• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Are societal limits on our private lives a good or bad thing?

There actually was a time when society considered "queers-homos-fags-fairies" to be sick disgusting perverts_

And if anyone had ever suggested that they be permitted to marry, people would have said "when pigs fly"_

Fortunately, we now know through research that all of that was inaccurate.
 
Could or Should the SCOTUS DOMA Ruling open the door to unrestricted marriage?

No, but anyone truly interested in equality and the societal treatment of all individuals equally under any government law or program, this should be the beginning of the elimination of "marriage" in whatever form it takes as a qualifier for government largesse.

As an example, if two friends live together in order to save on housing costs, why shouldn't their relationship entitle them to file joint tax returns if by doing so they would reduce the amount of tax one or both pay or open up access to other benefits that a couple, in whatever government sanctioned form, receive as a matter of having the government certification?

There isn't a single person who's ever presented a rationed argument for the expansion of the definition of marriage that didn't couch it in some form as providing equal access to legal and tax benefits that traditionally married couples receive. The simple solution is to ensure that every legal and/or tax benefit that accrues to any two people who are "married" in whatever form also accrues to single people who may or may not "informally" couple in whatever form they choose.
 
The state may only enact a ban when it serves a compelling state interest. Irrational dislike of homosexuality does not meet that standard. Polygamy is reasonably prohibited based on the practical legal implications of marriage law. If legal, you could have one person marrying thousands of foreigners to bypass immigration and get them residency.
And if people were permitted to drive cars, they might get drunk and kill somebody_

Do you seriously believe the worse case scenario defense is a viable argument???

That is probably especially important to you given your extreme xenophobia.
Since you invested so much time and effort to take this cheap-shot, I suppose a response is in order_

(that was it) :yt ...bye-bye~
 
And if people were permitted to drive cars, they might get drunk and kill somebody_

Which is why drunk driving is illegal.

Do you seriously believe the worse case scenario defense is a viable argument???

People already have marriages purely for immigration benefits today. The exploitation of the loophole is currently kept to an acceptable level by the limitation of being only able to marry a single person. If one person could marry unlimited spouses, the number of people abusing the loophole would massively increase. Its not the worst case scenario, its the likely scenario.


Since you invested so much time and effort to take this cheap-shot, I suppose a response is in order_

My response was a cheap shot, but that doesn't make it wrong either.
 
There actually was a time when society considered "queers-homos-fags-fairies" to be sick disgusting perverts_

And if anyone had ever suggested that they be permitted to marry, people would have said "when pigs fly"_

There was also a time when society considered women to be feeble-minded and incapable of seriously discussing matters of politics or voting. Its a bad idea for you to defend prejudiced traditions when you would so easily find your own neck on the chopping block.
 
Keep in mind that for Polygamy to be legal, each member of the marriage would likely have to consent.
Well of course Pas! This isn't about a shotgun wedding!

Managing more than a few people like that would suggest a great deal of complication. That sort of abuse could be very complicated very fast, and imagine the risk that this person would take. If some of these immigrant spouses were irresponsible with loans, the original person could have their credit completely destroyed, as married couples often have a joint credit rating, for a mortgage for example. Intestate law could also end up denying this person's preferred heirs of their intended inheritance. Also likely this sort of abuse could lead to legalized polygamy being rethought. What's the harm in a threesome, but a fiftysome really doesn't satisfy the intentions of marriage. A gay couple does, a straight couple does, a group of three certainly could, a group of five might. Legal polygamy might not necessarily mean that a marriage can have as many people as one might want. There could still be a reasonable numerical limit. It just might not be two. A polygamous marriage might very much mirror an extended family, only they all have sex with each other. Or have sex with some of each other. But there's no reason why those six people couldn't take care of all their children together, share a house, and have a life together. But eleven people probably couldn't do that.
Just as you have done here, society gave countless reasons why homosexuals shouldn't marry_

You have the same mental block society had for gays which prevents you from seeing both sides of an issue_

No, I don't. Because it's my point that you seem to be supporting. Each of those issues are different and unrelated. DOMA and the current debate about SSM only deals with homosexuality. It has nothing to do with any of the other issues you referenced.
The basic DOMA doctrine makes no specific reference to SSM other than simply being "The Issue Of The Day"_

The Defense Of Marriage Act admittedly was sparked by SSM but not exclusive for that issue alone_

DOMA's primary purpose was insuring that "traditional marriage" be the only legal form of matrimony_

If it was specifically a gay issue, it would likely have been worded the Defense Of Marriage From SSM_

The defeat of DOMA did indeed, although inadvertently, open the door to more than just SSM_

The basic argument presented by SSM to defeat DOMA in the Supreme Court was:

"Does society have the right to deprive anyone of the right to be happy"?

Now, with the demise of DOMA the only argument that is needed is:

"Does society have the right to deprive anyone else of the right to be happy"

Society also once believed that black people made excellent farm equipment and that a woman was property, owned her by father or her husband. Society maintains a lot of stupid ideas and it is excellent that we disabuse ourselves of such trite.
My point exactly, except that now those policies are no longer tolerated_

Societies laws, policies and tolerances have always been subject to change_

And still are__which is a fact you and others appear to be struggling with, despite SSM's victory_

I second Rathi's explanation to your final query.
As long as it's not to the cheap-shot he took_ :wink:
 
Could or Should the SCOTUS DOMA Ruling open the door to unrestricted marriage?

Could DOMA open the door?

No.

DOMA has nothing directly to do with any of the kinds of "marriage" that you're talking about.

It's like asking if the PATRIOT act opens the door for me to burglarize your house in order to snoop in your unmentionables drawer (a la panty raid).

You're talking about "effects" that have absolutely nothing to do with the "causes".

Unless you want to make some kind of "slippery slope" argument, in which case anything that deviates from a strict interpretation of Victorian good order and moral discipline can probably be somehow roped into the "America is going to Hell in a handbasket" debate, right?

If gay marriage is opening the door for bestiality then so is the legalization of medical marijuana. They're both chinks in the armor of Puritanical American morality.

Now should it open the door?

Personally, I think having a door there at all is stupid except in instances where people are being deliberately exploited.

But if someone wants to marry his goat or her vibrator I honestly couldn't care less.

When "traditionally married homosexuals" are able to clean up their act and stop getting dicorced almost as quickly as they get married, and raising offspring in their "traditional nuclear families" that aren't fit for employment as fry cooks at McDonalds then maybe I'll start worrying about what "traditional American moralists" have to say about stuff that doesn't effect them one wit.

Until then traditional Americans can lick my dirty, hairy white kneecap.
 
As a matter of morality, and of basic societal survival, it is the duty of any society to uphold and preserve those principles that are essential to the stability of that society and the well-being of the members thereof.

The family as the most basic unit of society, founded upon marriage between a man and a woman, is the single most basic, essential, and vital of such principles. No society of any size has ever deviated very far from this foundation, and survived; and no society ever will. Ours will not be an exception.
I'm very happy that you showed up Bobby_

As usual you've covered the bases well and there's little I can add_

Your wisdom and common sense are rarely seen in these strange times_

Many people appear to be in denial of the ramifications of the SCOTUS ruling_

I'm inclined to believe many of these "unions" are much more than just a possibility_

Maybe not right away but down the road, because that's the direction we seem to be headed_
 
I'm very happy that you showed up Bobby_

As usual you've covered the bases well and there's little I can add_

Your wisdom and common sense are rarely seen in these strange times_

Many people appear to be in denial of the ramifications of the SCOTUS ruling_

I'm inclined to believe many of these "unions" are much more than just a possibility_

Maybe not right away but down the road, because that's the direction we seem to be headed_

And we'll address them if they ever come up. It's not as if there won't be rational discussion on the matter.
 
lol humans are not going to marry animals.

do you horse take this woman to be your lawfully married wife.

lol crazy talk.
Ha-Ha-Haaa! That was very cute elcapitan_

Unfortunately, it was irrelevant to the discussion_

(but thanx for making me smile) :peace

Well, the concerns of busy-bodies are the concerns of government. I don't care if people want to marry their vibrator.
Do you seriously not care or simply don't believe society would ever allow it?
 
Do you seriously not care or simply don't believe society would ever allow it?

Other than opposing the legalization of incest, I really do not care. If you want to be deluded into thinking you and your vibrator have a real relationship worthy of marriage, have at it.

I wish the government would stop giving incentive's for marriage anyways and people on both sides would stop trying to force people to think or behave a certain way when there is otherwise no harm to others.
 
As a matter of morality, and of basic societal survival, it is the duty of any society to uphold and preserve those principles that are essential to the stability of that society and the well-being of the members thereof.

The family as the most basic unit of society, founded upon marriage between a man and a woman, is the single most basic, essential, and vital of such principles. No society of any size has ever deviated very far from this foundation, and survived; and no society ever will. Ours will not be an exception.

Since you live in such a dream world, I though it would be helpful for you to read some statistics on SSM.
We get it. The world is changing and you are scared to death. Change is what makes us human, you need not worry so much.

Here's a look at same-sex marriage in the United States, by the numbers:

36 -- The number of U.S. states that have banned same-sex marriage, either through legislation or constitutional provisions.

6 -- The number of U.S. states that allow civil unions between same-sex couples, but not marriage: Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey and Rhode Island. This number will go down to four this summer after Delaware's new marriage laws take effect in July and the Rhode Island laws do on August 1. (Some states that allow civil unions also ban same-sex marriage.)

12 -- The number of U.S. states that allow same-sex marriage, along with the District of Columbia: Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

1,138 -- The number of federal benefits to marriage.


30.25% -- The approximate percentage of the U.S. population affected by Wednesday's Supreme Court rulings after same-sex marriage laws take effect in Delaware (on July 1, 2013) and Minnesota and Rhode Island (on August 1, 2013).

2001 -- The year the Netherlands made same-sex marriage legal. It was the first country in the world to so.

2003 -- The year that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to criminalize sodomy.

2004 -- The year that same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, the first U.S. state to do so.

14 -- The number of countries worldwide where same-sex marriage is legal in the entire country. They are: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and Uruguay.

3 -- The number of countries where same-sex marriage is legal in some areas: Brazil, Mexico and the United States.

27% -- The percentage of Americans who thought same-sex marriage should be legal in 1996, according to a May Gallup Poll.

53% -- The percentage of Americans who think it should be legal in 2013, according to the same poll.


3.5% -- The approximate percentage of Americans identifying as lesbian, gay or bisexual, according to 2011 research by the Williams Institute at UCLA.

646,000 -- The number of same-sex-couple households in the United States in 2010, according to the Census Bureau.

80.4% -- The percentage growth of same-sex couple households in the U.S. between 2000 and 2010, according to the Census Bureau.

10% -- The percentage of people identifying as LGBT living in the District of Columbia, according to a 2012 Gallup Poll. This is the highest percentage in the country.

1.7% -- The percentage of people identifying as LGBT living in North Dakota, according to a 2012 Gallup Poll. This is the lowest percentage in the country.

115,064 -- Number of same-sex couple households in the United States with children, according to the Census Bureau.
By the numbers: Same-sex marriage - CNN.com
 
There actually was a time when society considered "queers-homos-fags-fairies" to be sick disgusting perverts_

And if anyone had ever suggested that they be permitted to marry, people would have said "when pigs fly"_

Your heart must be filled with the love and compassion of Christ with a filthy insulting tongue like that.
 
And we'll address them if they ever come up. It's not as if there won't be rational discussion on the matter.
I believe that's what we're attempting, preemptively, to do here Afro_

(a stitch in time, so to speak) :thumbs:
 
Your heart must be filled with the love and compassion of Christ with a filthy insulting tongue like that.
I was simply stressing a point, to which you overreacted by taking it way to serious and personal_

(lighten up dude)
 
I believe that's what we're attempting, preemptively, to do here Afro_

(a stitch in time, so to speak) :thumbs:

Well, but you see, there's nothing wrong with gay marriage.
 
There actually was a time when society considered "queers-homos-fags-fairies" to be sick disgusting perverts_

And if anyone had ever suggested that they be permitted to marry, people would have said "when pigs fly"_
Well, they were right in that SSM would never happen under the way their sociaty operated at the time the statement was made.

But things change.
 
Well, but you see, there's nothing wrong with gay marriage.
Whether or not there's anything wrong with "gay marriage" is no longer the issue_

This thread is about the possible repercussions of the SCOTUS' DOMA ruling_

Well, they were right in that SSM would never happen under the way their sociaty operated at the time the statement was made.

But things change.
And the fact that things do indeed "change" is precisely what this thread was intended to deal with!

Societies highest court has accepted that gays should not be denied their rights based on sexual orientation_

Will society now convey that right to other groups based on the same standard that legitimized SSM???
 
Could or Should the SCOTUS DOMA Ruling open the door to unrestricted marriage?

a man to multiple men
a woman to multiple women
a man to multiple women
a woman to multiple men
a group to another group
a mother to her son
a father to his daughter
a sister to her brother
a brother to his brother
a sister to her sister
an adult to a child
men to farm animals
women to their pets
women to their vibrators
men to their rubber blow up dolls
the living to the dead

Does society really have the right to deprive anyone of happiness?

Or is it morally obligated to maintain a semblance of decency and order?


This seems like a pretty silly question. For one thing, there are already laws against incest, bygammy and probably bestiality. You seem to be having a hard time with same sex marriage. 2 people of the same species (humans) may get married. They may not be related as in brother sister, or any other combination. This already applies and same sex marriage doesn't change that or effect it in any way. They may not marry farm animals or appliances and the very idea that this is remotely possible is a sign that you've been listening to too many homophobes.
 
This seems like a pretty silly question. For one thing, there are already laws against incest, bygammy and probably bestiality. *You seem to be having a hard time with same sex marriage. 2 people of the same species (humans) may get married. They may not be related as in brother sister, or any other combination.
The point of this thread is not about for or against anything, but about society's new found tolerance_

Homosexual acts were once illegal as well, which suggests that current laws are in no way an obstacle_

You need to recognize the implications of why SSM was legalized to know if it could apply to other groups_

This already applies and same sex marriage doesn't change that or effect it in any way. They may not marry farm animals or appliances and the very idea that this is remotely possible is *a sign that you've been listening to too many homophobes.
Actually, if you think about it, it very well might "change that or effect it"_

The basic argument for SSM was:

"Does society have the right to deny anyone the right to be happy, based on their sexual orientation?"

The same argument adjusted for other groups would be:

"Does society have the right to deny anyone else the right to be happy, based on their sexual orientation?"

As we have already seen, Society's laws can be changed whenever necessary to allow for new policies_

What we are trying to discuss here in a civilized manner is:

"Has a new level of societal tolerance been reached that might open that door"?

*a sign that you've been listening to too many homophobes.
I suppose you also believe people who are anti-amnesty for illegals are "xenophobes" as well_

It seems that many liberals are often too defensive of homosexuals to rationally discuss gay issues_

So many of you believe that any disagreement in gay policy or opinion is an indication of "homophobia"_

*You seem to be having a hard time with same sex marriage.
You over-estimate the importance of homosexuals and their issues to most right-wingers_

I actually consider SSM to be wayyy down the list of important issues or major concerns_

And no this thread is not about SSM per-say, but about similar rights for other groups_
 
Back
Top Bottom