OK. Then I guess the outcome is not in doubt.
Sure it is. We both know the Court is perfectly free to reject my logic, impeccable though it is. Honestly, though, I really don’t see how they can possibly avoid overturning DOMA without explicitly rejecting (or qualifying) Loving.
Not that I’ve seen. Mind posting it again?
Well, here’s a premise for you: the government should only discriminate when it can show a useful purpose in discriminating. If it can’t show a useful purpose in discriminating, it is unfair for it to discriminate.
Any disagreement with that?
What is the source of this tension? How does SSM affect anyone other than the people directly involved in the relationship?
It’s as good a pinnacle as any other I can think of. What would you suggest, in its stead?
So what? I’m more than willing to stipulate that our government is not perfect. Pointing out that it’s imperfect in more than one place isn’t much of an argument.
[quote=“Miller, post:323, topic:616983”]
I’ll look for it.
I can live with that.
Changing the institution of marriage is the source.
Consistency. What makes us free is the idea that we can wake up every morning and the next person has to live by the same rules as we do. Changing the institution of marriage invites an entirely new set of possiblities, contingincies, appeals to the government. I’m not saying fairness is not an issue, but I am saying fairness is so difficult to quantify.
No it isn’t. So why give them so much power to arbitrate fairness?
What I don’t get with this argument about government encouraging procreation…
Lets accept that the federal government wants to Promote and Encourage population growth, children, all that.
What does outlawing same sex marriage have to do with that? DOMA doesn’t cause more or less children to be conceived. Same sex marriage doesn’t change the number of children conceived one way or the other. It almost sounds like you are saying that DOMA is causing/forcing/encouraging homosexuals to ignore their sexuality and marry someone of the same sex and have kids. Or that heterosexuals will have less kids if there are same sex married couples in the neighborhood. Do you think that happens?
If you want to encourage something, making a law that forbids something that would have zero affect on what you are encouraging doesn’t make any sense to me.
If the Federal government (or anti ssm people) truly believe that same sex couples can’t raise children effectively, then shouldn’t you ban them having children, instead of banning them from getting married?
So if two people of the same sex get married your marriage is different. Right.:rolleyes:
What the hell is wrong with your marriage that it’s so fragile that people completely unrelated to it can change it?
You talk about freedom then complain because we say you can’t shove your bigoted nose in other people’s lives. If you believe your god motivates you to do this then your god is a the hateful cum guzzling whore of the devil.
How does gay marriage have one iota of affect on yours? What gives you the right to interfere in other people’s lives through bigoted legislation if it doesn’t affect you?
How would Gay marriage make you suffer? How would it improve the lives of Gay people?
Did you read the points I made about how marriage as we know it is completely unlike marriage as traditionally practiced?
[quote=“The_Tao_s_Revenge, post:326, topic:616983”]
Why is reading so difficult for you?
Until you can treat people decently I’m done with you.
[quote=“Fat_Chance, post:325, topic:616983”]
Let’s not. Let’s assume that the federal government has an interest in promoting the best possible situation in which to raise children.
DOMA doesn’t cause more or less children to be conceived. Same sex marriage It’s already outlawed.
No, it doesn’t (assuming a lot of factors that I’m willing to stipulate for the sake of argument).
I’m not entirely sure how that would work. Can you explain this point?
No, I don’t. What I do see is that the state is making a special consideration for the heterosexual family in its own self interest.- the state’s that is.
Actually, if you want to encourage something, you recognize its uniqueness and give it particular provisions that distinguishes it from something else.
I never wrote that. Certainly there are individual couples who do and will do a fine job of raising children.
Do you honestly think that one could allow ssm and then not allow them to raise children?
By your own logic, your demand to be “treated decently” is an act of oppression. Or is it only homosexuals who oppress people by asking to be treated well?
Sorry, I’m not seeing that. Tao is free to behave as he wishes. I choose to not participate.
Of course you aren’t. As is normal in such discussions, your so-important moral principles cease to be important the moment they inconvenience you. Just as the inability to produce children suddenly stops being important once the couple isn’t homosexual, your insistence that demanding fair treatment is oppression stops being oppressive when you do it.
[quote=“hoopified, post:329, topic:616983”]
Lets cut to it with you - are you just doing a debate technique of “I don’t agree with this point of view, but I’m going to argue its merits” or do you believe what you say?
Cause, honestly, its really frustrating trying to have a debate with someone, who every time he gets backed up a bit, pawns it off as “its not me, its the ‘state’”.
Anyway - the main other point of the exchange - Do you find it strange that the “state” is saying that the best way to encourage/reward an action is to elevate it by punishing others who have nothing to do with that action?
You know what I meant. You know that I was saying that if you wanted to follow your proposed purpose a much easier way would be to ban same sex couples from having children, not a round about way of saying they can’t get married.
I never said allow ssm then ban having children. You knew that too. You knew exactly what my point was, but tried to deflect it with theatrics.
You pretended you didn’t understand, and altered my words to make it look different. Try to at least have some integrity here please.
Sorry I’m coming into this one a bit late but this isn’t a zombie thread from years past or something is it.
The title would lead me to believe the tread is about debating the merits of DOMA rather then the series of name calling and discussion of same sex marriage it may descending into now.
Just as a news flash Same sex marriage is not outlawed in the US. Multiple states recognize same sex marriage.
DOMA is about ‘protecting’ some states from having to recognize marriages that have been deemed legal in other states. One of the other effects of the law that is rapidly deteriorating is it was also preventing the federal government for providing benefits to those who had qualified by means of marriage.
The subject I’d like to see debated is why it is necessary to protect some states from recognizing the laws of other sates on this issue.
Is there some negative consequences you’d like to shine light on here?
If Texas is forced to recognize a marriage from Massachusetts what’s the issue? They all ready recognize other marriages from Massachusetts despite differences in marriage law.
While your busy arguing same sex marriage leads to better outcomes for children do you want to compare the overall outcome for children between states that recognize same sex marriage and those that don’t?
[quote=“Der_Trihs, post:332, topic:616983”]
What moral princiiples? Are you saying that because homosexuals can’t married that we shouldn’t expect simple politeness fromothers? Okay. That’s your position and you’re welcome to it. I just choose to not participate where such disgusting language is the norm. I do that for me, not to make a point.
aI don’t get the relation but I’ll take a stab at it any way. Honoring and promoting the institution of traditional marriage does not mean that every marriage must produce children. That’s a silly criticism of a basic point. We know that the vast, vast majority of marriages produce children and we know that every ssm does not.
I’m not asking for fairness. I’m asking that tao speak to me like a grownup. He/she is free to as she/he pleases.
I like hypothetical, gets the mind working -
Lets pretend that ssm was always legal in the US. Then, it was banned today.
What would the impact be?
Would the number of children raised in “good” households increase or decrease?
Would the optimal amount of procreation in the US change?
Would the marriages of opposite sex couples become less or more strong/real/important?
My parents had 2 children and have been married for 47 years, would this affect them?
I was once with a girl (I’m a guy) living together with no children and not married for 10 years, would that affect us?
My cousin has 3 children with 3 women, none of which he’s been married to, would this affect him?
[quote=“boytyperanma, post:334, topic:616983”]
Correct. I made that distinction earlier and didn’t see the need to revisit it.
Can you explain more of this?
Why is it necessary that Texas recognize Mass.'s marriages?
Firstly, why should Texas have to explain herself anyway? Secondly, Texas may have reasons of it’s own to recognize traditional marriage. Third, differences in marriage law aside, the institution is, at its core, the same. A union between a man and a woman. The particular demands placed on that union are immaterial.
How would that relate.
I’m not sure what needs to be explained here you have read or at least understand the law in question don’t you? Do you routinely make arguments concerning laws you don’t understand? This may explain why people are having such an issue trying to debate with you here.
I always miss something that screws my point in a hypothetical example, but damn, its just sometimes fun to imagine…
The federal government wants to encourage and promote world class track athletes. It is good for our country to show the world we are superior in sporting events and Olympics. There are athletes that are naturally very fast and they run on the sidewalks around the ponds in the center of my town while training to achieve this.
I was born with one leg and am asthmatic. But I like to run around the ponds also, even though I’m slow and will never contribute to my governments goal of developing more great track runners at sporting events. The sidewalks are wide and long, and there is even a separate sidewalk hidden by a fence and some bushes that I run on and the true athletes don’t, so they don’t even know I’m there unless they come looking for me. I’m never in their way, I never slow them down, they never get sad looking at me limping along, they just go on being great track running athletes while I trundle along slow and steady doing my thing.
In order to encourage more people to become world class athletes and runners, the government decides the best way to accomplish this is to ban one legged asthmatics from running around public ponds no matter what path they happen to be running on.
I’m a bit confused by your syntax, thats all. I thought you might be able to reword it. But maybe not.