• 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!

An easy way to eliminate same-sex marriage

Utilitarian Technocrat

Utilitarian Technocrat

Freethinker
Banned
Joined
May 18, 2021
Messages
555
Reaction score
33
Political Leaning
Centrist
1. A state simply has to create a new union only available to naturally reproductive couples.

2. The Supreme Court (currently conservative) has to rule it Constitutional.

3. Then what's considered "marriage" now, just becomes the new civil union, and this new type of union becomes the new "marriage", available only to naturally reproductive couples (therefore automatically excluding same sex couples).

And that's it.
 
Patriotic Voter said:
The Supreme Court has already ruled same-sex marriages constitutional.

Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter, because what's considered "marriage" now would just be the new "civil union", and this new union would become the new "marriage".

Since it doesn't mention "sex", simply the ability of the couple to naturally reproduce with each other, I think this would solve the Constitutional challenge.
 
Utilitarian Technocrat said:
It being ruled Constitutional wouldn't have any bearing on this, since what's considered "marriage" now would no longer be considered marriage in any actual sense.
Click to expand...
A rose by any other name...
 
Utilitarian Technocrat said:
1. A state simply has to create a new union only available to naturally reproductive couples.

2. The Supreme Court (currently conservative) has to rule it Constitutional.

3. Then what's considered "marriage" now, just becomes the new civil union, and this new type of union becomes the new "marriage", available only to naturally reproductive couples (therefore automatically excluding same sex couples).

And that's it.
Click to expand...
Oh look, silly homophobia.

Same sex unions are legal, start living in the real world.

Poe?
 
Utilitarian Technocrat said:
1. A state simply has to create a new union only available to naturally reproductive couples.

2. The Supreme Court (currently conservative) has to rule it Constitutional.

3. Then what's considered "marriage" now, just becomes the new civil union, and this new type of union becomes the new "marriage", available only to naturally reproductive couples (therefore automatically excluding same sex couples).

And that's it.
Click to expand...
It is easy to show how your post is stupid.

  1. Any such union a state would create would be considered unconstitutional for the same reason anti-SSM laws are now considered unconstitutional
  2. It would not rule such a law constitutional as the precedent is already there that it is not
  3. Your new union would affect many more people than just same sex couples
  4. Your premise requires the Supreme Court judges to be really ****ing stupid. They are not.
  5. You have shown no reason why it would be desirable to even try and do your stupid ****ing idea.
 
Utilitarian Technocrat said:
Doesn't matter, because what's considered "marriage" now would just be the new "civil union", and this new union would become the new "marriage".

Since it doesn't mention "sex", simply the ability of the couple to naturally reproduce with each other, I think this would solve the Constitutional challenge.
Click to expand...
Your "new" civil union contracting is nothing new, and it would not end same-sex marriage.
 
beefheart said:
Oh look, silly homophobia.

Same sex unions are legal, start living in the real world.

Poe?
Click to expand...
Well, then you shouldn't have any problem with this proposal, since it wouldn't remove what's already there, just invent something superior which only naturally re-producing couples are allowed.

Redress said:
It is easy to show how your post is stupid.

[*] Any such union a state would create would be considered unconstitutional for the same reason anti-SSM laws are now considered unconstitutional
[*] It would not rule such a law constitutional as the precedent is already there that it is not
Click to expand...
No, they very well can rule it Constitutional, since "sex" is not a factor in it, just whether or not the couple can naturally reproduce with each other. There are plenty of laws which could be used as precedent for this.
Click to expand...
 
Utilitarian Technocrat said:
1. A state simply has to create a new union only available to naturally reproductive couples.

2. The Supreme Court (currently conservative) has to rule it Constitutional.

3. Then what's considered "marriage" now, just becomes the new civil union, and this new type of union becomes the new "marriage", available only to naturally reproductive couples (therefore automatically excluding same sex couples).

And that's it.
Click to expand...
Conservatives, being generally honest people, often naively take court rulings at face value. Thus if the SCOTUS uses a particular argument to reach a given conclusion, conservatives will often set about trying to invalidate that particular argument (as you're doing here). In reality, if such were attempted, the Court would simply use a different argument to reach the same conclusion (which is not actually motivated by the arguments given).
 
AmNat said:
Conservatives, being generally honest people, often naively take court rulings at face value. Thus if the SCOTUS uses a particular argument to reach a given conclusion, conservatives will often set about trying to invalidate that particular argument (as you're doing here). In reality, if such were attempted, the Court would simply use a different argument to reach the same conclusion (which is not actually motivated by the arguments given).
Click to expand...
No, this only takes into account reproductive ability - since there is precedent in the law for "discriminating" on the basis of reproductive ability (which is not unconstitutional), I see this as avoiding the trap of discriminating on the basis of "sex", which is what SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional in regards to same-sex marriage.
 
Utilitarian Technocrat said:
Well, then you shouldn't have any problem with this proposal, since it wouldn't remove what's already there, just invent something superior which only naturally re-producing couples are allowed.
Click to expand...
You can now go to the clerk of the court and file a contract that fulfills what you are proposing. You can already do it.
 
Utilitarian Technocrat said:
Well, then you shouldn't have any problem with this proposal, since it wouldn't remove what's already there, just invent something superior which only naturally re-producing couples are allowed.
Click to expand...
Unnecessary proposal. We have same sex marriages, no need for the usual stupid stuff from you.

Are you a poe? What is your old posting name here?
 
Utilitarian Technocrat said:
1. A state simply has to create a new union only available to naturally reproductive couples.

2. The Supreme Court (currently conservative) has to rule it Constitutional.

3. Then what's considered "marriage" now, just becomes the new civil union, and this new type of union becomes the new "marriage", available only to naturally reproductive couples (therefore automatically excluding same sex couples).

And that's it.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt step 2 will happen.
 
Utilitarian Technocrat said:
No, they very well can rule it Constitutional, since "sex" is not a factor in it, just whether or not the couple can naturally reproduce with each other. There are plenty of laws which could be used as precedent for this.
Click to expand...

First, lern 2 quote tag. It is not hard.

Next: your still assuming that the Supreme Court justices are ****ing stupid, which they are not. Your stated goal, right there in your thread title, is eliminating SSM. You know, I know it, everyone reading this thread knows it, and the justices would know it too. You are redefining marriage into something it has never been, for a goal you cannot manage to explain why you want to achieve, and excluding from marriage many more people than you are targeting. You literally could not fail worse if you tried.
 
Utilitarian Technocrat said:
No, this only takes into account reproductive ability - since there is precedent in the law for "discriminating" on the basis of reproductive ability (which is not unconstitutional), I see this as avoiding the trap of discriminating on the basis of "sex", which is what SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional in regards to same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...
There is no law saying that people who cannot reproduce cannot marry. Do try and fail less.
 
Redress said:
There is no law saying that people who cannot reproduce cannot marry. Do try and fail less.
Click to expand...
Of course not - no one needs to make that law, they just need to create a new union which is exclusive to people who can reproduce.
 
Utilitarian Technocrat said:
Of course not - no one needs to make that law, they just need to create a new union which is exclusive to people who can reproduce.
Click to expand...
And this would serve what purpose? Why do you not want to answer this?
 
Redress said:
And this would serve what purpose? Why do you not want to answer this?
Click to expand...
The purpose would be to give a right to naturally reproductive couples that non-reproductive couples don't have, it's not that complicated.
 
Utilitarian Technocrat said:
The purpose would be to give a right to naturally reproductive couples that non-reproductive couples don't have, it's not that complicated.
Click to expand...
Which is not answering the question. Why is this hard? What is the purpose of doing this? Why should couples who can reproduce need a special right? Stop trying to hide your purpose...
 
beefheart said:
Oh look, silly homophobia.

Same sex unions are legal, start living in the real world.

Poe?
Click to expand...
Not everything legal is smart and wise.
 
Utilitarian Technocrat said:
1. A state simply has to create a new union only available to naturally reproductive couples.

2. The Supreme Court (currently conservative) has to rule it Constitutional.

3. Then what's considered "marriage" now, just becomes the new civil union, and this new type of union becomes the new "marriage", available only to naturally reproductive couples (therefore automatically excluding same sex couples).

And that's it.
Click to expand...
Why would I want to eliminate SSM tho?
 
Utilitarian Technocrat said:
1. A state simply has to create a new union only available to naturally reproductive couples.

2. The Supreme Court (currently conservative) has to rule it Constitutional.

3. Then what's considered "marriage" now, just becomes the new civil union, and this new type of union becomes the new "marriage", available only to naturally reproductive couples (therefore automatically excluding same sex couples).

And that's it.
Click to expand...
Why do you care?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom