• 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!

Court halts Calif. gay marriages pending appeal

Ikari said:
How does same sex parents stack up against State run orphanages? Probably a lot better. One may say that the "ideal" is one man, one woman. But there are more orphans in the world than families willing to adopt; so we don't have one man and one woman for all needy children. In that case, is it so bad to have a loving, two parent home that isn't one man and one woman? A stable environment by which to grow and live? **** it, stick them in a State home because the State is a better parent than gays? Is that the route you're gonna take here?
Click to expand...

Again, extreme exception to the rule. You're being emotional about it. Stick to the legal aspects. Avoid arguments based on how fair, or unfair, a situational circumstance might be.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
They can adopt, but they cannot intrinsically produce a child meeting the same standards that a heterosexual coupling can. There is zero pressumption that they can by themselves, zero, nadda, zilch. :)


Tim-
Click to expand...

There's nothing to say that same sex couples cannot be as good of parents as same sex couples. I mean, we ain't got same sex marriage now and there are a lot of ****ED up kids out there. So obviously just being a heterosexual couple doesn't cut it. Obviously there are many variables which go into proper child raising, including stability of household (over half of all marriages end in divorce; not very stable), and income (homosexuals tend to have better living standards), education, etc. There's a lot in there. So it's not quite right to sit there and say that they can't be as good as heterosexual parents because they can't present the best basis for gender roles and identity to their children. If that's all those kids have to worry about, they're pretty damned well off considering the rest of this mess we've turned into.
 
Hicup said:
Again, extreme exception to the rule. You're being emotional about it. Stick to the legal aspects. Avoid arguments based on how fair, or unfair, a situational circumstance might be.


Tim-
Click to expand...

It's not an extreme exception to the rule. There are well more orphans world wide than families willing to adopt. That is a statement of fact. Until that statement becomes untrue the whole "gays can't be as good of parents" is a moot point because there are not enough heterosexual families to go around. Less you really want to make the claim that the State would be a better parent than a loving, stable, two parent home. Are you making that argument? Or do you wish to try another deflect statement?
 
Hicup said:
There is no inalienable right to contract in marriage. I proved that a few weeks ago. :) Next.


Tim-
Click to expand...

Contract is a basic right. Marriage is a State issued and recognized contract. You haven't proven anything.
 
Taylor said:
This isn't algebra. Child-rearing doesn't suddenly become irrelevant to marriage simply because gay couples can adopt. Or, maybe I'm not getting the point you're trying to make?
Click to expand...

The point was that there are "interests" at stake here. One being procreation. Same sex couples obviously cannot procreate. But I asked which other "interests" there are. You said child rearing, but same sex couples can rear a child the same as heterosexual couples since they could adopt. So there's no difference on that issue. What other "interests" are there?
 
Ikari said:
The point was that there are "interests" at stake here. One being procreation. Same sex couples obviously cannot procreate. But I asked which other "interests" there are. You said child rearing, but same sex couples can rear a child the same as heterosexual couples since they could adopt. So there's no difference on that issue. What other "interests" are there?
Click to expand...
Relevance? None of this addresses my original point: that there is no truth to the claim that "procreation would have to be a prerequisite for marriage if it were a government interest."
 
Ikari said:
There's nothing to say that same sex couples cannot be as good of parents as same sex couples. I mean, we ain't got same sex marriage now and there are a lot of ****ED up kids out there. So obviously just being a heterosexual couple doesn't cut it. Obviously there are many variables which go into proper child raising, including stability of household (over half of all marriages end in divorce; not very stable), and income (homosexuals tend to have better living standards), education, etc. There's a lot in there. So it's not quite right to sit there and say that they can't be as good as heterosexual parents because they can't present the best basis for gender roles and identity to their children. If that's all those kids have to worry about, they're pretty damned well off considering the rest of this mess we've turned into.
Click to expand...

All things being equal, there is plenty of data. Of course it all rests on what you decide is a virtue, and what is not. Is a healthy stable homosexual union better than a dirt bag trialer trash heterosexual couple? Yeah, sure it is, but now compare that same scenario with the healthy stable heterosexual couple, and look at the variables that determine what is, and what is not the more ideal standard for raising children. I think history provides the answer. Besides, I already stipulated in my opinion to the judge that, there isn't enough data to form a causative conclusion about homosexual parenting.


Tim-
 
Ikari said:
Contract is a basic right. Marriage is a State issued and recognized contract. You haven't proven anything.
Click to expand...

When the state ingnores the tenants of a marriage contract, it invalidates the right as fundamental to the marriage. In no fault divorce, the "state" does exactly that. Thus, there is no fundamental right of contract in marriage. next..


Tim-
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
Relevance? None of this addresses my original point: that there is no truth to the claim that "procreation would have to be a prerequisite for marriage if it were a government interest."
Click to expand...

But I'm trying to gauge what that government interest is. Clearly there is procreation. But it's not "the" interest, right? It's "an" interest. Well that's the one and only difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that I can come up with. All other things are capable of being done by both sets. So it's either "the" interest; which is no problem seeing as with immigration we're at replacement so we don't need to worry about everyone reproducing. Or there are other "interests" which are being violated so that you can lead this claim against same sex marriage. I'm want to know what those interests are and if the violation of those interests excuses government force against the rights and liberties of the individual. I don't see why people are so afraid of answering questions.
 
Hicup said:
When the state ingnores the tenants of a marriage contract, it invalidates the right as fundamental to the marriage contract. In no fault divorce, the "state" does exactly that. Thus, there is no fundamental right of contract in marriage. next..


Tim-
Click to expand...

Government oversees the execution of contract and arbitrates when parties in contract are in dispute. Including having procedures by which a contract can be dissolved if both parties agree or if something illegal had taken place during the execution of the contract. No fault divorce was constructed in this light (both parties agree) due to the high frequency of divorce. Thus it is still a government issued and recognized contract and the individual has right to contract.
 
Ikari said:
Government oversees the execution of contract and arbitrates when parties in contract are in dispute. Including having procedures by which a contract can be dissolved if both parties agree or if something illegal had taken place during the execution of the contract. No fault divorce was constructed in this light (both parties agree) due to the high frequency of divorce. Thus it is still a government issued and recognized contract and the individual has right to contract.
Click to expand...

They have the right to contract, but it isn't, or no longer is it, fundamental to the marriage with no fault divorce. There is no apportionment in no fault, no degrees to measure fulfillment of said contract by either party, thus, it is invalidated and the state ignores it. If it ignores the contract, you know, like wedding vows etc.. And provides no apportionment in divorce, then the contract is meaningless in the eyes of the state. If it's meaningless, it cannot be fundamental to the marriage, or fundamental at all.


Tim-
 
Ikari said:
But I'm trying to gauge what that government interest is. Clearly there is procreation. But it's not "the" interest, right? It's "an" interest. Well that's the one and only difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that I can come up with. All other things are capable of being done by both sets. So it's either "the" interest; which is no problem seeing as with immigration we're at replacement so we don't need to worry about everyone reproducing. Or there are other "interests" which are being violated so that you can lead this claim against same sex marriage. I'm want to know what those interests are and if the violation of those interests excuses government force against the rights and liberties of the individual. I don't see why people are so afraid of answering questions.
Click to expand...

Look at it this way. Without procreation, what is the states interest in marriage that rises to the point that it is in need of fundamental protection? I asked this a few times now, and no one has an answer.


Tim-
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
But I'm trying to gauge what that government interest is. Clearly there is procreation. But it's not "the" interest, right? It's "an" interest. Well that's the one and only difference between same sex couples and hetero couples that I can come up with. All other things are capable of being done by both sets. So it's either "the" interest; which is no problem seeing as with immigration we're at replacement so we don't need to worry about everyone reproducing. Or there are other "interests" which are being violated so that you can lead this claim against same sex marriage. I'm want to know what those interests are and if the violation of those interests excuses government force against the rights and liberties of the individual. I don't see why people are so afraid of answering questions.
Click to expand...
If you think there might be more than two interests, I encourage you to do some additional research. I've presented two which is all I need to support the argument I made.
 
Hicup said:
They have the right to contract, but it isn't, or no longer is it, fundamental to the marriage with no fault divorce. There is no apportionment in no fault, no degrees to measure fulfillment of said contract by either party, thus, it is invalidated and the state ignores it. If it ignores the contract, you know, like wedding vows etc.. And provides no apportionment in divorce, then the contract is meaningless in the eyes of the state. If it's meaningless, it cannot be fundamental to the marriage, or fundamental at all.


Tim-
Click to expand...

Wedding vows are not part of the formal Marriage License. Thus are not part of the formal contract. You can make claim to oral contract, but it would be separate from the Marriage License. Thus the ceremony has little to nothing to do with marriage anymore. I suppose perhaps on this point we agree. Marriage is now signified by the Marriage License, a government issued and recognized contract.
 
Taylor said:
If you think there might be more than two interests, I encourage you to do some additional research. I've presented two which is all I need to support the argument I made.
Click to expand...

But only one of the interests is violated. So you're saying that by being unable to procreate, that is enough violation of state "interest" to excuse the use of government force against the rights of the individual?
 
Hicup said:
Look at it this way. Without procreation, what is the states interest in marriage that rises to the point that it is in need of fundamental protection? I asked this a few times now, and no one has an answer.


Tim-
Click to expand...

Taxes and data mining.
 
Ikari said:
But only one of the interests is violated. So you're saying that by being unable to procreate, that is enough violation of state "interest" to excuse the use of government force against the rights of the individual?
Click to expand...
What government force is required to not recognize a same sex marriage?
 
Taylor said:
What government force is required to not recognize a same sex marriage?
Click to expand...

You must use government force to forbid same sex couples from entering the contract of marriage. Force is the only tool that can suppress the exercise of rights, and government force the most used of all tools to do so. If there was no government force here, there would be no issue as same sex couples could then marry.

So do you think you can now answer my question?
 
Ikari said:
Wedding vows are not part of the formal Marriage License. Thus are not part of the formal contract. You can make claim to oral contract, but it would be separate from the Marriage License. Thus the ceremony has little to nothing to do with marriage anymore. I suppose perhaps on this point we agree. Marriage is now signified by the Marriage License, a government issued and recognized contract.
Click to expand...

Case closed.. LOL This is your argument? That a license is the same as a contract. :)

Next, please..

Tim-
 
Ikari said:
You must use government force to forbid same sex couples from entering the contract of marriage. Force is the only tool that can suppress the exercise of rights, and government force the most used of all tools to do so. If there was no government force here, there would be no issue as same sex couples could then marry.

So do you think you can now answer my question?
Click to expand...

I'm going to nominate this post downstairs.. :)

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Case closed.. LOL This is your argument? That a license is the same as a contract. :)

Next, please..

Tim-
Click to expand...

The marriage license is the formal contract. Do you not know what a contract is? Whatever you may say inform of your priest or god or Elvis in Vegas is irrelevant. What matters is that marriage license. That's what the government recognizes, and that's what declares you officially married, and that's what gets you all the legal benefits. If you have no way to argue against it, I suppose this is where your argument comes to an end. But if all you got is claiming the Marriage License is not a contract, well then you ain't got ****.
 
Hicup said:
Not fundamental, legislative, there is an important distinction between the two.


Tim-
Click to expand...

I don't think either of those reasons is enough for government to get involved. Yet they did. That's the truth of the matter. Government wants their money, government wants to keep tabs on people, for that reason marriage remains an interest to them. I don't think government has any legitimate place in marriage personally. Best left to the churches. But marriage is a purely secular, contractual thing so long as the Marriage License exists.

Hicup said:
I'm going to nominate this post downstairs.. :)

Tim-
Click to expand...

You can do whatever you want, it's a free country. Nothing I said there is wrong though. It was also a concept Conservatives (real conservatives) once knew very well.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
The marriage license is the formal contract. Do you not know what a contract is? Whatever you may say inform of your priest or god or Elvis in Vegas is irrelevant. What matters is that marriage license. That's what the government recognizes, and that's what declares you officially married, and that's what gets you all the legal benefits. If you have no way to argue against it, I suppose this is where your argument comes to an end. But if all you got is claiming the Marriage License is not a contract, well then you ain't got ****.
Click to expand...

Here's a Marriage license for the state of CA. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/pubsforms/forms/CtrldForms/vs116.pdf

Wanna show me how exactly this is a contract? What are the terms of the "license". What are the obligations for either party to the license? What is the obligation of the state in terms of the license? :)

Boy o boy..




Tim-
 
Last edited:
That's nothing but a contract. I mean, what the hell else would it be? They are formally and through written and notarized means entering into a contract. You've given the application for the Marriage License, but not all the documentation to what is entailed in the Marriage License. You fill that out, and then after the ceremony (typically) you sign the marriage license itself. The Marriage License itself is a contract between two people which has many many legal ramifications. Those ramifications being the primary "benefit" of the contract. So the application.

I mean, come on. You are going to have to be somewhat reasonable here. You can't honestly deny that the Marriage License constitutes a contract. Any human knows that it does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom