• 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!

California gay marriage ban overturned: report

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hicup said:
Identity, and whether is serves any state interest to restrict it.

Tim-
Click to expand...

IMHO it really does not serve any state interest to not have gay marriage recognized by the state other than politicians playing off populism.
 
In my opinion I thought Walkers decision was very well put together. I have some minor criticisms but nothing that rises to the level how I think the SCOTUS will interpret it.

Namely as an example, one criticism I have is in the find of facts section page 65, where the state exclams that a fact is that no fault divorce has had no measurable affect on marriage divorce. However, it omits that, CA does not recognize verbal vows as part of the marriage contract, when in fact it should. The verbal vows to each other, although usually performed in a church, but can also be done anywhere, including in front of a justice, are part of the marriage contract. So, there is a glaring contradiction as to the validity of the contract, if the state dismisses the contract in no fault divorce. If it dismisses it, or any written, or verbal promises requisit to the contract of marriage, should the right to contract be a part of any EPC challenge? I say no..


Thoughts?


Tim-
 
Navy Pride said:
Just because you keep preaching that lie does not mean it will happen........31-0 states banning same sex marriage with a constitutional amendment....Many will be added this November.....45 states have DOMAS saying marriage is between a man and a woman........California one of the most liberal states in the nation has said marriage is between a man and a woman......Every time gay marriage has been voted on gay marriage ahs lost.......You lose DD and you will continue to lose.........
Click to expand...

But what you are ignoring (probably because you are afraid) is that the margins are getting smaller and smaller and smaller. Ten years ago, gay marriage was disapproved of by over 20 points. Today it is pretty evenly divided.

If you aren't losing the war, Navy.....how do you explain that?

Be afraid...old man.....because it is coming and you are going to live to see it.
 
disneydude said:
But what you are ignoring (probably because you are afraid) is that the margins are getting smaller and smaller and smaller. Ten years ago, gay marriage was disapproved of by over 20 points. Today it is pretty evenly divided.

If you aren't losing the war, Navy.....how do you explain that?

Be afraid...old man.....because it is coming and you are going to live to see it.
Click to expand...

Now that's baiting^^^


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
CC -

You've done no such thing. Marduc, on the other hand at least made an attempt to point out why he thoughts something I asserted was incorrect. You, to date, have NEVER made an equal attempt. All you do, (in fact on this forum from everything I've read from you) is claim that someone is wrong, or committed some error in reasoning, and claim victory based on your accusation alone. Well, I have noticed that for some here, that follow you blindly, it is sufficient for them that because you say something is so, it is so. But in the real world, and with an opponent (Like me) that carries with him years of debate experience, and the intellectual capacity to spot your "technique", you're rather very pathetic when it comes to debate. Let me make it crystal clear for you one last time. When you accuse someone of faulty reasoning, or making an error in logic, it is customary among courteous people to make the argument as to why you think they are wrong. It is NOT enough to simply say, "because I said so".. Do you understand that. For example, if I enter a thread, and say to X member that they made an error in reasoning, or they perhaps inadvertently made a logical error, I will show them why. I will say something to the affect: "Here's why you're wrong" and then continue to paint the picture. You so far are incapable of that courtesy. And for someone named, "CaptainCourtesy", I would have expected more.
Click to expand...

Everytime I have debated you in a thread, I have demonstrated your complete lack of a logical argument. I have no reason to engage in evidentiary debate with someone like you who cannot argue logically. I have told you that repeatedly, yet you continue to demonstrate no improvement in your abilities. It is amusing watching you try, though.

I know that you don't like me, and I'm ok with that, but one thing I am not, is a liar, nor am I discourteous to other members. I respect all opinions on the face. When you continue to make accusations that someone is wrong without providing substance, you invalidate your presence in a debate thread. I know some don't see it that way here, but I do.
Click to expand...

I have no opinion on you, personally. And I do not respect opinions that are based on lack of logic and are presented as facts. That's what you do. I will continue to confront you on this. If you don't like it, don't do it.

What audacity to demand I prove my assertions, when you yourself have never done so. But, no matter, as I stated above, my illustration on polygamy was only to add weight to the argument I was making concerning fundamental rights, and marriage. In that premise alone, polygamy, under the current understanding of what constitutes a fundamental right to marriage, is as equally valid as GM, and Straight marriage, period. And that's all I was saying..
Click to expand...

In other words, as usual, you have nothing and refuse to respond. Check.
 
danarhea said:
That was an extremely lucid argument, but I still have to disagree with you. If polygamy is more unprotected than sexual orientation, then we have to look for the underlying reason why either would be more unprotected than traditional marriage. That both gay and polygamous marriage would be more unprotected than traditional marriage comes from the same source, namely religion. Therefore, I would assert that 1) The equal protection clause is being violated in both cases and 2) The government is respecting an establishment of religion here. IMHO, this makes discrimination against either gay or polygamous marriages unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

You are wrong, dana. There is more of a difference between polygamy and GM than just what Zyph posted. The government sanctions marriage for a variety of reasons... and these reasons closely resemble the outcomes of GM... but are far removed from those of polygamy. Here, from a post that I made a while back:

CaptainCourtesy said:
First. let us take a look at the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. The striking difference is obvious. Homosexuals have a sexual orientation towards those of the same sex, whereas heterosexuals have a sexual orientation towards those of the opposite sex. Why would a heterosexual woman want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Why would a homosexual man want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Clearly, from an individual standpoint, this is a, if not the main reason for one wanting to marry a specific other. Love, attraction, emotion. Now, this does not justify gay marriage being validated, and, in fact is a weak argument that I never make. Love, attraction, and emotion does not benefit the state, which is why marriage exists. However, polygamy does not fit well in the criteria that I have identified. There is no polygamous sexual orientation. Polygamy is, typically, a heterosexual orientation, covered already. However, being that there is no polygamous sexual orientation, using this, a mainstay of the individual reason for marriage, will not work or apply. Therefore, polygamy from an individual standpoint, does not meet the same criteria for marriage as do homosexuals or heterosexuals. Lack of orientation.

Now, we move into the societal realm. Government supports marriage for a few reasons. The productive rearing of children is most important. Creating a stable family life is also key: it adds to the positive potential for healthy children, but it also creates healthy adults. There is plenty of evidence to support the theory that those who live in a healthy, stable, committed relationship, are happier, healthier, and are more productive members of society. These are all things that benefit the state. Research shows that, regardless of sexual orientation, gay or straight, folks who live in these kinds of committed relationships, do better, and rear children better, than those who do not. This is regardless of sexual orientation. This is the second piece of the argument that will, eventually win the day for gay marriage. Polygamy does not offer the same benefits. And the answer to "why" is simple, and is psychological in nature. Jealousy, rivalry, and inconsistency. Just like my argument that psychology cannot be separated from economics, hence, because of greed, pure forms of both socialism and libertarianism are destined to be complete failures, neither can human psychology be separated from this issue. What is the number one cause of divorce? Adultery. Why? Jealousy and rivalry. In a multi-partner marriage, it would be impossible for their not to be some sort of hierarchy, and even if this is agreed upon, one cannot eliminate one's emotions. With this type of emotional instability at the familial structure's core, a healthy, committed relationship, similar to that of a single partner marriage, could not be obtained. Further, the inconsistency in caretaking responsibilities and in child rearing responsibilities, compounded by the hierarchies and rivalries will harm the children, affecting their functioning. We already see some of this in divorced families, where inconsistent rules, non-existent co-parenting, and rivalries, negatively affect children.

Lastly, though there is plenty of research that supports both heterosexual and homosexual unions as being beneficial, there is none that supports polygamy.

All of this shows how there is not correlation nor slippery slope from homosexual to polygamous marriage. Polygamy, for the reasons I identified, is not only a very different animal than homosexual marriage, but has none of the similar benefits to the state that the government currently sees marriage as.

Polygamy as a reaction to homosexual marriage is a smokescreen and an invalid comparison.
Click to expand...
 
CC -
Everytime I have debated you in a thread, I have demonstrated your complete lack of a logical argument.
Click to expand...

No you have debated me citing a lack of logic, but provided no material foundation for your accusations. EVER.. Not once, nadda, zero zilch.. :)

I have no reason to engage in evidentiary debate with someone like you who cannot argue logically
Click to expand...

Yes you keep saying that, but so what? Show me where I'm illogical, or irrational, and you're comment has validity, refuse to, and you cast doubt as to your skill in debate.

I have told you that repeatedly, yet you continue to demonstrate no improvement in your abilities. It is amusing watching you try, though.
Click to expand...

I'm glad it amuses you. I have no ego to bruise, Sir. Assuming that was the intent of the comment?

And I do not respect opinions that are based on lack of logic and are presented as facts. That's what you do. I will continue to confront you on this. If you don't like it, don't do it
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. So, basically you want me to stop arguing my point of view? :)

In other words, as usual, you have nothing and refuse to respond. Check.
Click to expand...

I did, read on.. Can you formulate a coherent argument that refutes my assertions? No fair to say something isn't logical, "just because".. k?


Tim-
 
Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy
First. let us take a look at the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. The striking difference is obvious. Homosexuals have a sexual orientation towards those of the same sex, whereas heterosexuals have a sexual orientation towards those of the opposite sex. Why would a heterosexual woman want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Why would a homosexual man want to marry a man? Sexual orientation. Clearly, from an individual standpoint, this is a, if not the main reason for one wanting to marry a specific other. Love, attraction, emotion. Now, this does not justify gay marriage being validated, and, in fact is a weak argument that I never make. Love, attraction, and emotion does not benefit the state, which is why marriage exists. However, polygamy does not fit well in the criteria that I have identified. There is no polygamous sexual orientation. Polygamy is, typically, a heterosexual orientation, covered already. However, being that there is no polygamous sexual orientation, using this, a mainstay of the individual reason for marriage, will not work or apply. Therefore, polygamy from an individual standpoint, does not meet the same criteria for marriage as do homosexuals or heterosexuals. Lack of orientation.

Now, we move into the societal realm. Government supports marriage for a few reasons. The productive rearing of children is most important. Creating a stable family life is also key: it adds to the positive potential for healthy children, but it also creates healthy adults. There is plenty of evidence to support the theory that those who live in a healthy, stable, committed relationship, are happier, healthier, and are more productive members of society. These are all things that benefit the state. Research shows that, regardless of sexual orientation, gay or straight, folks who live in these kinds of committed relationships, do better, and rear children better, than those who do not. This is regardless of sexual orientation. This is the second piece of the argument that will, eventually win the day for gay marriage. Polygamy does not offer the same benefits. And the answer to "why" is simple, and is psychological in nature. Jealousy, rivalry, and inconsistency. Just like my argument that psychology cannot be separated from economics, hence, because of greed, pure forms of both socialism and libertarianism are destined to be complete failures, neither can human psychology be separated from this issue. What is the number one cause of divorce? Adultery. Why? Jealousy and rivalry. In a multi-partner marriage, it would be impossible for their not to be some sort of hierarchy, and even if this is agreed upon, one cannot eliminate one's emotions. With this type of emotional instability at the familial structure's core, a healthy, committed relationship, similar to that of a single partner marriage, could not be obtained. Further, the inconsistency in caretaking responsibilities and in child rearing responsibilities, compounded by the hierarchies and rivalries will harm the children, affecting their functioning. We already see some of this in divorced families, where inconsistent rules, non-existent co-parenting, and rivalries, negatively affect children.

Lastly, though there is plenty of research that supports both heterosexual and homosexual unions as being beneficial, there is none that supports polygamy.

All of this shows how there is not correlation nor slippery slope from homosexual to polygamous marriage. Polygamy, for the reasons I identified, is not only a very different animal than homosexual marriage, but has none of the similar benefits to the state that the government currently sees marriage as.

Polygamy as a reaction to homosexual marriage is a smokescreen and an invalid comparison
Click to expand...

I refuted this..


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
CC -

No you have debated me citing a lack of logic, but provided no material foundation for your accusations. EVER.. Not once, nadda, zero zilch.. :)
Click to expand...

Whenever I do that, I cite the logical fallacy you commit, be it a false premise or whatever. You don't like it. I don't care that you don't like it.

Yes you keep saying that, but so what? Show me where I'm illogical, or irrational, and you're comment has validity, refuse to, and you cast doubt as to your skill in debate.
Click to expand...

Actually present an argument, or a counter argument to anything I say, and I will, when it occurs.



I'm glad it amuses you. I have no ego to bruise, Sir. Assuming that was the intent of the comment?
Click to expand...

It was snarkiness, responding to your snarkiness. Don't like it? Don't do it. Otherwise, I have no problem responding in kind.



Ah, I see. So, basically you want me to stop arguing my point of view? :)
Click to expand...

By following this line, you are stating that your opinions are based on lack of logic and presented as facts. Feel free to argue this way. You will get called on it, though.



I did, read on.. Can you formulate a coherent argument that refutes my assertions? No fair to say something isn't logical, "just because".. k?


Tim-
Click to expand...

No, you didn't. You presented NOTHING... as usual. You made a statement with nothing behind it. Can we be expecting a coherent and logical argument from you soon?
 
CC -
No, you didn't. You presented NOTHING... as usual. You made a statement with nothing behind it. Can we be expecting a coherent and logical argument from you soon?
Click to expand...

Are you for real? Can someone here help me out with this guy? I'm not getting his "style". Is it customary to allow this none sense? How did you ever get to 40 thousands posts wihtout someone pointing out to you that you make no sense? :)


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
You posted it from a post you made previously. I read it, and I refuted it right here in this very thread. :)

Tim-
Click to expand...

Difficult to do since other than last night... on a thread that you have not posted, the post came from 4/4/09. Not possible for you to respond to a post you have not seen, yet. Link to your "refutation".
 
Hicup said:
CC -

Are you for real? Can someone here help me out with this guy? I'm not getting his "style". Is it customary to allow this none sense? How did you ever get to 40 thousands posts wihtout someone pointing out to you that you make no sense? :)


Tim-
Click to expand...

And another irrelevant and diversionary comment. So tell me, when will I be seeing an actual argument from my question?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Difficult to do since other than last night... on a thread that you have not posted, the post came from 4/4/09. Not possible for you to respond to a post you have not seen, yet. Link to your "refutation".
Click to expand...

Other than the psychological aspects of your argument, I have already refuted your argument that states that polygamy is not completely unrelated to homosexuality, and even heterosexuality in terms of a possible legal interpretation that affords the same protections.


Tim-
 
Help you out, after the way you've dissed most of the board? lol!!

Hicup said:
CC -

Are you for real? Can someone here help me out with this guy? I'm not getting his "style". Is it customary to allow this none sense? How did you ever get to 40 thousands posts wihtout someone pointing out to you that you make no sense? :)


Tim-
Click to expand...
 
Click on your name, then click on all posts by, then look for posts in this thread and see how you talk to people.

Hicup said:
how have I dissed anyone?

Tim-
Click to expand...
 
BDBoop said:
Click on your name, then click on all posts by, then look for posts in this thread and see how you talk to people.
Click to expand...

No fair. I talk to those that reflect how they speak to me... Plain and simple!

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Other than the psychological aspects of your argument, I have already refuted your argument that states that polygamy is not completely unrelated to homosexuality, and even heterosexuality in terms of a possible legal interpretation that affords the same protections.


Tim-
Click to expand...

Here is your comment:

Hicup said:
You posted it from a post you made previously. I read it, and I refuted it right here in this very thread. :)

Tim-
Click to expand...

You are claiming that "you read it and refuted it right here on this thread." I ask, again. Explain how you did this if I only posted it once, yesterday on a thread where you have no participated, here, less than an hour ago, or back on 4/4/09... which is where I first wrote the post. I see no refutations here of my comments... it would not be possible based on the timeframes.

Further, I am not arguing discrimination/equal protection... nor have I ever. I have made this pretty clear. I am arguing the differences between GM/SM and polygamy and why the government would sanction the former and not the latter. I have requested you to demonstrate the benefits of plural marriage and how they outweigh the negatives. So, no, you have not refuted my argument in the least. You have attempted to refute an argument that you WANT me to have made. You also have not touched my post, since it was just posted at a little after 2 AM EST.

So, the questions are:

1) How could you "refute" a post you had not seen or had not addressed?
2) How could you "refute" a position that I do not have?
3) Can you demonstrate the benefits of polygamy and how the outweigh the negatives?
 
Hicup said:
No fair. I talk to those that reflect how they speak to me... Plain and simple!

Tim-
Click to expand...

I only respond to people in how they address me. You get what you give.
 
CC -
You are claiming that "you read it and refuted it right here on this thread." I ask, again. Explain how you did this if I only posted it once, yesterday on a thread where you have no participated
Click to expand...

It is true I did not read the thread you mention. But it doesn't matter. I read your post. Know how? Because you quoted it in this thread. I did not intend to suggest that I read it, "when" you posted it, only that I read it.

less than an hour ago, or back on 4/4/09... which is where I first wrote the post. I see no refutations here of my comments... it would not be possible based on the timeframes
Click to expand...

Uh? It wouldn't be possible if you made the post since 4/4/09? You posted it to this thread less than an hour ago? I read it, and I have "already" refuted it in this very thread, "before" you posted it here, less than an hour ago..

I have requested you to demonstrate the benefits of plural marriage and how they outweigh the negatives
Click to expand...

There are no negatives.. How's that for an answer? Now it is incumbent on you to show there are.. Show cause please..

So, no, you have not refuted my argument in the least
Click to expand...

I have entirely. You may not agree, but you'd need to show me why my criticism of your logic is faulty in order to claim victory..

So, the questions are:

1) How could you "refute" a post you had not seen or had not addressed?
Click to expand...

Easily. I saw your post, posted here, and I have "already" refuted it.

2) How could you "refute" a position that I do not have?
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand?

3) Can you demonstrate the benefits of polygamy and how the outweigh the negatives?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that this is a prerequisite to granting rights? If so, then I have answered this question already, here, in this thread. What are the negatives of polygamy in terms of law, What are they in terms of society, and furthermore, is the mere fact that the counting of negatives afford one class a right, over another?


Tim-
 
Last edited:
You might want to try holding yourself to a higher standard then.

Hicup said:
No fair. I talk to those that reflect how they speak to me... Plain and simple!

Tim-
Click to expand...
 
Hicup said:
CC -

It is true I did not read the thread you mention. But it doesn't matter. I read your post. Know how? Because you quoted it in this thread. I did not intend to suggest that I read it, "when" you posted it, only that I read it.
Click to expand...

OK.



Uh? It wouldn't be possible if you made the post since 4/4/09? You posted it to this thread less than an hour ago? I read it, and I have "already" refuted it in this very thread, "before" you posted it here, less than an hour ago.
Click to expand...

You cannot refute something that you had not read yet. In accordance with this claim, please link to your "refutation".



There are no negatives.. How's that for an answer? Now it is incumbent on you to show there are.. Show cause please..
Click to expand...

Already did in my post. It is now incumbent upon YOU to demonstrate that they are not negatives. Just saying, "no they are not" is not good enough.



I have entirely. You may not agree, but you'd need to show me why my criticism of your logic is faulty in order to claim victory.
Click to expand...

No, you haven't at all. No linked "refutation" post, no discussion of how the negatives I posted are not negatives, and it goes on and on. You have, AGAIN, made no logical argument. All you've done is state that you made some "phantom" post and say "no, there are no negatives" without attempting to refute one point I made. This is an example of how you debate.



Easily. I saw your post, posted here, and I have "already" refuted it.
Click to expand...

Link to this "phantom" post. And remember. I have posted what my position and my argument is. Going the discrimination route is NOT what I am addressing, so try to stay on point.



Not sure I understand?
Click to expand...

I have not made a discrimination/equal rights argument. My position is based on reasons for the government to sanction and support marriage. You ONE comment towards me was based on a discrimination/equal rights position. That's not what I'm arguing.



Are you suggesting that this is a prerequisite to granting rights? If so, then I have answered this question already, here, in this thread. What are the negatives of polygamy in terms of law, What are they in terms of society, and furthermore, is the mere fact that the counting of negatives affords one class a right, over another?


Tim-
Click to expand...

Well, firstly, I have clearly demonstrated how polygamy does not qualify as a "class of people"... at least not in the same way as a heterosexual or homosexual. Feel free to attempt to refute that. And secondly, I have also demonstrated the negatives to polygamy and how it negatively affects society... in ways that would preclude the government from sanctioning this kind of union. Again, you have not demonstrated how those negatives are NOT negatives. Be my guest to address any of the issues that I presented. You have not done so, as of yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom