• 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]

It's not an oversimplification.

I take it you've not thought beyond this ruling and what it could portend, your efforts to divert from the question notwithstanding.

No....I just don't accept the slippery slope arguments which are very common in SCOTUS dissents. They rarely ever turn out to be the case.
 
I have accurately portrayed the arguments. You need to look at the situation rationally, rather than in the denial you appear to be satisfied with.

People simply voicing an opinion, or exercising their rights, have been subject to ridicule and professional destruction. Consider the founder and former CEO of Mozilla. He made a donation to a cause he believed in, and was professionally destroyed for doing so. There are 1,000's of examples of this.

One person facing protests from a small contingent is not a majority of people. I call bull on the "1000s of examples". Hell Ten Million Moms call for boycotts of various companies every so often (or at least did) for simply showing same sex couples, same sex parents in their ads or for their supporting same sex marriage. People just recently got some radio stations to stop playing a country song that they believed had to do with a girl having an actual crush on a woman (which the song wasn't even about, they didn't even listen to the song or understand it). This was in the last few months (it's a fairly new song). I can go on and on. Most of the examples I believe you have are really people doing something that was oppressing same sex couples or homosexuals, not simply "voicing their opinion", and they got feedback from it. And most of that feedback wasn't the irrational type that you claimed.

As I've said, both sides have their jerks and both sides have rational people, calmly explaining their viewpoint. You are exaggerating the jerks of one side and ignoring the jerks of the other.
 
Isn't it all subjective? I see all of those decisions as not fundamentally "changing" our culture....because America has always strived to be a society of Freedom and Justice for ALL. Sometimes we have been slow to get there, but eventually we do. I guess if you support the traditional "Justice for white male property owners" only...then you could argue that all of these changes "fundamentally changed the culture of America"....but not if you adhere to the principles upon which this great country was founded.

The culture of a country is whatever is it at the current time. It's not some principle that you might think is important or what other people might find important, nor is it a goal that you or someone might have. Giving women certain rights has changed the culture of the country and the government in expected and unexpected ways both good and bad.
 
If you have something to say, which I suspect you think you do, please attempt to read and comprehend my post before commenting, and please try to make a point that makes sense and doesn't require me to waste 30 seconds reading through babble, as I just did.

Fine. It won't happen. Churches won't be successfully sued to be forced to marry a same sex couple, not in the US. Our laws, along with public opposition to this, will prevent it, at least for the foreseeable future.
 
Greetings, bubba. :2wave:

Dignity is earned by your actions, not given by a piece of paper. It may take a while for that to sink in...

Hey Pol.
You can distinguish folks who see the ruling as an advance for all people and those who see it as yet another way to fundamentally change the Country they don't like.
I forget who might have said that last part but I heard it awhile back.
 
Putting off marriage until they are mature enough (or at least they believe so) and/or financially/educationally secure enough to handle marriage best is better for society and marriages. It means that more people are actually thinking about their marriage in a responsible way rather than "I want to have sex, I should get married" or "I got pregnant, I need to get married" or "I love him/her so much, we should get married (wonder what my last name will be)".

I have no idea what you are referring to. Putting off marriage until they are mature enough, but not putting off children for the same reason?

Putting off sex until marriage? Where is that coming from? That ship, for the most part, sailed about 50 years ago.
 
Hey Pol.
You can distinguish folks who see the ruling as an advance for all people and those who see it as yet another way to fundamentally change the Country they don't like.
I forget who might have said that last part but I heard it awhile back.

If you don't like rules within a country, why would you not seek to change them? If you don't like the way people are treated within a country, why would you not seek to change that? That is the entire reason our country exists, because some people did not like something about the country and sought to change it. That doesn't mean that change cannot be an advancement for the country as well.
 
I have no idea what you are referring to. Putting off marriage until they are mature enough, but not putting off children for the same reason?

Putting off sex until marriage? Where is that coming from? That ship, for the most part, sailed about 50 years ago.

I would say that ship didn't really ever exist in the first place. It was at best a ship on shore with nothing but the frame built.
 
One person facing protests from a small contingent is not a majority of people. I call bull on the "1000s of examples". Hell Ten Million Moms call for boycotts of various companies every so often (or at least did) for simply showing same sex couples, same sex parents in their ads or for their supporting same sex marriage. People just recently got some radio stations to stop playing a country song that they believed had to do with a girl having an actual crush on a woman (which the song wasn't even about, they didn't even listen to the song or understand it). This was in the last few months (it's a fairly new song). I can go on and on. Most of the examples I believe you have are really people doing something that was oppressing same sex couples or homosexuals, not simply "voicing their opinion", and they got feedback from it. And most of that feedback wasn't the irrational type that you claimed.

As I've said, both sides have their jerks and both sides have rational people, calmly explaining their viewpoint. You are exaggerating the jerks of one side and ignoring the jerks of the other.


Well, you have your opinion, and I'll just stick with the facts.

Have a nice day.
 
No....I just don't accept the slippery slope arguments which are very common in SCOTUS dissents. They rarely ever turn out to be the case.

So since you've thought about it, what are some examples and the reasons why they would not withstand Constitutional scrutiny given this decision?
 
If you don't like rules within a country, why would you not seek to change them? If you don't like the way people are treated within a country, why would you not seek to change that? That is the entire reason our country exists, because some people did not like something about the country and sought to change it. That doesn't mean that change cannot be an advancement for the country as well.

Still subjective. Remember morality is subjective, so any kind of change in peoples treatment is also subjective. :D
 
I have no idea what you are referring to. Putting off marriage until they are mature enough, but not putting off children for the same reason?

Putting off sex until marriage? Where is that coming from? That ship, for the most part, sailed about 50 years ago.

Some people aren't putting off either sex or marriage, but others are. And we are seeing fewer teens getting pregnant, which leads to more mature decisions about marriage and raising those children even when they are from an unplanned pregnancy.

I don't have any issue with a declining marriage rate overall. I would prefer people think about their own situations and relationship prior to entering into marriage so that they aren't getting divorces after children are born, so that hopefully more children are planned for, rather than just random occurrences because they felt they could have unprotected sex.
 
If you don't like rules within a country, why would you not seek to change them? If you don't like the way people are treated within a country, why would you not seek to change that? That is the entire reason our country exists, because some people did not like something about the country and sought to change it. That doesn't mean that change cannot be an advancement for the country as well.

Uh huh.
And I'm saying those beliefs may be sincerely held by some but used by others for their own reasons.
You have to know enough about the person in order to judge their intentions.

By way of example, after the Ferguson shooting there were any number of well-funded infiltrators who went there to stir the pot and they did ... they stood out visibly in the crowds ... do you think they were there out of great concern? ... Do you think they were sent there by wealthy people out of great concern?
 
That your argument is mounted on subjectivity by your own admission.

It is an argument that began with subjectivity, advancement in society vs fundamental changes to the society. That is all subjective. It is subjective as to whether or not we should seek those changes or advancements as a society. This is all then generally decided on by the society as a whole. Either people allow the advancements, changes to occur, even if there is some resistance, or they consistently resist such changes, with possibly a few trying to fight to implement those changes. Either way, it would depend on the subjective views of the society.
 
Some people aren't putting off either sex or marriage, but others are. And we are seeing fewer teens getting pregnant, which leads to more mature decisions about marriage and raising those children even when they are from an unplanned pregnancy.

I don't have any issue with a declining marriage rate overall. I would prefer people think about their own situations and relationship prior to entering into marriage so that they aren't getting divorces after children are born, so that hopefully more children are planned for, rather than just random occurrences because they felt they could have unprotected sex.

Unplanned pregnancy? I'm not sure where you get your information, but couples living together and having children is becoming the norm. Look at Hollywood. How many "stars" are having children with their mates, without getting married?

Something like 70% of children born in some "communities" are born to single parents. These aren't "unplanned" as you suggest.
 
Unplanned pregnancy? I'm not sure where you get your information, but couples living together and having children is becoming the norm. Look at Hollywood. How many "stars" are having children with their mates, without getting married?

Something like 70% of children born in some "communities" are born to single parents. These aren't "unplanned" as you suggest.

Having a child out of wedlock does not mean the child wasn't planned for. There is a difference between the two, at least now.

Depending on the community, since I have no idea which specific communities you are talking about, many of those children may or may not be planned for. Some are only planned for by one person within the relationship. Others are not planned for at all. Some are completely planned for, even if the person is considered a "single parent".
 
It is an argument that began with subjectivity, advancement in society vs fundamental changes to the society. That is all subjective. It is subjective as to whether or not we should seek those changes or advancements as a society. This is all then generally decided on by the society as a whole. Either people allow the advancements, changes to occur, even if there is some resistance, or they consistently resist such changes, with possibly a few trying to fight to implement those changes. Either way, it would depend on the subjective views of the society.

You can get a general idea of how much something changed culture, but yes, it's subjective when making a judgment on how much it changed culture or not. Saying that though, it would probably be pretty hard to argue certain things didn't fundamentally change the culture of the country.
 
Having a child out of wedlock does not mean the child wasn't planned for. There is a difference between the two, at least now.

Depending on the community, since I have no idea which specific communities you are talking about, many of those children may or may not be planned for. Some are only planned for by one person within the relationship. Others are not planned for at all. Some are completely planned for, even if the person is considered a "single parent".

In case you have forgotten, the point I made is that liberal/progressives have been fighting for same sex marriage at a time when the concept itself is becoming less and less important.

They are fighting more for the right to have the right, rather than the right to exercise it.

I don't know what you're writing has to do with that point.
 
In case you have forgotten, the point I made is that liberal/progressives have been fighting for same sex marriage at a time when the concept itself is becoming less and less important.
Less important to whom?

They are fighting more for the right to have the right, rather than the right to exercise it.
I think this right will be exercised a lot. Many people who have been fighting as activists and those sitting on the sidelines will be exercising the right.
 
You can get a general idea of how much something changed culture, but yes, it's subjective when making a judgment on how much it changed culture or not. Saying that though, it would probably be pretty hard to argue certain things didn't fundamentally change the culture of the country.

Change happens. There is an obvious change to the culture, but it didn't happen Friday. It has been gradually happening over the last 30 or so years. People slowly changing their perspectives on same sex relationships, even if they weren't gay themselves. Some knew someone who was gay, a loved one, or others simply actually thought about the issue, realizing "why exactly can't they be together, married", and none of the reasons seem rational. Then those people start accepting, and others feel okay coming out, and they are more accepted along with more people thinking it through, figuring out that most of the "rationale" behind preventing homosexual relations, sodomy, same sex marriage is based in religion or tradition, two things that are losing priority in many minds, at least the old religious views anyway. The legal battles on the way to this were a mix of rational thinking and increasing public support, change of thinking within a society.
 
In case you have forgotten, the point I made is that liberal/progressives have been fighting for same sex marriage at a time when the concept itself is becoming less and less important.

They are fighting more for the right to have the right, rather than the right to exercise it.

I don't know what you're writing has to do with that point.

That's what I find entertaining about all of this. More and more straight people are saying no to marriage and yet all the while gay people want in on the fun of marriage. I have a feeling the trend will find its way among gay people before long and when it does all I will be able to do is laugh.
 
Back
Top Bottom