• 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.

the legalization of same-sex-marriage

Heh, because effected isn't a word :). :thumbsup:

"Affected" is the proper word, NOT "effected."

af·fect·ed/əˈfektid/

Adjective:

1.Influenced or touched by an external factor: "apply moist heat to the affected area".
2.Artificial, pretentious, and designed to impress: "the gesture appeared both affected and stagy".

As an example: He was "affected" by the malaria he contracted.

ef·fect·ed, ef·fect·ing, ef·fects
1. To bring into existence.
2. To produce as a result.
3. To bring about. See Usage Note at affect1.

effected - definition of effected by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

As an example: He effected his plans. As in, he brought his plans into existence.
 
really we are doing the englis thing? well its "curiosity" bud not "curiousity" ;)

The "u" in curiousity, bud, is from the more English-liking side of me. Meaning, it can be interchanged; the "u" can be used or not and the word still retain it's meaning. The same is with "colour," and "flavour."
 
You would have me believe that simply because, from a Christian perspective I believe it is immoral, that I am intolerant.

That is wrong, and you will always be wrong on that front.





1) So you call me a liar? Yeah, that tells me how drenched in bias you are.

2) You shouldn't speak for all in the homosexual lifestyle, because there are quite a few who will state you are wrong. What, you presume to speak for them and tell them that they have no choice but to accept that they were born gay because you oh-so-strongly believe it to be true? You're claiming that the treatment 100% doesn't work. Obviously, if it 100% didn't work, the institution would cease to exist. So no, don't try to use absolutes with me, because it is intellectual dishonesty.

You are intolerant of homosexuality! And as I said before intolerance isnt always bad. I cannot understand why if you believe homosexuality is a sin and whatnot you believe being intolerant of homosexuality is bad.

1. Did he say he chose to be gay or not?

2. Why would it cease to exist? As long as there are people desperate enough to try conversion therapy it will exist no matter what its success rate its. And its not just me saying that it doesnt work btw. Its several studies and organizations that have looked into conversion therapy. And again do you have any proof that it does work?

Also I dont speak for all gay people. Never claimed to in fact. I am stating what several studies have shown to be true.
 
I've learned that I could support any law that would strip Christians of freedoms and call them any sort of name I want and that wouldn't be intolerance as long as I claim that I am open to their opinions.

Who cares if it is broad and useless terms like intolerance anyway? Seriously if you are going to get caught up in such pointless words and phrases, at least define them much more strictly.
 
Last edited:
The "u" in curiousity, bud, is from the more English-liking side of me. Meaning, it can be interchanged; the "u" can be used or not and the word still retain it's meaning. The same is with "colour," and "flavour."

riiiiiiiiiiight

weird I can find the latter two in the dictionary and with google but not curiousity
either way its meaningless LMAO

now would you like to stay on topic
 
Well that is just my opinion. I'm perfectly tolerant towards ignorant, delusional, backwards, and misguided Christians because I am open to their opinions.

Are you also tolerant of thoughtful, educated, attentive and well informed Christians whose opinions differ from yours? I suspect that you regard Christians as a group as "ignorant, delusional, backwards, and misguided" anyway except on the rare occasions when they happen to agree with your POV. ;)
 
The current law states allows for the current set up for marriage. I was stating that its unconstitutional because it discriminates against gender. You seemed to be stating it wasn't unconstitutional, and stated that was the case because the state has a compelling interest in children being in safe stable homes. Ergo, unless you were giving me a reason that was entirely seperate from your suggestion that the current marriage law isn't constitutional, it would seem that you were suggesting that same sex marriages don't serve that state interest in relation to the current law.

Bro I've just been talking random shots at you arguments, I never argued that states were justified in banning SSM because SSM was somehow bad for raising children.

I've given you my argument. No marriage should be endorsed by the state without the requisit counseling to combat the leading causes for divorce. Just about every form of marriage should be allowed by the state when that counsoling is completed; SSM, good old-fashioned heteros, polygamy, just about all of it.

The pro-ssm law you propose will likewise be unconstitutional because it will still discriminate against harmless groups. Equality has no special interest. Equality for everyone means everyone, not just your own little group. If you want to be a champion just for a little group, great, and I think ssm would be good for children of gays anyway, so go for it. But don't try and blow smoke up my ass claiming you're for equality. You're for gay-rights, not equality, because you don't care about the Muslim polygamist or anyone else.

It's as if you only wanted Lincoln to free Asian slaves.
 
Right, I get your point. However, what you want to rewrite marriage law to all together is irrelevant to the conversation as to whether or not the CURRENT law is unconstitutionally discriminating against same sex marriage.

California and other states added blood testing and other requirements to their marriage license without "rewriting" their entire marriage law. Consoling is no different. There's no grand overhaul which needs to occurs. A counseling completion certificate would simply be another piece of paper you had to bring with you to the court house along with the blood-test results, valid ID, birth certificate, etc.

I understand you dislike the current law and would want it changed completely. However, your opinion on the current law and what it should be instead has zero to do with arguing against the notion that the current law unconstitutional. Thus why you seem to be getting confusion on my part...you're attempting to argue that 2+2 isn't 4 by stating that the answer should really be D.

Your law would be just as unconstitutional as it would leave other harmless groups discriminated against, so you've debased your entire argument.
 
The pro-ssm law you propose will likewise be unconstitutional because it will still discriminate against harmless groups.

The government is fully within its right's to discriminate against various groups as long as it meets the required level of reasoning to do so.

Equality has no special interest. Equality for everyone means everyone, not just your own little group.

Where was I ever arguing for full equality? I was arguing for a Constitutional law, not one that was fully equal.

But don't try and blow smoke up my ass claiming you're for equality.

Sure, I won't do that thing I haven't done at all. Thanks for that request. I'll be sure to continue to not do it.
 
California and other states added blood testing and other requirements to their marriage license without "rewriting" their entire marriage law. Consoling is no different. There's no grand overhaul which needs to occurs. A counseling completion certificate would simply be another piece of paper you had to bring with you to the court house along with the blood-test results, valid ID, birth certificate, etc.

I'd have no huge issue with a state choosing to do this. It's still irrelevant to the debate as to whether or not the current marriage laws are unconstitutional.

Your law would be just as unconstitutional as it would leave other harmless groups discriminated against, so you've debased your entire argument.

You seem to have a limited understanding of the Equal Protection Clause. Tell me which other group that is higher than the lowest tier of scrutiny is being discriminated against regarding marriage law, and how?

Again, you're strawmaning. My argument was never based off the notion that the government CAN'T discriminate, just that it has to meet certain standards to be ABLE to discriminate.
 
I'd have no huge issue with a state choosing to do this. It's still irrelevant to the debate as to whether or not the current marriage laws are unconstitutional.



You seem to have a limited understanding of the Equal Protection Clause. Tell me which other group that is higher than the lowest tier of scrutiny is being discriminated against regarding marriage law, and how?

Again, you're strawmaning. My argument was never based off the notion that the government CAN'T discriminate, just that it has to meet certain standards to be ABLE to discriminate.

If you want a dry discussion on constitutional law, go to the Law and Order forum.

We're in the Religious Discussions forum, so I'm staying with organic discussions on real world problems with family relations. Here, it's more appropriate to quote the bible then a court ruling.

There's nothing unconstitutional about adding consoling requirements for everyone to address the leading causes for divorce. Without this, you're just setting gays up for a 50% divorce rate.
 
Last edited:
Your law would be just as unconstitutional as it would leave other harmless groups discriminated against, so you've debased your entire argument.
As far as I know the equal protection clause was never meant to protect 'homosexual marriage' or any other attacks on traditional marriage by those who wrote it anyway. So it is a moot point, unless someone wants to play the judicial activism game anyway, which is not a constitutional argument but a subversion thereof.
 
If you want a dry discussion on constitutional law, go to the Law and Order forum.

We're in the Religious Discussions forum, so I'm staying with organic discussions on real world problems with family relations. Here, it's more appropriate to quote the bible then a court ruling.

There's nothing unconstitutional about adding consoling requirements for everyone to address the leading causes for divorce. Without this, you're just setting gays up for a 50% divorce rate.

I would be interested to know why permanent marriages are intrinsically better. I understand the tradition involved and all that. But to detach and take a step back... why is a lifetime arrangement superior? Maybe that 50% divorce rate that you dislike so much is an indication of human nature. I mean, it was easy to stay together for your whole life when 40 was elderly. Maybe our relationships naturally have a time limit, and we just reach that limit more often now, since we live longer. Lifetime relationships just might not be that universal.

As far as I know the equal protection clause was never meant to protect 'homosexual marriage' or any other attacks on traditional marriage by those who wrote it anyway. So it is a moot point, unless someone wants to play the judicial activism game anyway, which is not a constitutional argument but a subversion thereof.

It doesn't have to. It was meant to equally protect people. It doesn't need to list every way it equally protects people. It just does it. That's the actual constitutional argument.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't have to. It was meant to equally protect people. It doesn't need to list every way it equally protects people. It just does it. That's the actual constitutional argument.
The term equal is vague. It depends on how you define it and what you define as mattering and not mattering when it comes to comparisons. The only way to use a term like that in a constitution or law is how it is originally intended. Anything else just leaves the interpretation extremely fluid, which undermines the rule of law.
 
Last edited:
I would be interested to know why permanent marriages are intrinsically better. I understand the tradition involved and all that. But to detach and take a step back... why is a lifetime arrangement superior? Maybe that 50% divorce rate that you dislike so much is an indication of human nature. I mean, it was easy to stay together for your whole life when 40 was elderly. Maybe our relationships naturally have a time limit, and we just reach that limit more often now, since we live longer. Lifetime relationships just might not be that universal.

The leading cause for divorce of first marriages is fighting over money (how to manage it, not how much money the couple has). If human nature is any indication, humans are quite creative and cooperative when it comes to handling money in a group. Marriage is unique from a business, however, in that marriage involves a deeply personal romantic relationship, whereas a business typically involves a removed professional relationship.

Helping couples communicate and manage their money together, cooperatively, will significantly help those marriages last.

The leading cause for divorce among second marriages is the step-parent dynamic, where one spouse feels they need to compete for attention, where the children reject the new spouse, and where the children project their anger over the first divorce onto the step-parent.

Since second marriages account for the majority of the divorce rate, helping families work through these feelings and complications will dromaticaly lower the divorce rate.

Lowering the divorce rate lowers the juvenile crime, high-school drop-out and teen pregnancy rates. Pro-ssm and pre-marital counseling share the same goal of helping children, and in the same ways. This is why pre-marital counseling is directly relevant to ssm.
 
Last edited:
You're just playing with words. Either homosexuality is these things or it isn't. The rest is irrelevant.

Since it isn't, making the accusation is hate speech.
 
What evidence? Statistics are treacherous things. On their own they prove little. Simply citing a few statistics, without a lot of assessment and evaluation is not cast iron evidence.

Plenty of studies with lots of assessment and evaluation. Your belief on this is incorrect.
 
Plenty of studies with lots of assessment and evaluation. Your belief on this is incorrect.
These studies may do assessment and evaluation, but this doesn't mean that there is anything of worth in it. That would take detailed investigation, rather than the claim the studies simply exist.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom