Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by Fitzroy Zeph, Jan 16, 2015.
I think they'll vote in favor of it.
I would think it is a question similar to wondering if slavery should be abolished or not.
You never know with these things, sometimes all it takes is one one vote to ruin it for everybody.
Please, US Supreme Court. Do the right thing: Vote yes. Please! Legalize gay marriage!
Sadly true. The other related decision was 5/4.
Scalia has issues with 'the gay'. He's a Catholic boy. But given dozens of state court decisions overturning state laws, I'll be surprised if SCOTUS reverses the flow. Kind of hard to miss the fact it's legal for gays to marry now in the majority of states. Hopefully they'll decide marriage laws need to apply across state lines to avoid disasters.
I could see 5-4 or even 6-3. Given that marriage is traditionally a state issue, the conservatives will lean that way unless they find a sexual orientation to be a protected classification, which the Supreme Court has not yet done. Given the split in the federal courts, it seems like they will have to reach that issue.
This is by no means a given that it will pass. Most of the supreme court have been appointed by a right wing government with a heavy emphasis on religious dogma.
There's not much religious dogma on the court in my view, but there is a conflict between textualism and Federalism on the one hand, and what are seen as more progressive views of jurisprudence on the other hand.
Me, too. It's one of those issues whose time has come. The current court may be 5-4 conservative, but there's a difference between political conservative and religious conservative. There's no non-religious rational argument against allowing gay folks to marry, so either the First or Fourteenth Amendments should apply. Let's hope they do the right thing.
um, how is treating a person as a thing
and not allowing gays the same ballpark? it is not even the same f'ing sport
there is reason. marriage is between a man and a woman. How do you feel about brothers and sisters getting married? what non-religious rational argument do you have against that?
you sure have been brainwashed by the gay media. congrats.
Less than a page before the discussion is reduced to the level of name-calling. You'd think on a writing site in particular people would be able to engage in critical thinking and then construct a reply that shows some evidence of it.
I think Zeph's point was that the answer should be an absolute no-brainer:
Should we be allowed to own human beings as property and do whatever the hell we want to them? Hell no!
Should we allow people to fall in love and marry those they love, even if they are same-sex? Hell yes!
It's about providing that basic human right. The right to not be a slave, and the right to marry whoever you want regardless if that person is your gender or not.
Really? You must hear something different when Scalia rambles than I do. It's there, between the legal lines but it is indeed there. I get it he couches everything in terms of states rights and Constitutionality. But you can still find his hypocrisy leaking through when he finds state's rights and Federal government limits easily when a right wing religious view is involved and he can't see it when a homosexual's civil rights are involved.
For example, this is the modern world. It's not hard to find evidence people are born gay. It's not a behavior choice. But Scalia sees it as the public's right to consider it immoral and pass laws against it. But take the religious rights of the owners of Hobby Lobby, Scalia sees that as a right to impose one's religion on one's employees' off the job choices. Bad enough, but then you add in evidence the HobbyLobby owners were inconsistent. They have no problem with funding abortive drug manufacturers in their pension plans. Scalia easily overlooks that hypocrisy.
I've seen other examples of Scalia's selective attention to legal principles. But I think his attitude toward 'the gay' is the most obvious place he picks and chooses what is an individual's rights and where the government's limits lie. Why should the government interfere in marriages between two consenting adults but not interfere to protect worker's rights to not have their personal health care dictated by their employers?
The bottom line, it is likely not possible for judge, even Scalia, to not selectively apply legal principles. It's the nature of our brain's filters.
Uhh... to explain how dangerous inbreeding is, let me just point out that you exist because every bio-parent in your history had children. So by inbreeding you screws up that line of generations for a while.(if it ever recovers) They have increased chances of metabolic and hereditary disorders, structural abnormalities, and have reproduction and survival issues. The opposite of inbreeding, heterosis can fix the gene pool, but damaging it in the first place should be illegal. (It's like harming the baby before it's even born.)
I always thought it was interesting when people decide they aren't ever going to have children. If they follow through, they would be the first in their line of generations to do so, tracking all the way back to even before humans walked the Earth.
The only real defense against gay marriages is the only reason the debate exists in the first place. And that is, the government gives special treatment to married couples, regarding many things, like taxes, medicare, and a plethora of other governmental benefits. And gay marriage allows anyone to pose as couple to get these advantages. The state offers it's own benefits separate from federal benefits. So even in a state that authorizes gay marriages doesn't give the full benefits they would receive if they made it a federal law. Honestly I think they should just give the same benefits to everybody, increasing them slightly for people living under the same roof, regardless of marriage. That removes the incentive of marriage for the sake of it. I don't think that same sex marriage for the sake of benefits is a good reason to not to pass the law. Because two people of the opposite sex can marry for the sake of benefits just as easily. Still I think if everyone having these benefits is going to be a problem then they should rethink what benefits to give and why all together.
This drips irony. Religious views indoctrinate (aka brainwash) people into believing cultural norms should never change.
Science looks to keep updating one's beliefs (aka evidence based conclusions) when new evidence is found. We know more about sexual preferences now than our ancestors did. Just as I (and probably you) are attracted to the opposite gender, not everyone is the same.
It's time for you to forget that nonsense that being gay is a choice and move on. Once you figure that out, it's easy to see why homosexual marriages are just as logical as heterosexual marriages between two adults.
That's my failed use of metaphor. @Link the Writer said what I meant.
Sorry your comparison isn't appropriate. In the second case, it is about rights, and also recognition of equality for a segment of the population. African Americans went through this as well.
The first case is an entirely different subject.
It is extremely offensive to compare most things to the tragedy that is slavery. It's nowhere near the same.
The real tragedy is that in both situations, humans suffer/have suffered under the hands of humans for things they had no control over. We don't have control over what skin color we have, or who we're attracted to. But we all deserve the right to be treated with equality. We don't deserve to be treated like horse shit because we're 'different' than other people.
Yeah, slavery was a tragedy. Being ostracized, bullied and being told that you're an abnormal abomination who should just go die because you're gay is also a tragedy in and of itself. And if you're about to pull the argument of, "but gay people aren't slaves" don't. No one deserves to be a slave, or to be bullied and shunned for who they are. Period.
Maybe I'm gay myself, in which case no brainwashing would be required.
I'm sure there's some fancy term for using the proposition itself as your argument.
Q:"Should marriage be only between a man and a woman?"
A: "Yes, because marriage is between a man and a woman."
You can't do that.
Not only do I not care if siblings marry, I don't care how many people someone wants to marry. I know this concept is incomprehensible to certain people, but the behavior of others that doesn't harm me is none of my business.
The obsession with the word 'marriage' is the goofiness in this discussion. Most polls show that, regardless of their opinion about gay marriage, the majority of people in the US support 'civil unions' for everyone, granting the legal rights @Megalith mentioned to all couples, which means all this sturm und drang is over a word. As a writer, I know words can be powerful, but jeez ...
The effects of inbreeding have been well documented, no other non-religious argument is required, it is as rational as you can get.
As far as the scare mongering tactics that it would destroy marriage as an institution, they are to say the least, a load of bollocks.
There's also an argument for the 10th and it being a state issue though. I can imagine there being at least one opinion along the lines of "it's up to each state, but all states need to recognise out of state marriages".
There was never meant to be a direct comparison or opening of debate between the two. All I was saying is that the decision to allow same sex marriage should be a no brainer. There should be no need to think about it. One is not the other, I agree.
There is always the potential twist in the plot when we realize that we don't know who is brainwashed or delusional. We can say with some certainty, that when someone brings in the discussion of incest into an argument on gay marriage rights, that they don't have all their facts straight, to say the least.
Separate names with a comma.