• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

It's Time.

That has to be the most random, off-topic post of all time.
 
Kal Stang said:
"Real" human rights violations? My how selective we are in what is real and what isn't when it comes to human rights violations.
Click to expand...

Yes - "real" violations. With all that's wrong with the world, if the cause you're trying to champion is same sex marriage, you have blinders on to real injustice on this planet.

Of all the ways to help make the world a better place, same sex marriage isn't even close to making my short list.
 

Two people who love each other not being able to marry is an injustice in my opinion no matter which way you cut it. Is it as egregious as the Chinese persecuting their own people for their religious beliefs? Is it as horrible as some of the crap that's going on in sub-Saharan Africa? Is it as bad as what goes on in a lot of Islamic countries? Of course not. That doesn't make it not a real injustice.
 
Jerry said:
That has to be the most random, off-topic post of all time.
Click to expand...

You're the one that brought in incest marriages to this conversation. Not me. So if it is off topic then you are at fault. All I did was show you why it would never be allowed and shouldn't be allowed. If you don't want a rebuttle to something you say then just don't say it in the first place.
 

You seem to have missed the second half of that post. Can people not multi-task? Is it not possible to champion SSM, end to hunger, ending useless wars etc etc all at the same time?

ANY injustice should be corrected. No matter how "small" you may think it is.
 
Way to abdicate responsibility for your posts.

I'll brake it down Barney style for ya:
If gays should be able to marry since infertile couples can marry, then incestuous couples should be allowed to marry since other people with inheritable genetic disorders can marry.

The point is not about incest pro or con. The point is that the argument "gays should be able to marry since infertile couples can marry" says nothing about gays specifically. The argument doesn't promote merits of ssm which are unique to ssm, but makes a broad argument which can be applied to many unions we would otherwise object to. This is also why polygamy is constantly brought up.

To validate this point, the anti-ssm argument that ssm should not be allowed because the couple can not naturally procreate, therefore endorses all other couples who can procreate, including incestuous couples.

All of this in toto, is a demonstration using a specific example showing exactly how pro-ssm does not operate on a logical platform to then be reasoned with. Don't expect logical arguments because you aren't showing up with logic or reason yourself. These threads are all about venting emotions, so it's pointless to pretend otherwise.

Both pro and anti ssm are wrong. A pox on both your houses. Our focus should be on what is good for families, not which voting demographic get's access to public hand-outs.
 
Last edited:

But again, the problem here is that you are comparing 2 groups of people (homosexual couple and an infertile couple) that cannot have children on their own with 1 group of people (incestuous) that can have children on their own. You're basically comparing apples to oranges. As such the subject must necessarily move to the pro's and con's.

So what are the pro's and con's of a homosexual couple and an infertile couple in getting married? There are no con's as they affect no one but themselves. There are pro's however, the pro's are the same as any other heterosexual couple that is married.

Now what are the pro's and con's of an incestuous marriage? The pro's would be the same as the heterosexual marriages. The con's? Now thats a completely different story. Now since I've already explained the con's of an incestuous marriage I don't think I need to repeat myself just for this post.

Now, show me where I was "venting emotions" in that please.
 

The problem is that if two mommies are OK then why not three (or four) mommies? What the pro-SSM folks want, is to assert that TWO is the correct number of partners because ??? (tradition?), yet the partners being of oppostie genders is "unfair" NOW because the GLBT crowd has recently become loud and proud (yet not so much as to get enough votes to change state law or amend the constitution). The STATE contract of marriage differs from a standard business "partnership" mainly in two areas, the number of partners in a "marriage partnership" is limitted to two and they must be of opposite genders. Business "partnerships" deal with jointly owned property, survivorship and have conditions for the separation of one or more partners, and have no limit on the number of partners or their genders.
 
Last edited:

I have no problem with polygamy. Not many pro-ssm folks do that I know of. The only problem that there is in how to implement it as our current system does not support it.

And yes, a marriage license is issued by the state. However the Federal government also gives its own special benefits for those that are married. As such it is a joint venture. IE Its not just a state contract. And it wouldn't matter if it was just a state issued contract. Marriage is a fundemental right. That supercedes any state rights.
 
Jerry said:
I stopped reading right there. If you're just going to repeat yourself, don't bother.
Click to expand...

If you don't wish to read further that is certainly your right. But don't blame me when you make the same mistake again and get called on it.
 

Because of the facts. Studies show that loving two parent households are the best environment for kids to grow up in, the same can not be said for 3,4, or more parent households.
 
Your Star said:
Because of the facts. Studies show that loving two parent households are the best environment for kids to grow up in, the same can not be said for 3,4, or more parent households.
Click to expand...

What studies have stated that?
 
Your Star said:
Because of the facts. Studies show that loving two parent households are the best environment for kids to grow up in, the same can not be said for 3,4, or more parent households.
Click to expand...

Please supply those "studies". They must be magic or secret studies since polygamy in the USA is illegal. Crickets...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Please supply those "studies". They must be magic or secret studies since polygamy in the USA is illegal. Crickets...
Click to expand...

Polygamous couples cant marry but they can still live together and raise children together so it is possible that there are studies on the subject although I have never seen them.

Or its possible that the studies come from a country where polygamy is legal.
 

Can you name any other "fundamental right" that is issued ONLY by the state for a fee and that is not mentioned in the constitution (or any of its amendments)? I agree that provisions in federal/state/local law assign both privileges and penalties based on that status, but that does not make marriage into a right, any more than attaining the age of 18, 21 or 65 does. Marriage is a contract condition currently defined by STATE law (and ONLY state law) that is between TWO, non closely-related, consenting adults of opposite genders.
 
Last edited:

Anything is POSSIBLE, but I am getting tired of "studies show... ", "it has been proven that... " or "it is well known that..." and when asked for a source, none is ever offered and the troll simply disappears. I suspect those studies actually compare single and two parent "families", and that since one parent is not "better" than two parents, then that "proves" that two is "the best number" of parents, especially when the phrase "loving two parent households" was included in the assertion. ;-)
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Please supply those "studies". They must be magic or secret studies since polygamy in the USA is illegal. Crickets...
Click to expand...

Personally I don't know of any studies. Never looked for em. However just because polygamous marriages are not legal in the US does not mean that A: There are no folks that live that lifestyle in the US and B: That there are no polygamous marriages that cannot be used in studies across the world. Indeed Polgamy is practiced in 70-75% of the world. So there certainly is no lack of it to do studies with.

Also it would stand to reason that polygamy would be good for a child as the childs needs are met more easily due to there being more people able to do such things. In a monogamy marriage there are only two.
 
I think this is good. One of the main images anti-SSM supporters look towards are gay pride parades and how bizarre they are. Homosexuals have relationships like everyone else and the only difference between their love and a straight person's love is... well there isn't one.
 
Your Star isnt a troll at all. Although I doubt there has been a good study on the subject as well.
 

And you refuse to see that the difference is in why they do this, not the fact that they do. The state needs a reason why they treat the two differently that is backed up by facts that support an actual state interest in doing so.

Military standards are different because the facts are that those fitness standards show a level of personal fitness, not an actual indication that a person will have to do 100 pushups or run 1 1/2 miles or do 100 situps in their line of duty. And male and female bodies are different, just as when a person ages, their body is different than younger bodies. This is why you have the difference and it is a within the reasonable state interest test. The age limits are almost always based on setting a general age in which people can do things because we, as humans, see age as good indicators for certain physical or mental points in a person's life, in which most people will reach the point where they have a hard time working or can drink alcohol without the mindset of a child while alone (many states allow for parents to give permission for their children to drink, and almost all states allow a child to drink alcohol for religious ceremonies).

I don't really agree with affirmative action programs at all. They really should at least be evaluated every so often to review if they are still necessary, if not just completely done away with, depending on the program.
 

Same sex marriage is the absolute easiest one to take care of too. It's real simple, make it legal. Then no one is devoting any more time and money to trying to make it legal. It would be and it would not harm anyone in any way by just having it legal.
 

Marriage is a right. The SCOTUS has stated it several times and ruled certain state laws on it unconstitutional when those laws prevent people from entering into it without a good enough reason (dependent on level of scrutiny to justify not allowing the people being denied to enter into marriage.

And, actually the whole matter really is about the states offering something to one certain group of people but denying it to another "similarly situated". In this case, it is marriage. But it could be any number of things, including basically any license. If the state says that only people with blue eyes can have a fishing license, then the state must explain what state interest it has in denying those without blue a fishing license just on the basis of eye color alone. And fishing licenses are not mentioned as a right, neither are they given by the federal government. Even if the law allowed for people to wear contacts that made their eyes blue and/or when using the license, they would still need to explain the reasoning behind the restriction in the first place when such a law was challenged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…