• 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!

Why gay marriage bans are unconstitutional

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I will now quell every single comment that I've heard in favor of gay marriage bans. However, unlike all the other threads you've seen, I will actually conclusively quell each and every comment I've heard in favor of gay marriage bans... drum roll please... in three sentences or less!

1. The people have democratically ruled that marriage is between a man and a woman.
So what? The Supreme Court case of Romer v. Evans explicitly states that the "people's vote" doesn't mean sh*t when it serves no purpose but to discriminate against homosexuals, and that's all there is to it. Period.

Done. Three sentences, and the argument is decisively and conclusively quelled.

2. Homosexuality is immoral.
The federal courts have ruled, in plain English, that mere moral disapproval of homosexuality plainly never passes even rational basis review.

Less than three sentences, and the homophobes shut up!

3. It is imperative that children be raised by their birth parents.
If gay people have children, unless artificial insemination is in place (which we cannot stop, one way or another), then it must be done by adoption. If the latter method is used, then the birth parents are either unable or unwilling to care for the child.

Two sentences, and the homophobes can show nothing against it.

4. Straight marriage will become less meaningful if same-sex marriage is allowed.
While many homophobes state this, they have yet to go one step further and explain exactly what actual, real, compensatory injury will likely happen if same-sex marriage is allowed. The Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that, while a detailed, thorough claim is unnecessary, complainants do need to go beyond mere "defendants hurt me in an illegal manner" vague claims (see Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly). Therefore, this counter-claim (for lack of a better term) does not hold water, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Three sentences.

5. If we legalize gay marriage, other nations will follow and fall into Satan's hands.
This claim does not hold water, pure and simple, because religion is simply not valid when making a political point. It is called "separation of church and state," and that is all there is to it. Live with it.

Three sentences.

6. Children need both a male and a female role model at home.
Science says otherwise, dipsh*t. Live with it.

Two sentences.

Are there any other things that homophobes want me to quell in three sentences or less?
 
Last edited:

Dav

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
5,536
Reaction score
1,813
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Um. That had almost nothing to do with the constitutionality of gay marriage bans.
 

Dav

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
5,536
Reaction score
1,813
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
How do you figure?

What do you mean, how do I figure? Your post wasn't about why gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. You barely even addressed the issue.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
What do you mean, how do I figure? Your post wasn't about why gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. You barely even addressed the issue.
Are you actually saying that?

Ok, here, I'm going to actually spoon-feed you this information, since, obviously, you're too stupid to figure it out, yourself. I mean, I believed that you were an illiterate hillbilly, but, I guess I still underestimated your stupidity:

Here it is: I established how gay marriage bans are unconstitutional by quelling the affirmative defenses that homophobes use during these gay marriage lawsuits.

Kapeesh?
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
<---- gay and for same sex marriage, so try calling me a homophobe and see how far it gets you.

Your points are valid but they have nothing to do with SSM bans being unconstitutional.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
<---- gay and for same sex marriage, so try calling me a homophobe and see how far it gets you.

Your points are valid but they have nothing to do with SSM bans being unconstitutional.
What are you talking about? These are the points that homophobes use to justify SSM bans and say that they are constitutional!

Without these points, the argument that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional effectively go unopposed. That is how they are related to SSM bans!
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What are you talking about? These are the points that homophobes use to justify SSM bans and say that they are constitutional!

Without these points, the argument that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional effectively go unopposed. That is how they are related to SSM bans!

I'm not saying they're not good arguments, just that they're not telling us what in the Constitution says that banning gay marriage is not allowed.

I would argue from the perspective of Equal Protection, but that's just me.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
67,550
Reaction score
34,333
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
1. The people have democratically ruled that marriage is between a man and a woman.
So what? The Supreme Court case of Romer v. Evans explicitly states that the "people's vote" doesn't mean sh*t when it serves no purpose but to discriminate against homosexuals, and that's all there is to it. Period.

well then i'm glad that that's not the purpose of defending traditional definitions of marriage.

and the SC was never meant to be the last word on constitutionality.

2. Homosexuality is immoral.
The federal courts have ruled, in plain English, that mere moral disapproval of homosexuality plainly never passes even rational basis review.

no, the courts have tended to rule against anti-sodomy laws. not really the same thing.

Less than three sentences, and the homophobes shut up!

you do realize that supporters of traditional marriage are not, by definition, homophobes.

ah, no you don't.

which is one of the major reasons why you constantly lose in the court of public opinion.

3. It is imperative that children be raised by their birth parents.
If gay people have children, unless artificial insemination is in place (which we cannot stop, one way or another), then it must be done by adoption. If the latter method is used, then the birth parents are either unable or unwilling to care for the child.

i don't think i've ever heard this given as an argument in favor of traditional marraige or against altering the definition to include homosexual unions.

4. Straight marriage will become less meaningful if same-sex marriage is allowed.
While many homophobes state this, they have yet to go one step further and explain exactly what actual, real, compensatory injury will likely happen if same-sex marriage is allowed. The Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that, while a detailed, thorough claim is unnecessary, complainants do need to go beyond mere "defendants hurt me in an illegal manner" vague claims (see Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly). Therefore, this counter-claim (for lack of a better term) does not hold water, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

less meaningful? no, the institution of marriage will, however.

5. If we legalize gay marriage, other nations will follow and fall into Satan's hands.
This claim does not hold water, pure and simple, because religion is simply not valid when making a political point. It is called "separation of church and state," and that is all there is to it. Live with it.

i don't know about all that. i do know that if we legalize gay marriage, polygamy will surely follow; as will incest.

6. Children need both a male and a female role model at home.
Science says otherwise, dipsh*t. Live with it.

actually science says that children raised without (for example) a father figure suffer extensively from that experience.

Are there any other things that homophobes want me to quell in three sentences or less?

yeah.

1. i would like to see an explanation of what you think marriage is, and why you have the right to force your definition on the American people against their will.

2. I would like to see your explanation either of how removing from the American people the right to define marriage will not immediately justify incestual/polygamous relationships, or a worthy defense of them.

3. I would like to see any kind of proof that you have that the wide majority of the American people are homophobic. in particular i would like to see how come the same populations that refuse to condone homosexual marriage and yet at the same time have no problem condoning homosexual unions... hate homosexuals. for example; my little sister whom i love dearly is a lesbian. i would like very much for you to demonstrate to me how i am, in fact, unreasonably afraid of her.
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,644
Reaction score
8,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
you do realize that supporters of traditional marriage are not, by definition, homophobes.

A thorn by any other name is still a thorn.

Let's be clear on something. The only reason anyone talks about "traditional marriage" is because gays are deemed to be a threat to the institution of marriage. The arguments are typically...

1. Children will be deprived either a mother or father and will therefore somehow suffer.
2. The institution itself will somehow fall apart.
3. Anyone who disagrees with homosexuality on religious grounds will be persecuted against.

That is it. Perceived threats with no real evidence to back it up.

And what is the emotion behind perceived threats?

Fear.

And who is this fear directed towards?

Homosexuals.

Therefore, support for traditional marriage = homophobia.

Sorry if you don't like being homophobic, but you are entitled to your lifestyle, we just don't agree with your hateful values.
 

Dav

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
5,536
Reaction score
1,813
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
A thorn by any other name is still a thorn.

Let's be clear on something. The only reason anyone talks about "traditional marriage" is because gays are deemed to be a threat to the institution of marriage. The arguments are typically...

1. Children will be deprived either a mother or father and will therefore somehow suffer.
2. The institution itself will somehow fall apart.
3. Anyone who disagrees with homosexuality on religious grounds will be persecuted against.

That is it. Perceived threats with no real evidence to back it up.

And what is the emotion behind perceived threats?

Fear.

And who is this fear directed towards?

Homosexuals.

Therefore, support for traditional marriage = homophobia.

Sorry if you don't like being homophobic, but you are entitled to your lifestyle, we just don't agree with your hateful values.

I'm certainly impressed that you can read the minds of the majority of the population, but... well, you can't.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm not saying they're not good arguments, just that they're not telling us what in the Constitution says that banning gay marriage is not allowed.

I would argue from the perspective of Equal Protection, but that's just me.
There is no dispute that SSM bans are unequal protection. The only fact of material dispute is whether or not the government has a good reason for having this unequal protection.

It's like a murder case, where the defendant does not deny killing the person, but claims that he did so in self-defense. At that point, you won't even talk about whether or not he actually killed the man. You'll only talk about whether or not he was acting in self-defense. At that point, quelling his argument that he was acting in self-defense is sufficient to convict him.

It's like that.

well then i'm glad that that's not the purpose of defending traditional definitions of marriage.
Really? REALLY?!

I'll make you a bet: I think I can prove you wrong on that, that many people are, indeed, using that as one of their justifications for discrimination of marriage. The looser has to pay the winner $5,000, wired to his paypal payment. Failure to do so will subject the looser to an online arbitration, using the services of internet-ARBitration: Online arbitration firm for internet arbitration & dispute resolution, for a total of $15,000. Do you accept my challenge?

and the SC was never meant to be the last word on constitutionality.
I offer the same bet that I did above: Five thousand dollars says that I can prove you wrong on that statement.

no, the courts have tended to rule against anti-sodomy laws. not really the same thing.
See above.

ah, no you don't.

which is one of the major reasons why you constantly lose in the court of public opinion.[/quote]
I already told you: The court of public opinion does not mean jack squat.

i don't think i've ever heard this given as an argument in favor of traditional marraige or against altering the definition to include homosexual unions.
I am hereby offering my previous $5,000 bet to you, except, in this case, I do not deny that you have not seen this as an argument. However, I feel that I can point out a very high-profile instance, that you should know about, where this argument was used, therefore, giving you no excuse, other than mere stupidity, for not knowing it. If I can do that, then you owe me $5,000. If I can't, then I will pay you $5,000. Do you accept that challenge?

Easy twenty thousand bucks if you accept all of the above challenges. How confident are you that I can't prove you wrong?

less meaningful? no, the institution of marriage will, however.
It's the same thing!

i do know that if we legalize gay marriage, polygamy will surely follow; as will incest.
What is your rational basis for thinking that?

actually science says that children raised without (for example) a father figure suffer extensively from that experience.
Cite your source!


1. i would like to see an explanation of what you think marriage is,[/quote]
A union between two people who love each other in a romantic way, so that they may come together and form a household.

and why you have the right to force your definition on the American people against their will.
Because there are benefits associated with marriage.

I couldn't give less of a rats ass if the church down the street thinks that my marriage is an abomination. I only care about what the government thinks of my marriage.

2. I would like to see your explanation either of how removing from the American people the right to define marriage will not immediately justify incestual/polygamous relationships, or a worthy defense of them.
Certainly.

Gay marriage is poised to be legalized, judicially, because there is no rational reason not to legalize it. Incest and polygamy are illegal at a secular level because there are secular reasons to ban them.

Incest used to be legal (e.g. the monarchs of Europe "keeping it in the family"), but then it was proven (emphasis on that last word) that children who are the spawn of incest have a significantly higher risk of genetic disorders. That has been proven by science.

Polygamy is illegal at a secular level because of all the benefits that are associated with marriage. If you have more than one spouse, who gets the benefits? Who gets primary decision-making power when you're medically incapacitated? Who gets all your assets upon death, without any will? If you're going to name the first person, chronologically, that you married, that might as well be the only one that the government (as opposed to the church) recognizes. The government couldn't give less of a damn if you're having a manage a trios; merely, only one of them will be considered as your lawfully-wedded spouse.

3. I would like to see any kind of proof that you have that the wide majority of the American people are homophobic.
Before you do that, I would like to know why you italicized the word "wide." Why would you put such an emphasis on that?

in particular i would like to see how come the same populations that refuse to condone homosexual marriage and yet at the same time have no problem condoning homosexual unions... hate homosexuals. for example; my little sister whom i love dearly is a lesbian. i would like very much for you to demonstrate to me how i am, in fact, unreasonably afraid of her.
You deny them rights by voting against their right to marry. You deny them sentimental value by forcing them to settle with a bastardized "domestic partnership."
 
Last edited:

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,644
Reaction score
8,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'm certainly impressed that you can read the minds of the majority of the population, but... well, you can't.

I beg to differ. I have a fairly good understanding of human nature.

People are simple and predicable creatures. They are seldom rational, their decisions are driven primarily by emotion, and they occasionally utilize rational oversight in order to consider the pros and cons of their behavior and the expectations of society.

Humans are often uncomfortable with deviance of any sort because they perceive it as a threat to either the individual who practices it or to the society as a whole. The only way humans can justify imposing their beliefs or values on others is by arguing that they are doing it in the best interest of the deviant individual and for the good of society.

As such, humans will try to concoct any justification to interfere in the lives of those perceived as deviants in order to quell their own uneasiness and discomfort with behaviors outside the norm.
 
Last edited:

RosieS

Active member
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
272
Reaction score
69
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Redefining marriage by legalizing SSM is limited in scope. It merely changes the genders of the two people allowed to marry. Incest isn't going to be legalized: siblings or parent/child sex partners will still be subject to arrest.

And, while not in marriage relationships, here's some clueage: polyamory has existed, does exist, and will continue to. I seriously doubt if polyamorous people will seek or care about societal approval of their relationships. So no one needs to worry about 'em, they ain't worried about what YOU think of them.

SSM is about civil rights. Attempting to confuse the issue is patently spurious.

Regards from Rosie
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
67,550
Reaction score
34,333
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is no dispute that SSM bans are unequal protection.

on the contrary; this is currently a very active dispute. claiming there is no dispute over this is no more legitimate than al gore claiming that the debate is over on global warming.

It's like a murder case, where the defendant does not deny killing the person, but claims that he did so in self-defense. At that point, you won't even talk about whether or not he actually killed the man. You'll only talk about whether or not he was acting in self-defense. At that point, quelling his argument that he was acting in self-defense is sufficient to convict him.
It's like that.

well, it actually is like that, but not in the way you've described.

because if it was self defense then it wasn't a murder case.

Really? REALLY?!

:shrug: yeah, really.

I'll make you a bet: I think I can prove you wrong on that, that many people are, indeed, using that as one of their justifications for discrimination of marriage.

:shrug: i have no doubt that there are loons out there who chant the "i hate gays" line; some of them regularly protest outside the base i am stationed at. just as i am sure that there are people who voted against Obama because "he's a secret muslim", people who voted against Bush because they were convinced that he was behind the 9.11 attacks, and people who are so narrow minded as to think that the only possible reason that a well-intentioned fellow citizen could come to a different conclusion than them on the proper role of the state vis-a-vie marriage is bigotry.

but irrespective, generally speaking, no. "we want to actively discriminate against gays" is not exactly the traditional life supporters chief argument, any more than "we like killing babies" is part of the pro-choice movements.

I offer the same bet that I did above: Five thousand dollars says that I can prove you wrong on that statement.[/quote[

:lol: based off of what? the supreme court is the last word on constitutionality because it says it is??? circular logic, my friend ;).

if i may cite Thomas Jefferson here:

The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches... To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

I already told you: The court of public opinion does not mean jack squat.

exactly. you are fully willing to impose a wildly unpopular overhaul of the basis of our society against the will of the people by utilizing the coercive power of the state. you are willing to overthrow the notion of rule of law and soveriegnty of the people in order to get your way.

but one day the little unaccountable princelings you are seeking to set up might not be so accomadating to you. that's the danger of abandoning process for policy.

I am hereby offering my previous $5,000 bet to you, except, in this case, I do not deny that you have not seen this as an argument. However, I feel that I can point out a very high-profile instance, that you should know about, where this argument was used, therefore, giving you no excuse, other than mere stupidity, for not knowing it. If I can do that, then you owe me $5,000. If I can't, then I will pay you $5,000. Do you accept that challenge?

no. one the one hand i don't gamble, and on the other i am nowhere near rich enough yet to be playing with that kind of money. however, i'd love to see your example.

Easy twenty thousand bucks if you accept all of the above challenges. How confident are you that I can't prove you wrong?

i'm pretty confident, actually.

It's the same thing!

no, institutions are different from individual portions of them. for example, i can destroy my current marriage by cheating on my wife and then beating her, without effecting my neighbors marriage a whit; the institution remains largely undamaged by the actions that dramatically damage my particular part of it. however, if i were to change the law to require husbands to mildly beat their wives and cheat on them at least once a year, then i have damaged the institution of marriage, even if my neighbor refuses to obey me and his particular relationship remains just fine.

What is your rational basis for thinking that?

:confused: i really don't see how this is not blindingly obvious. someone has to define marraige for the state. previously, that has been the legislature (as it should be) or, in some cases, the people directly via referendums. once you remove the right of the people to define marriage (either directly or via their elected representatives), then they have no right to define it as one man and one woman.

but neither do they have the right to define it as one man and one woman. by overthrowing the popular will on this you have also overthrown that which kept the state from issuing equal recognition to polygamous or incestual relationships. they must have their "right" to a marriage licence the same as the monogamous homosexuals; and it would be a violation of the newly expanded 14th amendment to deny it to them.

it's not a slippery slope, it is a tautology.

Cite your source!

that children raised without fathers suffer for it? seriously? in a post-'great society' world you need a source.

On average, children raised without fathers are more likely to show signs of psychological maladjustment, they are more likely to have difficulties at school, difficulty in getting even to underperform, or to drop out of school early, to have less school completed. They are more likely to be represented in the statistics on delinquency and unconventional social behaviour, and they seem to have difficulty establishing and maintaining intimate relationships, particularly heterosexual relationships once they move into adulthood... Children who have close warm relationships with their fathers are better adjusted psychologically, perform better at school, are less likely to be involved in antisocial behaviour, and seem to do better in their relationship with peers, as children, as adolescents, and as adults.

1. i would like to see an explanation of what you think marriage is,

A union between two people who love each other in a romantic way, so that they may come together and form a household.

then i have to ask (utilizing your reasoning here) why you are bigoted against muslims? do you hate them or fear them for being polygamous, or do you seek to wrongfully discriminate against them for some other reason?

and who says it has to be romantic love? that's not even the historical norm - for millenia people married because they had to, because so-and-so was available, because social convention said they had to marry that person, because their parents picked their spouse for them... the notion of romantic love being a defining part of marriage rather than merely a hopeful addition is a relatively recent one (added, i might add, due to the preference of the same people you now deride).

and why must they come together to form a household? do you hate people who are married and live apart? my wife and i are currently in two separate states due to my job; and when i was deployed she was living with her parents, in their household. was our marriage (by your definition) anulled during that time period?

Because there are benefits associated with marriage.

no, i don't think that is it. if that were the case then the homosexual advocacy movement would be satisfied with the (far more popular and more achievable) goal of civil unions which include all the same government benefits (but, as i recall, without the tax punishment). as much as you swear that "I couldn't give less of a rats ass if the church down the street thinks that my marriage is an abomination.", this is a social battle. the homosexual advocacy movement wants to force people to accept them as an equal alternative to traditional sexuality and marriage.

Gay marriage is poised to be legalized, judicially, because there is no rational reason not to legalize it. Incest and polygamy are illegal at a secular level because there are secular reasons to ban them.

but that is no argument at all; you are basically stating that you believe that the legalization of polygamy and incestual marriages can never happen because no judge disagrees with you on this matter. which is preposterous.

Incest used to be legal (e.g. the monarchs of Europe "keeping it in the family"), but then it was proven (emphasis on that last word) that children who are the spawn of incest have a significantly higher risk of genetic disorders. That has been proven by science.

yes. specifically it has been proven that it usually takes several generations of consistent inbreeding for this to occur. however, this line of argument has three problems for you: 1. it means that you are willing to place the definition of marriage within the context of producing children via sexual interaction between the two members of the union. i hardly think i need to draw out how that is a realm that does not include homosexual unions. 2. it means that you are willing (see above) to restrict people's actions based on possibilities of what the children might do. and 3. it means that you are willing to deny marriage and children to those whom you deem genetically unfit; eugenics at it's best. should dwarves be allowed to reproduce? how about people with a history of breast cancer? how about any genetic anomaly; or someone who carries a recessive allele for it? your above claim (that we should not allow those to marry whose children might be less than 'optimal') would exclude them all.

polygamy is illegal at a secular level because of all the benefits that are associated with marriage. If you have more than one spouse, who gets the benefits? Who gets primary decision-making power when you're medically incapacitated? Who gets all your assets upon death, without any will?

all easily handled through checkboxes on the actual application form itself; with the latest form submitted binding, just like with wills. my life insurance forms include the same questions (do you want your wife to get it? if not then whom? divided by what percentage, if among multiple individuals? allocated in lump sum or regular checks? etc). that's not even a pretend argument.

Before you do that, I would like to know why you italicized the word "wide." Why would you put such an emphasis on that?

because this is not the kind of 'won the popular vote but lost the electoral college' kind of issue that we saw in the 2000 election. the American people have stated clearly - liberal states, conservative states, and swing states all alike - no less than thirty times, and typically by large majorities that they want to define marriage as between a man and a woman. i find this to be an important point; that what we are discussing here is not simply taking a matter on a knife-edge and tilting it one way or the other; it is blatantly overthrowing popular soverignty in order to get your way.

You deny them rights by voting against their right to marry.

you have no more right to force the people to issue you a marriage license if you do not meet their qualifications than you do to force them to issue you a truckers license under the same circumstances.

You deny them sentimental value by forcing them to settle with a bastardized "domestic partnership."

then we're right back at polygamy and incest.
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,644
Reaction score
8,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
On average, children raised without fathers are more likely to show signs of psychological maladjustment, they are more likely to have difficulties at school, difficulty in getting even to underperform, or to drop out of school early, to have less school completed. They are more likely to be represented in the statistics on delinquency and unconventional social behaviour, and they seem to have difficulty establishing and maintaining intimate relationships, particularly heterosexual relationships once they move into adulthood... Children who have close warm relationships with their fathers are better adjusted psychologically, perform better at school, are less likely to be involved in antisocial behaviour, and seem to do better in their relationship with peers, as children, as adolescents, and as adults.

Fatherless statistics? Really? How intellectually dishonest can you get?

They are statistics of children raised by single mothers! They do not demonstrate anything regarding lacking one gender in a home! They demonstrate lacking a whole second income! They demonstrate lacking another person to spend time with and encourage a child! Of course kids raised by one parent are going to be worse off than one raised by two. But claiming that it has anything to do with gender when these kind of statistics have been discredited on this forum time and time again?

You have no shame.
 

joe six-pack

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
384
Location
Six-Pakistan
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Bans on same-sex marriage are an exclusion of a protected class of people from the public sphere of Law; based on nothing more than a private belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. That's the reason for gay marriage bans and that is a big reason why they are unjust and unconstitutional. I am a heterosexual, who fully supports SSM rights.

I have nothing to lose by allowing same-sex couples to legally marry. The marriages will already take place, but by legalizing them, you give the same rights to homosexuals as heterosexuals are afforded. There is no legal or constitutional reason why homosexuals should be denied access to the benefits and penalties of marriage Law.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
no. one the one hand i don't gamble, and on the other i am nowhere near rich enough yet to be playing with that kind of money. however, i'd love to see your example.
Well, from now on, you will be paying me to repeat myself.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Bans on same-sex marriage are an exclusion of a protected class of people from the public sphere of Law; based on nothing more than a private belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. That's the reason for gay marriage bans and that is a big reason why they are unjust and unconstitutional. I am a heterosexual, who fully supports SSM rights.

I have nothing to lose by allowing same-sex couples to legally marry. The marriages will already take place, but by legalizing them, you give the same rights to homosexuals as heterosexuals are afforded. There is no legal or constitutional reason why homosexuals should be denied access to the benefits and penalties of marriage Law.
*bows to you* I am not worthy!

And, would you please explain, for these idiots, why "domestic partnerships" is insufficient to accomplish that goal?
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
67,550
Reaction score
34,333
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
*bows to you* I am not worthy!

And, would you please explain, for these idiots, why "domestic partnerships" is insufficient to accomplish that goal?

MAG; does it ever occur to you that the 'bigot' and 'idiot' language is perhaps a major reason why your movement is producing such backlash? you don't win respect from the American people by deriding them.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
MAG; does it ever occur to you that the 'bigot' and 'idiot' language is perhaps a major reason why your movement is producing such backlash? you don't win respect from the American people by deriding them.

Nor do you win respect by claiming that the people who merely want equality are "shoving their beliefs down your throat."
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
67,550
Reaction score
34,333
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Nor do you win respect by claiming that the people who merely want equality are "shoving their beliefs down your throat."

i'm not claiming you are shoving your beliefs down our throat; i am claiming you are shoving your preferred policy down our throat. which is what you yourself admit you are doing.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
i'm not claiming you are shoving your beliefs down our throat;
The general public does.

i am claiming you are shoving your preferred policy down our throat.

which is what you yourself admit you are doing.
Exact at what point did I explicitly state that I was shoving my preferred policy down your throat?

No, what I said was that I am suing for a violation of my rights. If you total my car, and the accident is your fault, and I sue you for the cost of fixing the car, am I shoving anything down your throat? No, I am merely seeking recovery.

If you are tresspassing, and I sue you for an injunction to stop the tresspassing, am I shoving anything down your throat? No, I am merely wanting you to respect my rights, because you won't do that voluntarily.

My gay and lesbian brethren are suing for their right to marry because homophobes like you will not voluntarily respect that marriage is a fundamental right. THAT is what my LGBT brethren are doing.
 

The Baron

Knight in Shining Armor
DP Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,464
Reaction score
1,131
Location
Somewhere in Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
"Why gay marriage bans are unconstitutional..." - middleagedgamer

Did it ever occur to you that if there is no gay marriage then there isn't such a thing as a "gay marriage ban"? In other words, if it doesn't exists--you can't ban it. And in most of the states it has never existed.

That was only three sentences.
 
Top Bottom