• 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!

Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

See, they love to throw up the polygamy red herring because they aren't as stupid as they pretend to be. They know that all rulings on marriage up to this point define the contract based on two participants of the age of majority and their elevation of worth to each other, solely, in the eyes of the law. They think spewing nonsense about marrying sea urchins and toddlers and the whole hippy commune will deflect from the fact that they haven't got a leg to stand on when it comes to the right to contract coupled with equal protection in their pursuit to define marriage for the convenience of their archaic sensibilities.

It's not so much a red herring as it is an idiotic appeal to the absurd. It just amuses me at this point.

We do need the incest and pedophilia(or bestiality, take your pick) red herrings so we have the whole trifecta here.
 
The DOMA defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman so it does afeect other groups besides gays who would like to marry......
 
The DOMA defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman so it does afeect other groups besides gays who would like to marry......

Please show where in the decision it would mean that. I know, it means actually reading it(I have), but you might better do that so you can avoid posting inaccuracies from ignorance.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

That's all the state deals with now...soooo...changing the name is pointless.

You're saying the state shouldn't recognize what has been ruled to be a Fundamental Right, that the state should leave this right to private entities and not protect it.

What other rights do you suppose the State shouldn't protect?

It’s not a name change. It’s the difference between legal and custom.
We have the right to (voluntarily and within the confines of the law) contract without interference.
We do not have the right to a sweet 16 party (custom).
This is the difference!
 
And who is classifying marriage as that?

LOL I have to list the people who claim marriage is a right for homosexuals? I can start with my favorite, Jallman followed by Hateuy and a slew of others.

Certainly not the judge who rules on this. I posted a bunch from his ruling, which I read in it's entirety. Good reading.

His reasoning could not be more flawed. First of all he argued people against gay marriage is "irrational prejudice" He is supposed to interpret the law not offer his personal opinion. That was the first clue to what a joke this judge is.

And secondly, the state cannot dictate what the government pays or doesn't pay out in benefits including social security.

It was a ridiculous argument with no basis in the law. He used personal opinion to rule against it.

The crime in Massachusetts is the government denied the voters a right to vote on the issue not once but twice. It was nothing short of fascism to deny their right to vote on this issue.
 
\
The crime in Massachusetts is the government denied the voters a right to vote on the issue not once but twice. It was nothing short of fascism to deny their right to vote on this issue.

We're not a direct democracy. You don't get to vote on a lot of things.
 
We're not a direct democracy. You don't get to vote on a lot of things.

Show us in the Constitution where its written that the government should deny voters the right to vote on propositions.

Go ahead.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

First let me say that I did read your post in it's entirety, however I'm going to respond to specific parts purely for the sake of space.

First, are you suggesting that everything that has been ruled a fundamental right is unquestionably a fundamental right in exactly the way its been ruled?

No. I mean only that it is as it stands presently until enacted upon again.

Second, I don't believe in a fundamental "right" of marriage because marriage in and of itself is a man made creation. I believe fundamental rights are ones that can be exercised without the aid of anything else or through a social contract.

I argue that a right is a biological imperative. Your typical healthy adult has a psychological need to exist in stable relationships. When you combine that imperative with the imperative to reproduce, you get marriage.

So to is self defense a biological imperative, which is why I argue that the right to keep and bear arms is a Fundamental Right pre-existing and surviving this government timelessly.

Third, I do not believe marriage is a constitutional right.

I agree. Marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the Federal Constitution, so it is therefore not a Constitutional right.

Fourth, I do however believe that its in the interest of the state for a variety of reasons to recognize a union of two people. From taxes, property, power of attorny, etc there are a lot of reasonable reasons why its in the states interest to allow for this kind of thing. And I do think that if they recognize unions then, under equal protection, there is a constitutional right that if they are going to recognize a union of two people then people have a right to enter into such unions. IE the government can not say "You 5 people can enter into various unions, but you, Bob, you're not allowed".

I think the State has the right to decide which unions it will support and which it will allow to exist without support, as per the 10th Amendment.

As it stands, if "marriage" is going to be used by the government then when speaking of it in regards to a government setting it has ZERO religious meaning.

I agree.

That means whatever religious traditions may be connected to it and what kind of infringement someone may think rules regarding it would have on religion is irrelevant, because in regards to the government its a 100% SECULAR term because our government is secular.

Absolutely.

As such, the notion that "its always been a man and woman" is irrelevant when it comes to the government because there is no overriding law or ruling with regards to government laws that says "laws that are one way must always be that way". As such there is no need for "defense of marriage" because its simply a secular government term for a government sponsored union, and under equal protection said unions should not be barred from people of specific classes of people. This includes discrimination towards sex, suggesting that the only benefit the government has in regards to combined tax laws, property laws, etc is when a man and woman are involved.

Sure.

As such, there is any talk about the "Sanctity" of marriage is irrelevent because its not a sacred nor religious thing in this discussion, its a secular thing of the state. The only way to actually make it sacred would be to remove it from the secular wording all together and thus allow it once more to fall into the hands of religion and religion alone.

Only the people in the union can make a marriage sacred. Religion can't impose it, the Church can't impose it, the State can't impose it. The value of sacrament has to come from within or it will simply not be present.

By seperating "Marriage" from the governmental terms you successfully assure its sanctity by making every individual religion or church having full and complete control over "marriage" with the government simply having domain over "unions" that bestow upon them recognition and benefits from the state.

I defend Atheists who are in perfectly healthy marriages here when I argue that marriage is not religious, it is sociological. No religion, church, or other external force can make a marriage succeed or fail. It is purely in the hands of the married people.

Any religious arguments, sanctity arguments, tradition arguments are irrelevant in regards to marriage as a secular, governmental term.

Right, I agree. Those traditions are of the people, not the State.

***
The People want "marriage". Not only heteros, gays want "marriage" too. That is the name humans have given the union. Changing the name does nothing at best, and damages it's meaning in a symbolic interaction way at worse. It simply doesn't solve any problems.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Irrelevant in this discussion. If Marriage is no longer a state entity, as in the term, then if you get married at a church and that church views you as married it matters NOTHING to the state and you don't get those benefits.

If you chose to ALSO enter into a "civil union" with regards to the state, then you'd get those benefits.

The suggestion is making Civil Union = Government, Marriage = Private.



And they shouldn't. As long as "marriage" is the governments term for a union, under equal protection they should be able to access it and all the benefits the government has deemed to be a right of marriage. If the government passes a law decrying a certain right unto its citizens then based on the constitution they can not discriminate in the application of said right. By limiting it to male/female unions you are discriminating by gender by specifically requiring individual genders for the right to be garnered. IE females ONLY have the choice of a male, males ONLY have the choice of a female, thus making their choices unequal.

We agree that the government should extend marriage buffs to any coupling which is not demonstratively destructive to society.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

It’s not a name change. It’s the difference between legal and custom.
We have the right to (voluntarily and within the confines of the law) contract without interference.
We do not have the right to a sweet 16 party (custom).
This is the difference!

Then why can't heteros today do that?
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

See, they love to throw up the polygamy red herring because they aren't as stupid as they pretend to be. They know that all rulings on marriage up to this point define the contract based on two participants of the age of majority and their elevation of worth to each other, solely, in the eyes of the law. They think spewing nonsense about marrying sea urchins and toddlers and the whole hippy commune will deflect from the fact that they haven't got a leg to stand on when it comes to the right to contract coupled with equal protection in their pursuit to define marriage for the convenience of their archaic sensibilities.

It's not so much a red herring as it is an idiotic appeal to the absurd. It just amuses me at this point.

Not to mention I've never seen "Number Discrimination". "Amount" isn't a constitutionally protected status. The equal protection clause doesn't tell businesses that they're not allowed to limit the amount of people they can service because of "numeral inequality."

Forcing men to marry women and women to marry men is gender discrimination.

Telling people they can only marry 1 person and 1 person alone isn't discrimination against any particular protected grouping.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

We agree that the government should extend marriage buffs to any coupling which is not demonstratively destructive to society.

So you're in favor of the coupling of any two people other than underage individuals (damaging to society for the same reasons we have laws with regards to sex with minors) and family members (due to the strain on society by the significantly higher likelihood of genetic defects)? Since there is no definitive proven destructive force in regards to society shown in regards to homosexuals.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

So you're in favor of the coupling of any two people other than underage individuals (damaging to society for the same reasons we have laws with regards to sex with minors) and family members (due to the strain on society by the significantly higher likelihood of genetic defects)? Since there is no definitive proven destructive force in regards to society shown in regards to homosexuals.

I say the government should allow everything which is not obviously a hazard and let evolution take over from there.

So, yes.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

So is polygamy cool, too?

Whenever polygamy is brought up, it is a sure sign that anti-GM folks are losing and are grasping. Polygamy is not the same thing. It is not a sexual orientation, there is no evidence that it is beneficial, and there is nothing that indicates that it has any kind of widespread support. All this is, is a diversion, and is a failed one at that.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Whenever polygamy is brought up, it is a sure sign that anti-GM folks are losing and are grasping. Polygamy is not the same thing. It is not a sexual orientation, there is no evidence that it is beneficial, and there is nothing that indicates that it has any kind of widespread support. All this is, is a diversion, and is a failed one at that.

And how exactly is GM beneficial?


j-mac
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Then why can't heteros today do that?
I shall conclude our debate because I have become a, you vs. Zyphlin mirror.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Whenever polygamy is brought up, it is a sure sign that anti-GM folks are losing and are grasping. Polygamy is not the same thing. It is not a sexual orientation, there is no evidence that it is beneficial, and there is nothing that indicates that it has any kind of widespread support. All this is, is a diversion, and is a failed one at that.

Look, don't make me call my personal friend Boardtracker down on your azz. :lol:
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

And how exactly is GM beneficial?


j-mac

In the exact same ways that heterosexual marriage is beneficial, i'd imagine. Unless your argument is that the institution of marriage as a whole is not beneficial, of course, in which case good luck trying to prove that.
 

Interesting...

So the Federal government is capable of interfering with the States means to define who can vote, who can sit in the front of the bus... who and what form of sexual intercourse people in which individuals enage and what curriculum they can teach in their schools... but the Federal government cannot establish a Federal Standard for the nations nucleus: the Marriage?

ROFLMNAO...


Yet another example of just how right Joe McCarthy was...

(Ya died in disgrace Joe... but THE TRUTH IS SETTING YOU FREE Big guy... as it always does.)
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Whenever polygamy is brought up, it is a sure sign that anti-GM folks are losing and are grasping. Polygamy is not the same thing. It is not a sexual orientation, there is no evidence that it is beneficial, and there is nothing that indicates that it has any kind of widespread support. All this is, is a diversion, and is a failed one at that.

ROFLMNAO! Sweet Mother whatta trainwreck.

First: how does noting that Polygamy falls outside the established standard of marriage and accurately comparing that joining of more than two individuals is synonymous with the standard violating joining of two outies... or two inies... become 'a sure sign of losing'?

How does that work? Any chance you can show us your math on that one?

Second: No one has argued that Polygamy is identical to the sexual deviancy of homosexuality...

Third: Who has suggested that Polygamy is a sexual orientation?

Fourth: Polygamists would vehemently dispute your assertion that their 'lifestyle choice' is not beneficial... And they believe it every BIT as much as the pathetic sexual deviants who chose to seek sexual gratification through intercourse with individuals of their own gender; just as the pathetic sexual deviants who chose to seek sexual gratification through intercourse with individuals which have yet to grow to the age of consent, OKA: Pedophiles, VEHEMENTLY BELIEVE THAT THEIR PARTICULAR KINK is beneficial.

Fifth: how does a deviant, abnormal sexual orientation become acceptable as a means to violate the established, reasonable, well founded marriage standard that marriage consist of two individuals, each representing the distinct genders; and Polygamy does not?

Sixth: There is no correlation between the popularity of a given idea and the validity of that idea... relevant to your implications regarding 'widespread support'... Meaning that just because an idea becomes widely supported, does not make it logically valid, or intellectually sound; let alone something approaching a good idea.


Seventh: Homosexuals violate the marriage standard regarding distinct genders and polygamist violate the stated acceptable volume of individuals.

In truth, your would-be argument is little more than raw dissemblance... which never serves any purpose except to distract from the truth; thus you're the one advancing a distraction.

At the end of the day, where the advocates of normalizing abnormality prevail in destroying the marriage standard, the notion that they will be able to defend the newly lowered standard from the claims by others of different abnormalities, that they should be provided the same benefit of Marriage and included within the standard; and the same specious reasoning that crippled the standard allowing the homosexual will be used to allow the polygamist.

The bottom line is that Homosexuals can readily find the financial benefits which they claim to rest at the foundation of theid discontent, by simply filing to incorporate and lobbying congress to add legislation to include a specific Corporation for domestic unions of the common fag. There's no moral component to it, and there's no limit to the number of people who can participate in these legal entities designed to jojn multiple distinct parties into one legal entity. But the advocates of normalizing abnormality are not truly interested in the tax benefits intrinsic to marriage... THEY CRAVE THE LEGITIMACY INHERENT I MARRIAGE.

Legitimacy, that will evaporate, the instant that the institution is crippled by allowing them to participate.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom