. So, as an example, before Loving, ANY state could have allowed for interracial marriage, but none did until, well you know.

SCOTUS has ruled that laws forbidding polygamy are constitutional

They have? Where? And if they did, then this majority ruling just overturned that on both broad and narrow grounds!

There is no "other kind of marriage" that is relevant here. We're discussing civil marriage and civil marriage alone

Right, and Ginsberg said that civil marriage, and domestic relations and the authority to regulate it by the states, is not to be disturbed, well until now.

And as far as the courts limiting the power of states to regulate marriage, the court is unable to do so arbitrarily. Your implication that this decision was legally unjustified and arbitrary is contradicted by the scores of pages of text in this decision in which they demonstrate the constitutional requirements for not allowing states to prohibit SSM.

Contradicted by 5 Justices of which 4 justices spent considerable time telling us why those other five were morons..


Tim-
 
Just out: U S S.Ct. rules that there is a constitutional right to same sex marriage, going further than just ruling that states have to recognize it, if performed in a state where it's legal.

This has an impact on the 14 states that have passed laws banning it.

NOTE: The ruling was NOT just that states have to recognize it. The ruling is that it is now LEGAL, being constitutionally protected. It COULD HAVE made the ruling more narrow, but it did not. It went all the way. The matter is now settled. Gay marriage is legal, like interracial marriage is.

NBC

Whether or not you're a supporter of same sex marriage, this ruling makes sense. It should not be up to the govt to define the relationships of two consenting adults.
 
How many homosexuals are even interested in marrying?

It will be interesting how this plays out with a growing Islamic influence in the country.

Growing so fast that it went from 0.4% to 0.9% in 7 years.
 
I think they're just as silly considering their faith in a non-existent entity is a silly reason to be against those who don't believe in that fairy tale or who have other lifestyle. So what? Live and let live.


Let's be honest. It boils down to a lot of fat white conservative guys who aren't getting laid. That's what it boils down to and we all know it. Fat white conservative men can't get the women they want so they band together under the guise of religion to seek revenge against anyone who can or who has another world view.

I'm not the slightest bit religious, but I do respect people of faith regardless what I personally believe. And I have zero objection to any two or more people getting married and/or entering into a social relationship contract. My only problem is with the government rewarding the holders of their paper.

And I would note, just anecdotally, that the vast majority of people I've seen in the media participating in same sex marriage ceremonies have been fat white men and women, their ideology not apparent. So if you think all the gay people getting married are Brad Pitts and Scarlett Johansens, I'll repeat - you need to get out more.
 
The potential tax fraud and complications to inheritance laws are some pretty compelling reasons.

No more potential for tax fraud than there is today. Inheritance laws apply as your estate, minus a will, is divided equally between your spouses.

Neither reason applies to polygamy, and conincidentally, the majority opinion mentions "compelling state reasons" exactly 0 times because there is no compelling state reasons to restrict "a fundamental right".
 
You are discriminating against people who are already married. Why can't they love another person and be able to express that love through another marriage? How does it affect you if I have 3 wives and one of my wives has 6 husbands?

It can affect their children and the govt has a legitimate interest in protecting children
 
I notice that you keep making a reference to "study after study" without actually providing a citation to any study, let along multiples. On the other hand, here is a study published very recently in the Social Science Research journal that found there was no evidence that children of same sex couples are negatively impacted.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150615103946.htm

I addressed that in my post. But if you want to go by the most recent 'study' that is reported over and over and over in the media until the gullible are convinced that yes, this is the absolute truth and consensus, then sure. You can present just about anybody's results, no matter how small the sampling, as the gospel truth for just about anything.

But here's a counter argument if you insist on one:
New Research on Children of Same-Sex Parents Suggests Differences Matter

Or we can go with what I said and agree that while single parents and gay parents can and do a great job raising kids, having a loving mom and dad in the home is still the best circumstance for raising kids.
 
It can affect their children and the govt has a legitimate interest in protecting children

Good luck proving that having a second husband or wife negatively affects children. The majority opinion never mentions respecting or allowing legitimate state interests to override the fundamental right to marriage.
 
It is really quite ironic that someone named "Logicman" keeps relying upon a 2000 year old book from several authors, edited and translated by thousands of others, and multiple unsupportable assertions (like a stated assertion of what ****ing SATAN likes) to make his argument.

It always seems that way to those unfortunate souls who have never spent any quality time studying the Bible.
 
Right, and Ginsberg said that civil marriage, and domestic relations and the authority to regulate it by the states, is not to be disturbed, well until now.
The states do have the authority to regulate marriage and this does not change that.
However, state laws regarding marriage are still subject to the 14th amendment to the US constitution, wouldn't you agree?



Contradicted by 5 Justices of which 4 justices spent considerable time telling us why those other five were morons..


Tim-

5 is more than 4, and also Scalia doesn't count because that idiot didn't even attempt to respond to the actual legal arguments. His whole contention is that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to overturn laws.
 
I addressed that in my post. But if you want to go by the most recent 'study' that is reported over and over and over in the media until the gullible are convinced that yes, this is the absolute truth and consensus, then sure. You can present just about anybody's results, no matter how small the sampling, as the gospel truth for just about anything.

But here's a counter argument if you insist on one:
New Research on Children of Same-Sex Parents Suggests Differences Matter

Or we can go with what I said and agree that while single parents and gay parents can and do a great job raising kids, having a loving mom and dad in the home is still the best circumstance for raising kids.

Even Regenerus himself said that his study was flawed.
 
the idea of gay marriage wasn't conceived or thought of till the 90's. if you can show me one gay group in the 80's who demanded to get married I would love to see it. but since no evidence exists maybe you can see my point(who am I kidding. of course you don't)

So, people aren't aware they are forbidden from doing something until an organization is formed?
 
Well, duh, of course there is? Is said there are three well known cases.

You are depending now on the definition of "well known". I would argue that none of the cases are well known. The large majority of americans probably can't name even one of them

Actually they were. So, as an example, before Loving, ANY state could have allowed for interracial marriage, but none did until, well you know.

At one time yes. At another time, no. Your original statement didnt specify any time so it was wrong.


They have? Where? And if they did, then this majority ruling just overturned that on both broad and narrow grounds!

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1104642225155375579&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

And no, it hasn't been overturned



Right, and Ginsberg said that civil marriage, and domestic relations and the authority to regulate it by the states, is not to be disturbed, well until now.

And?


Contradicted by 5 Justices of which 4 justices spent considerable time telling us why those other five were morons..
Actually, the dissents are notably lacking in legal argument
 
Back
Top Bottom