• 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!

Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

Again none of what you said refutes what I said. Try again.
What you said wasn't an actual argument, it was a non-sequitur which relied on the premise that the constitution, which of course was for a federal system where the states had their own denominational arrangements, needs to mention religion to be made for a moral and religious people. The conclusions do not follow from the premise, it refutes itself.
 
Last edited:
What you said wasn't an actual argument, it was a non-sequitur which relied on the premise that the constitution, which of course was for a federal system where the states had their own denominational arrangements, needs to mention religion to be made for a moral and religious people.

Your argument is that the constitution was for the religious and moral when nothing suggests such a thing, so your whole argument is subjective because you can't back up your claims.
 
Your argument is that the constitution was for the religious and moral when nothing suggests such a thing, so your whole argument is subjective because you can't back up your claims.

Well Jerry has already quoted one FF in support. I can quote more if you like.


We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. James Madison

Let them revere nothing but Religion, Morality, and Liberty... Religion and Virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free governments, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society. John Adams

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. George Waswhigton
 
Well Jerry has already quoted one FF in support. I can quote more if you like.


We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. James Madison

Let them revere nothing but Religion, Morality, and Liberty... Religion and Virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free governments, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society. John Adams

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. George Waswhigton

And the FF recognized that morals were subjective. That is why the Christian faith wasn't listed as an absolute.

That is why Porn is legal. So deal with that little fact.
 
And the FF recognized that morals were subjective. That is why the Christian faith wasn't listed as an absolute.

That is why Porn is legal. So deal with that little fact.

Your argument is another non sequitur. Your conclusions do not follow from your premise and you do not support anything you claim.
 
Your argument is another non sequitur. Your conclusions do not follow from your premise and you do not support anything you claim.

You calim anything is non-sequitur if they don't agree with you. The simple fact is the FF didn't agree with you. That is why they didn't make religious morals the foundation.

It was ALL subjective.
 
You calim anything is non-sequitur if they don't agree with you.
Really care to prove that? Show me all the times I have disagree with someone and show they were all over non sequiturs. I disagreed with you because you committed them.

You don't make arguments, just sullen, childish assertions.


The simple fact is the FF didn't agree with you.
Accept I have proved they did and you have shown nothing.

That is why they didn't make religious morals the foundation.
Prove your point, don't make assertions and non sequiturs or don't expect to be taken seriously.

It was ALL subjective.
If it was all subjective they wouldn't have mentioned it. If they weren't generally sure raping and pillaging wasn't as good for the nation as people being restrained and earning an honest day's living they would have even bothered mentioning morality\. No nihilist preaches the value of a moral and religious people as the FF's did.
 
Prove your point, don't make assertions and non sequiturs or don't expect to be taken seriously.

Ok here is the proof of my point they allowed FREE SPEECH. If they were religious in nature they would want ONLY religious speech.

If it was all subjective they wouldn't have mentioned it. If they weren't generally sure raping and pillaging wasn't as good for the nation as people being restrained and earning an honest day's living they would have even bothered mentioning morality\. No nihilist preaches the value of a moral and religious people as the FF's did.

Nowhere did the founding fathers specifically say marriage is between a man and a woman. And since they didn't specifiy free speech as only religious, your point is dis proven.
 
Ok here is the proof of my point they allowed FREE SPEECH. If they were religious in nature they would want ONLY religious speech
This is what I mean. Your conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Aside from the fact they were talking only of the feds, there is nothing that says being religious means you have to be against free speech. That is a non sequitur and a strawman.

Nowhere did the founding fathers specifically say marriage is between a man and a woman. And since they didn't specifiy free speech as only religious, your point is dis proven.
How? You're not even making any sense.
 
And the FF recognized that morals were subjective. That is why the Christian faith wasn't listed as an absolute.

That is why Porn is legal. So deal with that little fact.

Specific morals may be subjective. The need for morals is absolute. The need for religion is absolute, all the more so because we espouse the freedom to practice any religion.
 
Ok here is the proof of my point they allowed FREE SPEECH. If they were religious in nature they would want ONLY religious speech.
A religious man cannot discourse upon secular topics?

A religious man cannot hold secular views?

I cannot accept your seeming view of the religious man. Religious men do still live in the world, and do still have their opinions on the world.
 
Specific morals may be subjective. The need for morals is absolute. The need for religion is absolute, all the more so because we espouse the freedom to practice any religion.

Also. the freedom to practice NO religion. That negates the absolute need for religion. This need is subjective. What isn't subjective is the right to practice or not practice religion.
 
Ok here is the proof of my point they allowed FREE SPEECH. If they were religious in nature they would want ONLY religious speech.

Since the FF were religious, the first amendment demonstrates that religious men support free speach.

Keep in mind that if it weren't for this group of religious white men, you would be under the authority of crown and the Church of England.

Nowhere did the founding fathers specifically say marriage is between a man and a woman.

That's exactly why marriage should be dealt with on the state level.
 
Also. the freedom to practice NO religion. That negates the absolute need for religion. This need is subjective. What isn't subjective is the right to practice or not practice religion.

I might ague that religion (any religion) is a necessary agent of socialization of any society. Could you give an example of a successful and thriving modern atheist society?
 
I hear ya ;)



The entire point of my post was to refute your premise:


No mention of procreation, you said. No mention at all.

Clearly procreation is an expected function of marriage. While a few exceptions have been granted to protect children and families from falling through the cracks (exceptions such as adoption), those exceptions prove the rule. Exceptions such as adoption in no way separate procreation from marriage.

In this way gay-marriage seeks to redefine what the institution of marriage is, and therefore even what your own marriage is. While you are free to give your personal marriage various meanings, all such meanings are additions and amendments to the institution.

***
The modern gay-marriage movement is not based on the family. It is based on the assertion of personal rights.

Marriage is not about the assertion of personal rights.

I think I clarified my position, here:

Procreation as a reason for the state to have a compelling interest in marriage is negated by the fact that obtaining a marriage license is not contingent on the agreement to have children. If it were, since marriage is a contract, if a couple decided to not procreate, the marriage license would be void.

Procreation is not the issue. Child-rearing is.

And you know I agree with you on the pro-GM movement. If they focused on the family, this issue would already be resolved.
 
It has EVERYTHING to do with equality. America has a history of injustice, but ultimately gets it right....slowly but eventually. If not tomorrow....then the day after that.

Disney, Jerry's right on this. The equality argument is a failing argument that destines the issue to go 'round and 'round. There is plenty of evidence that gay marriage is beneficial to both society and families. Equality comes along for the ride, but, in as far as government sanctioning gay marriage, not only is equality a weak argument, but in the context of our current marital laws, it is a failed argument. Current laws do not support gay marriage, and the equity argument, alone, is not strong enough to overrule them. The social and family benefit argument is.
 
Denying gay marriage is, "not allowing" gays to marry.
Not allowing them to marry is not equal to those that are allowed to marry.
Since one is being denied equality, being denied gay marriage has everything to do with equality, or lack of.

So, I asked, do you think that "not allowing", equals "equality". I can't see how in the world any person can think that denying rights or anything to a person or group constitutes equality, or making things equal for people or groups. That help?

I CANNOT BELIEVE I AM GOING TO DO THIS. :eek::eek::eek:

Bodi, tell me how the equity argument can show benefits for the government's compelling interest in supporting marriage. Please do this WITHOUT using either family, children, or health to back your argument...only equality.

I suspect all you will have left is "not being allowed to be equal is bad", but give it a go.
 
Keep telling yourself that Jerry. The reality is...it has EVERYTHING to do with equality. That's the point of equal protection:doh

The equality argument is a coattail and ancillary part of this issue. Societal and familial benefits are the meat.
 
The great French reactionary Bonald deals with this argument in his tract On Divorce where he attacks the revolutionary legislation that allowed divorce(which he later helped to overturn under the restoration.).

He states that marriage is a contract(in terms reminiscent of Burke's ideas on the social contract.)but it is actually a contract with three parties, the spouses and the children who are to spring from it and require the nurture of a stable familial relationship, therefore to dissolve it is according to the will of the two spouses is to rob both society, which requires offspring and stable families, and the children themselves, even if they are not yet born. And even in the case of no children that is no excuse, it devalues the nature of marriage in society for a course which will not necessarily produce children itself(ie a second marriage.).

I'm not sure I agree with him completely on divorce but he makes some interesting points that at least should be aired when people trot out views on marriage as if it is just a contract like any other.

But the main point is that the fact marriage licenses do not contain the agreement to produce children and give them a stable familial setting, does not mean this is not an important role of the congenial family, if not the most important. An institution can have important roles that differ from its usual ideational place in a society, in fact they can be far more important.

Good post, one I do not completely disagree with. Ideology-wise, I think we'd both find some common ground. Pragmatically, however, I stand by my statement.
 
Capt'n, it's like questioning a mod action on this board.

A given incident may not be that bad, and in fact many acts of questioning mod actions may be relatively harmless or 3 point infractions at worst.

However, a strict rule with rigid enforcement and a harsh penalty needs to be in place to preserve the overall cohesiveness of many threads over a long period of time.

If you begin to allow exceptions to the rule then the rule is chipped away at, more and more threads degrade into bickering over rules technicalities (= your refrences to adoption and infertile hetero couples), more and more questions are pressed and challenges made until finally the mod's authority collapses.

The same concept is true of marriage. Gay marriage itself may not be so bad, but the more we allow people to chip away at the rule the less meaning and authority that rule has; until finally it the social bond itself collapses.

Interesting analogy. I would look at it differently. Societal norms change, requiring societal and legal rules to change. That does not mean society in and of itself breaks down or will.
 
Well there are people that can't have kids that get involved with marriages. So your point is moot.

Either Marriage is a contract that means you will produce kids or it is a contract in where the production of kids doesn't matter.

The fact is marriage is a contract where the production of kids doesn't matter.

So bringing up that marriage CAN produce kids doesn't make it ANYWAY a matter of legality. Case closed on that. Come up with a better reason.

This is my point. Ideologically, Wessexman may be right. Pragmatically, he is not. This is back to the old moral vs. legal argument he and I had a while back.
 
See Capt'n? Exceptions to the rule are used to further degrade the rule itself.

***
Imo the law alone can not resolve the issue, ever. Using only the law, we either have to issue a marriage under the strictest conditions and alienate adoption and couples who don't know they're infertile, or, we have to allow just anyone to marry just anyone and marriage become non-functional.

This is why the Constitution was meant for "a religious and moral people". The Constitution is not equipped to deal with a society who does not share a common general understanding of the Natural Law premise.

And I disagree. I think the Consitution has done just fine dealing with society and handling the natural law premise.
 
It seems you are the one that is at a loss. Maybe Iran would better suit your "Morals".

Moderator's Warning:
Unnecessary personal attack. Let's keep this clean.
 
I might ague that religion (any religion) is a necessary agent of socialization of any society. Could you give an example of a successful and thriving modern atheist society?

One can have morals without religion. Though I agree that religion is a key agent towards the socialization of a society, a secular society can thrive as well as a non-secular one. I do not believe that there exists an entirely atheist society, and that wasn't my point. My point was about individuals, not societies.
 
What is wrong with the term civil union?

I voted to lift the ban on gay marriage in my state, but at the same time I knew it wouldn't pass. Is it that gays want to be invited to the party that is marriage, or is it they want all the same benefits that married couples get such as discounts on insurance and the like?

All marriage is in a legal standpoint is a civil union.

Legally Gays should not be banned from marriage, but the legal definition contradicts the traditional definition of marriage.

What I suggest to gays is embrace the word civil union, then push to have the same rights that married couples have.

They will have more luck there, and that what I recommend.

Sure religious conservatives should support gays right to be married, but gays should support the religious conservatives right to have there traditional marriage and not give a crap about there lives.

That may be a pessimistic way to go about this sort of thing, but that is how it is. Work with what you got is what I recommend.
 
Back
Top Bottom