• 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!

US Judge could rule on Nebraska SSM ban

roguenuke said:
From the post I responded to, you seemed to be saying that those things that you were complaining about same sex couples would get when married (social security benefits, tax differences from when single, adoption benefits, etc.) are things included in marriage to begin with because of the social benefit marriage brings to society and by giving these benefits, it "optimizes" the benefit marriage brings to society. I am pointing out that there is really no difference between opposite sex couples and same sex couples when it comes to these benefits. I showed you quite clearly that they "optimize" the same benefits when it is same sex couples marrying as when it is opposite sex couples getting married.

If you don't agree, please explain why they are not comparable in the benefits.

And in the original post, your comment about it possibly impacting the "further development" of our society is just rubbish. You cannot show a negative impact will come from allowing same sex couples to marry. The anti-ssm side cannot even speculate/make up a legitimate, objective negative impact that same sex couples marrying will have on society. The most I've heard is "moral decay" (subjective), "people will stop reproducing" (one of the stupidest claims ever), "it will lead to other things" (another stupid claim and if anything else is legalized, it will be on its own merits, not because same sex couples were all allowed to marry), "God's wrath" (seriously?), and even stupider or more subjective things.
Click to expand...

Since reading the report you linked for me that argued the positive fiscal impact of ssm, I have been disenchanted. It is true that the conclusion was as you said. It was also true of the report that the asumptions were selective and much less well established than the report maintained. As a matter of fact, the assumption at one point that on average the couples would behave irrationally seemed quite daring. After that you might want to link some empirical studies. But please don't stick me with only one biased one again. What would be interesting though, would be a study about optimizing societies in respect to structures of family, reproduction and the societies' success over long periods.
 
chad1389 said:
Look lady, I already apologized for this. I jumped to a conclusion. I thought the person was trying to attack a conservative using left wing media as a factual source, but since you seem so hell bent on totally ripping me apart I'll state my own position on this issue, which you might not like, as it does stem from my religious values.

God already disapproves of the gay lifestyle, so why would a piece of a paper from the government that defines them as married upset him anymore than He already is about it? The government should have no right to NOT allow gays to get married as we Christians have no right proclaiming that God will be mad if they do because He doesn't like it. Everyone knows that already. Having someone say "I know pronounce you" won't make him happy nor any more angry about the situation. Letting them get married won't interfere with my own salvation.
Click to expand...


So you agree that SSM should be legalized? that's what I get out of this
 
paddymcdougall said:
So you agree that SSM should be legalized? that's what I get out of this
Click to expand...

I'm not for or against it. Whatever the government decides to do is entirely up to them. However I will say that it is a right by constitutional law. Why it is illegal I have no idea.
 
chad1389 said:
I'm not for or against it. Whatever the government decides to do is entirely up to them. However I will say that it is a right by constitutional law. Why it is illegal I have no idea.
Click to expand...

That works for me. thanks.
 
joG said:
Since reading the report you linked for me that argued the positive fiscal impact of ssm, I have been disenchanted. It is true that the conclusion was as you said. It was also true of the report that the asumptions were selective and much less well established than the report maintained. As a matter of fact, the assumption at one point that on average the couples would behave irrationally seemed quite daring. After that you might want to link some empirical studies. But please don't stick me with only one biased one again. What would be interesting though, would be a study about optimizing societies in respect to structures of family, reproduction and the societies' success over long periods.
Click to expand...

The point of this society is to optimize freedom, not your ideal family structures.

Then explain the problems with the points made. Or, explain why you believe it causes financial hardships and how in those things you mentioned.
 
roguenuke said:
The point of this society is to optimize freedom, not your ideal family structures.

Then explain the problems with the points made. Or, explain why you believe it causes financial hardships and how in those things you mentioned.
Click to expand...

Freedom is certainly one of the important social goals that this county's government is supposed to protect. I do not see that as an issue here, however. It is about people wanting unjustified benifits from others.
 
joG said:
Freedom is certainly one of the important social goals that this county's government is supposed to protect. I do not see that as an issue here, however. It is about people wanting unjustified benifits from others.
Click to expand...

"unjustified benefits"? you mean the benefits married couples of the opposite sex have been getting all along?

I can see arguing that we should give fewer benefits to married couples (I won't argue that personally, but I can see that as a valid point); but I don't see arguing that same sex couples shouldn't get those same benefits.

Of course, along with benefits come legal responsibilities to one's partner. It's not all benefit.

And I apologize if I have misunderstood your point; I may not be remembering something you said earlier.
 
joG said:
Freedom is certainly one of the important social goals that this county's government is supposed to protect. I do not see that as an issue here, however. It is about people wanting unjustified benifits from others.
Click to expand...

Nope. It is about being treated equally because others are given benefits that are completely justified in the same ways for one group as they would be for the other.

Ever wonder why the states never used any of the arguments you are trying? Because they know better. They know that none of those benefits you mentioned relate to the only thing that separates same sex couples from opposite sex couples, the ability of many opposite sex couples to procreate. Because that ability to procreate doesn't have jack to do with social security, medicaid/medicare, other welfare programs, married tax breaks, spousal privilege when it comes to testifying, protections in court for the relationship, and the other benefits that only come with being married or at least legally recognized as kin.
 
paddymcdougall said:
"unjustified benefits"? you mean the benefits married couples of the opposite sex have been getting all along?

I can see arguing that we should give fewer benefits to married couples (I won't argue that personally, but I can see that as a valid point); but I don't see arguing that same sex couples shouldn't get those same benefits.

Of course, along with benefits come legal responsibilities to one's partner. It's not all benefit.

And I apologize if I have misunderstood your point; I may not be remembering something you said earlier.
Click to expand...

Yes. Though always imperfect, they were originally perceived and conceived to make society more efficient. But they seem to be falling short and no longer useful as a societal instrument under the changed circumstances. They certainly require a total overhaul.
Just s certainly many of the measures introduced to optimize heterosexual marriage do nothing of the sort for ssm, which would require a different set of subsidies to be efficient.
 
roguenuke said:
Nope. It is about being treated equally because others are given benefits that are completely justified in the same ways for one group as they would be for the other.

Ever wonder why the states never used any of the arguments you are trying? Because they know better. They know that none of those benefits you mentioned relate to the only thing that separates same sex couples from opposite sex couples, the ability of many opposite sex couples to procreate. Because that ability to procreate doesn't have jack to do with social security, medicaid/medicare, other welfare programs, married tax breaks, spousal privilege when it comes to testifying, protections in court for the relationship, and the other benefits that only come with being married or at least legally recognized as kin.
Click to expand...

That is why I feel it so outrageaous to separate the girls from the boys in the Olympics. Totally unjust!
 
joG said:
Yes. Though always imperfect, they were originally perceived and conceived to make society more efficient. But they seem to be falling short and no longer useful as a societal instrument under the changed circumstances. They certainly require a total overhaul.
Just s certainly many of the measures introduced to optimize heterosexual marriage do nothing of the sort for ssm, which would require a different set of subsidies to be efficient.
Click to expand...

Bullcrap. But, hey, this should be easy enough for you to argue. Simply provide a list of marriage benefits that "optimize" heterosexual marriages but would have no influence on same-sex marriage. Instead of being vague and obtuse, how about we see how specific you can be with this argument. I would like to hear some specific examples.
 
CriticalThought said:
Bullcrap. But, hey, this should be easy enough for you to argue. Simply provide a list of marriage benefits that "optimize" heterosexual marriages but would have no influence on same-sex marriage. Instead of being vague and obtuse, how about we see how specific you can be with this argument. I would like to hear some specific examples.
Click to expand...

Did i say they would have no influence on ssm. Of course you didn't. It was about optimizing the society's regulation for reproduction, socialization, stability and that type of thing.
 
joG said:
Did i say they would have no influence on ssm. Of course you didn't. It was about optimizing the society's regulation for reproduction, socialization, stability and that type of thing.
Click to expand...

Um....

joG said:
Just s certainly many of the measures introduced to optimize heterosexual marriage do nothing of the sort for ssm, which would require a different set of subsidies to be efficient.
Click to expand...

Do you even know your own argument?

Can you provide a list of specific examples of marriage benefits that "optimize" heterosexual marriages but would "do nothing" for same-sex marriage?

Sorry, but if you cannot provide even basic clarification, then your argument does not pass the smell test and is clearly a load of crap.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Um....



Do you even know your own argument?

Can you provide a list of specific examples of marriage benefits that "optimize" heterosexual marriages but would "do nothing" for same-sex marriage?

Sorry, but if you cannot provide even basic clarification, then your argument does not pass the smell test and is clearly a load of crap.
Click to expand...

Do you mean to say that you haven't even given the thing that much thought?
 
joG said:
Did i say they would have no influence on ssm. Of course you didn't. It was about optimizing the society's regulation for reproduction, socialization, stability and that type of thing.
Click to expand...

Can you show some documented proof of this being the reason for each and every single benefit or protection (or any) that spouses get?
 
** UPDATE **

Judge strikes down Nebraska's same-sex marriage ban, state appeals | Politics - KETV Home

According to an injunction filed in federal court Monday, Senior U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon said "all relevant state officials are ordered to treat same-sex couples the same as different sex couples in the context of processing a marriage license or determining the rights, protections, obligations or benefits of marriage."


The order is set to take effect March 9 at 8 a.m

Bataillon writes of Nebraska's gay marriage ban: "It is time to bring this unequal provision to an end," saying that the state's voter-passed banned on gay marriage, "is an unabashedly gender-specific infringement of the equal rights of its citizens."

He goes on to write, "With the advent of modern science and modern adoption laws, same sex couples can and do responsibly raise children. Unfortunately, this law inhibits their commendable efforts."
Click to expand...


:2dancing: Yay! Equal rights win again. ;)


Attorney General Doug Peterson's office requested "emergency relief" and "immediate docketing" with the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. That court is in Missouri.

In a statement Monday, Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts said, "The definition of marriage is an issue for the people of Nebraska, and an activist judge should not substitute his personal political preferences for the will of the people."

Ricketts vows to work with Peterson to "uphold Nebraska's Constitution and the will of the people of our great state."

Voters in Nebraska passed a gay marriage ban in 2000 with 70 percent of the vote, according to Ricketts' office.
Click to expand...


:nahnah: Boo!

Alright then, let's take another re-vote 15 years later and see now what the majority wants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom