• 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.
Zyphlin .

California law discriminates against polygamist's in such a way that limits the fundamental right to marry more than one, who's affections, and emotional bond is uniquely singular. CA law requires that only two people, of independent standing, can substantively experience the love, and the emotional ties that impart the wanting of a marriage commitment, whereas, the polygamist is limited by CA law, in the wanting of marriage among as many persons the individual's they themselves loves, and maintains the emotional ties that impart the very same wanting of a marriage commitment. There is no legal precedent that concludes with a condition that the fundamental right that marriage carries, be of only two people, only that people have the fundamental right to marriage. It is CA law that places a limitation on the number of individuals that can experience the same kind of wanting, and love, and emotional ties that bind a marriage commitment.

Therefore, it is my opinion, that the State of CA discriminates against polygamist, and their practice, by limiting their practice altogether, rendering a polygamist as less worthy of the same protections of love, and marriage, by limiting the amount of people the polygamist can share those natural affections for the wanting of marriage.


Thoughts?


Tim-

My thought is that the legal structure of a polygamist/polyandrous marriage system is so foreign to the American legal tradition that introducing such arguments into the same-sex marriage discussion is nothing but a trojan horse intended to move the discussion away from the issues relevant to same-sex marriage.

My thought is also that while there is nothing intrinsically immoral or amoral about polygamy and polyandry, the construction of the necessary legal framework would be the work of decades.

My thought is, finally, that there's nothing unconstitutional about polygamy and polyandry.
 
IMHO it really does not serve any state interest to not have gay marriage recognized by the state other than politicians playing off populism.

It doesn't have to serve the state's interest.

In the United States, the whole founding idea was that the government be in the way the least amount possible.

It serves the state interest to be out of the way of individuals seeking the contractual merger known as marriage.

It makes no difference to the state, not in the least, what sexual equipment those marrying couples share between them.

One can argue that the state doesn't even have any business asking the question.
 
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-

Hmmm....two-person marriages involve: Merging of community property, and the care and raising of natural or adopted children, and the responsibilities and privileges each party has towards the other.

Hmmm....multi-person marriages involve: Merging of community property, and the care and raising of natural or adopted children, and the responsibilities and privileges each party has towards the others.

One single "s" is the difference in the creation of paired and plural marriages.

Here's the rub:

Divorcing a pair is straightforward, except even then it can require some fancy footwork by bloodsucking divorce lawyers.

How does one "divorce" a multi-party marriage? How many people are breaking off? If more than one person is breaking off, are they still married to each other while divorcing from the original plurality? What about the children? What shares did they bring to the community property, what shares did their participation in the community create and grow, what shares are theirs when they leave? How much support is the original community to provide to each of the individual divorcing parties, and how much to any splinter groups?

No, once the end of the plural marriage is considered, it's discovered to be a completely different animal than a simple paired marriage.

Not to mention that it's not germaine to the discussion of same-sex marriages, anyway.
 
CC -
You cannot refute something that you had not read yet. In accordance with this claim, please link to your "refutation".

My refutation is in a number of consequential post to this thread, not a single post, necessarily.

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

Let's put it this way. There are no legal negatives that justify a denial of equal protection. Unless of course you admit that a mere selection of negatives is enough to limit someone's fundamental right? :)

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

Surely you can't hold me to this? I have no single post, but a series of progressive posts that refute you. They "are" in this thread. I suggest you start on page 113 or there about.

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

I know.. You're going the "negatives" route. It's a dangerous route for you, since it can be shown quite convincingly that homosexual marriages are "more" negative than heterosexual ones. Is this the basis of your criteria? Or do you want to adjust your viewpoint? I'll give you the benefit of doubt here. :)

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

But government doesn't sanction, it legislates. Therefore you're argument should be based on this.

Well, firstly, I have clearly demonstrated how polygamy does not qualify as a "class of people"...

And I have demonstrated that they are.. So now what?

at least not in the same way as a heterosexual or homosexual

And I have demonstrated that they are... So now what?

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.

So you want me to prove how something that is negative, is not a negative? It not need be done, ever, especially in this thread. You seem to not grasp the flow of this thread? We're discussing a completely different view. You "negative" theory would, without impunity, negate homosexuality as equal to the standing of heterosexuality. That you don't see that is very telling as to your comprehension of the topic at hand..


Tim-
 
My thought is that the legal structure of a polygamist/polyandrous marriage system is so foreign to the American legal tradition that introducing such arguments into the same-sex marriage discussion is nothing but a trojan horse intended to move the discussion away from the issues relevant to same-sex marriage.

My thought is also that while there is nothing intrinsically immoral or amoral about polygamy and polyandry, the construction of the necessary legal framework would be the work of decades.

My thought is, finally, that there's nothing unconstitutional about polygamy and polyandry.

Thank you! I agree!

Tim-
 
As I said before, there were 80 findings of fact in this trial. There is an evidential base to support same sex marriage. There is no evidential base to support polygamy. That is all that needs to be said. Unless Timmy boy decides to address the actual evidence in this trial or present similar evidence that polygamy does not threaten marriage, parenting, or society, then he has no basis to make an argument. The evidence shows that same sex marriage is no better or worse than traditional marriage.
 
As I said before, there were 80 findings of fact in this trial. There is an evidential base to support same sex marriage. There is no evidential base to support polygamy. That is all that needs to be said. Unless Timmy boy decides to address the actual evidence in this trial or present similar evidence that polygamy does not threaten marriage, parenting, or society, then he has no basis to make an argument. The evidence shows that same sex marriage is no better or worse than traditional marriage.

Of course there's an evidential base to support polygamy/polyandry.

There's no evidentiary base in the Prop 8 decision regarding polyandry/polygamy, but then again, that hearing wasn't about multiple marriages anyway.
 
Scarcrow -
How does one "divorce" a multi-party marriage? How many people are breaking off? If more than one person is breaking off, are they still married to each other while divorcing from the original plurality? What about the children? What shares did they bring to the community property, what shares did their participation in the community create and grow, what shares are theirs when they leave? How much support is the original community to provide to each of the individual divorcing parties, and how much to any splinter groups?

I've answered this. Zyphlin brought it up already.

No, once the end of the plural marriage is considered, it's discovered to be a completely different animal than a simple paired marriage.

Not to mention that it's not germaine to the discussion of same-sex marriages, anyway

It is germane for the reasons I lay out.



Tim-
 
As I said before, there were 80 findings of fact in this trial. There is an evidential base to support same sex marriage. There is no evidential base to support polygamy. That is all that needs to be said. Unless Timmy boy decides to address the actual evidence in this trial or present similar evidence that polygamy does not threaten marriage, parenting, or society, then he has no basis to make an argument. The evidence shows that same sex marriage is no better or worse than traditional marriage.

Nonesemse. All that is required is a rational basis to present the challenge. If the state disagrees then it is incumbant on the state to show cause. That's what due process is all about.


Tim-
 
CC -

My refutation is in a number of consequential post to this thread, not a single post, necessarily.

Your "refutation" has nothing to do with my position. Hence, there is no refutation. If you are going to "refute" me, you need to refute what I am arguing, not what you want me to be arguing.



Let's put it this way. There are no legal negatives that justify a denial of equal protection. Unless of course you admit that a mere selection of negatives is enough to limit someone's fundamental right? :)

Let me put it this way. Many laws are enacted because negative occur, either to individuals or society. Or are you going to deny that laws are not put in place as a restriction on negative behaviors/consequences? Oh... and point out where I said that marriage is a fundamental right. I'll give you a hint... I didn't.



Surely you can't hold me to this? I have no single post, but a series of progressive posts that refute you. They "are" in this thread. I suggest you start on page 113 or there about.

Yes, and I read this exchange. It does NOT address my position. So, if you are going to refute me, first, understand my position (you could start by reading my post) and then address THAT position.



I know.. You're going the "negatives" route. It's a dangerous route for you, since it can be shown quite convincingly that homosexual marriages are "more" negative than heterosexual ones.

Actually, it can't. And you can't. That's why the negatives route works, here.

Is this the basis of your criteria? Or do you want to adjust your viewpoint? I'll give you the benefit of doubt here. :)

No, my position is sound and I am completely aware that you cannot refute it. You have been unable to thus far... in fact, you haven't even been able to comment on my actual argument, yet in regards to polygamy.

But government doesn't sanction, it legislates. Therefore you're argument should be based on this.

Government legislates for reasons. THIS is what my argument is based on. You do not get to tell me what my argument "should" be based on.



And I have demonstrated that they are.. So now what?

No, you have not. Post links and/or information. Thus far, all you've got are empty claims and refutation of an argument I am not making.

And I have demonstrated that they are... So now what?

No, you have not. No, you have not. Post links and/or information. Thus far, all you've got are empty claims and refutation of an argument I am not making.



So you want me to prove how something that is negative, is not a negative? It not need be done, ever, especially in this thread.

If you claim it is not a negative, you should easily be able to demonstrate it. If you cannot, then it remains a negative. You know... refute a point. It's what debate is all about.

You seem to not grasp the flow of this thread?

You seem unable to grasp the argument that is being made.

We're discussing a completely different view.

Which is why everything that you have claimed to be a "refutation" thus far is not and is completely irrelevant.

You "negative" theory would, without impunity, negate homosexuality as equal to the standing of heterosexuality.

Problem is, you have not, nor can you prove this. Homosexuality can easily be shown to be equal in standing to heterosexuality. Different, but equal.

That you don't see that is very telling as to your comprehension of the topic at hand..

I've told you repeatedly that you do not understand this topic. You continue to demonstrate that with every post you make. And yet you continue to be in denial about this. When you get educated on the issue, let me know.
 
Last edited:
CC -
Your "refutation" has nothing to do with my position. Hence, there is no refutation. If you are going to "refute" me, you need to refute what I am arguing, not what you want me to be arguing

You argue that polygamy is not equal to homosexuality in terms of marriage rights. I have argued otherwise.

Let me put it this way. Many laws are enacted because negative occur, either to individuals or society. Or are you going to deny that laws are not put in place as a restriction on negative behaviors/consequences? Oh... and point out where I said that marriage is a fundamental right. I'll give you a hint... I didn't

So then you agree that if marriage is not a fundamental right, then any EPC challenge is rendered moot?

Yes, and I read this exchange. It does NOT address my position. So, if you are going to refute me, first, understand my position (you could start by reading my post) and then address THAT position

Ok fair enough. I'd be happy to refute you if my existing refutation is lacking in some way... Care to point it out for me?

Actually, it can't. And you can't. That's why the negatives route works, here


No it can be shown. Whether you agree or not is entirely dependent on you.

No, my position is sound and I am completely aware that you cannot refute it. You have been unable to thus far... in fact, you haven't even been able to comment on my actual argument, yet in regards to polygamy

In the context of the law, I argue for Polygamy quite well.

Government legislates for reasons. THIS is what my argument is based on. You do not get to tell me what my argument "should" be based on

Yes but it is those "reasons" that forward the conversation.

No, you have not. No, you have not. Post links and/or information. Thus far, all you've got are empty claims and refutation of an argument I am not making
Which argument are you not making?

If you claim it is not a negative, you should easily be able to demonstrate it. If you cannot, then it remains a negative. You know... refute a point. It's what debate is all about

Any proving of a negative is arbitrary. For instanced I could say that gays have a higher chance of having HIV. Does it invalidate a claim to wanting marriage rights? No of course not, so what's your point> Since heterosexuals have a much less, even statistically zero chance of getting HIV, how does that make your entire argument about negative sound now?

Which is why everything that you have claimed to be a "refutation" thus far is not and is completely irrelevant.

I would think, and hope that the majority of people following this thread thus far have seen my arguments, as at least relevant?

Problem is, you have not, nor can you prove this. Homosexuality can easily be shown to be equal in standing to heterosexuality. Different, but equal.

Not if you apply "negatives" to it, over that of heterosexuality? Isn't that your central theme against polygamy?

I've told you repeatedly that you do not understand this topic. You continue to demonstrate that with every post you make. And yet you continue to be in denial about this. When you get educated on the issue, let me know.

I promise I'll let you know when I'm ready for your level of debate.. :)


Tim-
 
Last edited:
*choke* ...... seriously? What? Are you joking?

Since heterosexuals have a much less, even statistically zero chance of getting HIV,
 
CC -

You argue that polygamy is not equal to homosexuality in terms of marriage rights. I have argued otherwise.

I argue that polygamy is not equal to homosexuality in the impact on the individual or society. Based on the reasons why the government would sanction marriage at all, this makes it a red herring in the GM debate, as it is not equivalent. It's inequality has little to do with rights.

So then you agree that if marriage is not a fundamental right, then any EPC challenge is rendered moot?

Correct.

Ok fair enough. I'd be happy to refute you if my existing refutation is lacking in some way... Care to point it out for me?

You would first have to present a position that actually addresses my argument. You haven't done that, yet. Do so, and I'll be happy to point out the flaws in your position.

No it can be shown. Whether you agree or not is entirely dependent on you.

No, it cannot be shown. Whether you agree is entirely up to you.

In the context of the law, I argue for Polygamy quite well.

And since all law stems from people, and people have reasons for creating laws, mostly for societal benefit, I have no problem demonstrating how polygamy fails in this argument.

Yes but it is those "reasons" that forward the conversation.

That's true. And it's those reasons that you are not addressing.


Which argument are you not making?

Are you reading what I am writing? I have stated repeatedly, I am not making the discrimination/equal protection argument.

Any proving of a negative is arbitrary. For instanced I could say that gays have a higher chance of having HIV. Does it invalidate a claim to wanting marriage rights? No of course not, so what's your point? Since heterosexuals have a much less, even statistically zero chance of getting HIV, how does that make your entire argument about negative sound now?

Problem is that none of this is a logical argument. There are two problems with it. Firstly, it falls into the correlation, not causation logical fallacy, and it addresses sexual BEHAVIOR, not sexual ORIENTATION. I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am challenging you to refute my position. You don't seem to understand the position, at all. I demonstrated that polygamy has several negatives, negatives that outweigh any benefits, and negatives that do not apply to either GM or SM. All you need to do is show that there are benefits that outweigh these negatives, or that the negatives apply to GM and SM. You have not addressed ANY of this. It's not about "proving a negative". It's about addressing a position.



I would think, and hope that the majority of people following this thread thus far have seen my arguments, as at least relevant?

Relevant? Some of your legal discussions were decent. But they have done nothing to address the issue that I have presented.

Not if you apply "negatives" to it, over that of heterosexuality? Isn't that your central theme against polygamy?

Still nothing. Also, you are diverting. We are discussing the differences between GM and SM, not homosexuality and heterosexuality, Do try to stay on topic. You cannot show that GM and SM are unequal, Different, yes, not not unequal, at least in how the government would identify how marriage benefits society.



I promise I'll let you know when I'm ready for your level of debate.. :)

I'm sure with the right education, you could do it.
 
Since heterosexuals have a much less, even statistically zero chance of getting HIV, how does that make your entire argument about negative sound now?


Tim-

Someone needs to learn properly about STD's before saying such ignorant comments.
 
Last edited:
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-
The two aren't even CLOSE to being the same as far as equal protection analysis. First you are dealing with different groups. Second, the government would have to come up with legitimate governmental interests to justify exclusion against both, which by their very nature would be different.

That said....the government should stay out of polygamy as well, as long as it involves consenting adults.
 
Someone needs to learn properly about STD's before saying such ignorant comments.

Someone does. That someone is you. He is correct that homosexuals have a far higher likely to contract aids and HIV.

hiv.png


You can apologize for your ignorance on the subject and for attacking him at any time.



Powered by Google Docs
 
I argue that polygamy is not equal to homosexuality in the impact on the individual or society. Based on the reasons why the government would sanction marriage at all, this makes it a red herring in the GM debate, as it is not equivalent. It's inequality has little to do with rights.

That may be, but by the reasoning of the decision, the discrimination was on moral grounds. As in, it was violation of equal protection because heterosexual marriage cannot be considered to be morally superior to homosexual marriage. The decision turns on moral considerations.

Thus, any similar ban on polygamy must also fail, because the idea of a marriage consisting of only two people cannot be considered morally superior to a marriage being made up of more than two.
 
Someone does. That someone is you. He is correct that homosexuals have a far higher likely to contract aids and HIV.

hiv.png


You can apologize for your ignorance on the subject and for attacking him at any time.



Powered by Google Docs

No, MALE homo and bisexuals have higher incidence of HIV. Female homosexuals have extremely low risk.

And, Hicup said heterosexuals have an "even statistically zero chance of getting HIV," which is about the most ****ing retarded thing I've read on this forum and your little link and graph only proved just how ****ing retardedly ignorant such a claim was.
 
Someone does. That someone is you. He is correct that homosexuals have a far higher likely to contract aids and HIV.

hiv.png


You can apologize for your ignorance on the subject and for attacking him at any time.



Powered by Google Docs

We call this a straw man. You completely failed to address what was being talked about, which is challenging "even statistically zero chance of getting HIV" for strait people.

BY the way, the common factor in HIV is not orientation, but activity. Those who engage in high risk activities(promiscuous sex) have a much higher rate of contracting HIV than those of any orientation who do not engage in high risk activities. Both you and Hicup have had this pointed out to them.
 
He said zero. Zero chance.

Someone does. That someone is you. He is correct that homosexuals have a far higher likely to contract aids and HIV.

hiv.png


You can apologize for your ignorance on the subject and for attacking him at any time.



Powered by Google Docs
 
Someone does. That someone is you. He is correct that homosexuals have a far higher likely to contract aids and HIV.

hiv.png


You can apologize for your ignorance on the subject and for attacking him at any time.



Powered by Google Docs

1) Your stats refute his claim that heterosexuals have a near zero chance of contracting HIV.
2) The information is also irrelevant because the issue with contracting HIV is BEHAVIOR not ORIENTATION... a concept you still don't get. Also, you have presented the correlation, not causation logical fallacy. As usual.
3) You can now apologize for your continued ignorance on the subject and to Hicup for your assistance in proving him wrong.
 
Last edited:
That may be, but by the reasoning of the decision, the discrimination was on moral grounds. As in, it was violation of equal protection because heterosexual marriage cannot be considered to be morally superior to homosexual marriage. The decision turns on moral considerations.

Thus, any similar ban on polygamy must also fail, because the idea of a marriage consisting of only two people cannot be considered morally superior to a marriage being made up of more than two.

I am not arguing this based on the decision that was rendered. I'm not convinced that the decision was a good one, or one that will hold up, legally. I'm also not arguing it from a moral perspective. My argument is based on a benefit to society analysis in conjunction with reasons why government would sanction marriage at all.
 
That's funny.

I thought the constitution is the one that specifically says the courts are there to uphold the constitution.

It doesn't.

I thought the constitution is the one that dictates that a judges ruilng regarding to constitution is essentially constitutional law.

It doesn't.

I thought the constitution is the one that had the surpemecy clause in it.

It does.

I thought the constitution is the one with the equal protection clause in it.

It does.
 
I am not arguing this based on the decision that was rendered. I'm not convinced that the decision was a good one, or one that will hold up, legally. I'm also not arguing it from a moral perspective. My argument is based on a benefit to society analysis in conjunction with reasons why government would sanction marriage at all.

Well, you did say it has "little to do with the GM debate," and this decision is forefront in that debate, and the topic of the thread. The decision has made it much more of an issue than it ever has been before because of its specific reasoning. So, like it or not, it's in the debate.
 
Well, you did say it has "little to do with the GM debate," and this decision is forefront in that debate, and the topic of the thread. The decision has made it much more of an issue than it ever has been before because of its specific reasoning. So, like it or not, it's in the debate.

It's there as a red herring. It has little to do with it, but is presented as a slippery slope... one that does not apply.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom