DOMA Ruled Unconstitional

Submitted by: madest 5 years ago in

"The imposition of subjective moral beliefs of a majority on a minority cannot provide a justification."
There are 49 comments:
Male 6
@Crakr: To bring race into the discussion proves you are already biased beyond rational debate. At this point you might as well become a parishioner of the Westboro Baptist Church. In regards to your "evidence," The Weekly Standard is a neoconservative site that is owned by Rupert Murdoch`s News Corp...the same company that owns Fox News. Why don`t you try to find information from credible, law abiding news agencies??
0
Reply
Male 10,855
In light of what Zira`s comment I take my "cherry picking" accusation back, rather Crakr YOU ARE distorting research.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Crakr Lies in the name of god are stillLies.

Have you no shame?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@CrakrJak
Evidently you didn`t get that I was disputing your claim about it being due to gay marriage, not the fact that Europe`s birthrate was in decline.

[quote] At those rates caucasians will be the minority in Europe and you won`t be able to support your pensioners even with draconian income taxes.[/quote]

Non sequitur

As for your surveys you`re cherry picking, the last one is also an induction of the fallacy of composition.
0
Reply
Male 2,216
I say we take away the right to vote from anyone who has a different opinion from mine. To disagree shows a mental flaw. Also, we should take away the right to drive from anyone who opposess abortion,so they cannot spread thier seed nationwide as easily.
Better still,why not just shoot the stupid who do not understand the word "Equal".
0
Reply
Male 17,511
A recent study by the Canadian government regarding homosexual couples states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples".

The American College of Pediatricians states the following: "Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years."

A study by a group of University of Chicago researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city`s homosexual male population. According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago`s Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners...As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland.

That is the opposite of stability in nearly every respect.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
xiquiripat: Marriage, of 1 man + 1 woman, is necessary to maintain a healthy society, the most stable family unit is hetero with children and they have served America well for over 200 years now.

Children of normal hetero marriages are more likely to graduate high school, less likely to do drugs, more likely to attend college, less likely to drop out, more likely to get high paying jobs, more likely to have a better credit ratings, much less likely to commit crimes, less likely to have children out of wedlock and more likely to save money for their retirement. Those are just a few of the benefits that hetero marriage gives to society.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
*Facepalm* So we`ve come to this demographics skirmish once again? But of course this is exactly what the anti contraception crowd on both sides of the pond want when they do their thing. A white fertility cult, to compete with recent immigrant`s family sizes. *Eyeroll* Geez, chill and get ready to enjoy our diverse sexy future already (latin boyfriends ect. ect. amirite gals)?
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Cajun & evan: Evidently neither of you looked to hard, evidence for Europe`s declining birth rate is in 9 of the first 10 google results for "Europe birth rate". Here is one right here.

At those rates caucasians will be the minority in Europe and you won`t be able to support your pensioners even with draconian income taxes.
0
Reply
Male 2,422
@Crackr: Ok how abut this: You can keep the word marriage and only churches can perform marriages. But all the rights and privileges associated with getting married will be stripped and given to civil unions which the is the exclusive power of the government. So you can still get married and keep your silly word but it will have zero legal standing unless you also get a civil union. Only God will recognize you. Somehow I don`t think you would go for that.

Also birth rates decline with industrialization. Gay marriage has nothing to do with it.
0
Reply
Male 559
"I have found zero academic research to back this assertion. Better yet a more simple explanation is that when populations reach upper limit resources become more scarce making it more expensive to have and raise children."

Indeed...
In biology, that would be called a population`s `carrying capacity.` It certainly applies to humans as well.

But more directly to the argument you`re addressing: permitting gays to marry has little impact on whether or not people have children. In fact, I might think the opposite. Anecdotally speaking, many of my gay couple friends don`t want to have kids until they can guarantee that their children will be in a married home due to the social, financial and personal securities associated with marriage.

Final point: Note: marriage is not a civil union. If they were the same thing, civil unions would be called marriages. The list of legal and financial differences are too long to list here.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@CrakrJak

[quote]Most countries in Europe aren`t even close to the fertility replacement rate necessary to maintain their societies.[/quote]


I have found zero academic research to back this assertion. Better yet a more simple explanation is that when populations reach upper limit resources become more scarce making it more expensive to have and raise children.
0
Reply
Male 438
"Also, since the word marriage was hijacked in Europe, hetero marriage has been on a steep decline there."

Marriage has been on the decline here in the U.S. since divorce became more socially acceptable, does that mean we should outlaw divorce?
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Fidelius: If all the gay community wanted was equal treatment they`d lobby for civil unions to be treated equally, instead they want to hijack the word marriage. Also, since the word marriage was hijacked in Europe, hetero marriage has been on a steep decline there. This redefinition affects all of society adversely.

Most countries in Europe aren`t even close to the fertility replacement rate necessary to maintain their societies. A majority of children in Sweden, Denmark and Norway are born out of wedlock. Link

If you call that `progress` pardon me if I wish America have no part of it.
0
Reply
Male 4,224
all Marriage should be banned!
0
Reply
Male 1,016
Great lesbian name ...Amy Cunninghis
0
Reply
Male 47
Trollolo trollolo.
0
Reply
Female 399
Or, how about we eliminate the Christian institution of marriage as this country`s way to legally bind two people? Maybe we could go for non-religious? Get married if YOU want, but don`t tell me my union isn`t legitimate because you wont let ME. Maybe I`m wrong. Just an opinion.
0
Reply
Male 6
CrakrJak, your reasoning is unfounded. So what if the WORD marriage is malleable? All we, the LGBT community, care about is the legal definition (and all the rights and privileges accorded) of the CONTRACT of marriage.

"Otherwise the word marriage means what ever some group of people want it to mean, and that is not socially or legally responsible. Polygamy would be next, but it wouldn`t stop there. "

Oh, please. This is ridiculous. Go call Sweden, or Argentina, or Belgium, or The Netherlands, or any of the other 6 countries that currently allow same-sex marriage, and ask them if they are recognizing marriages between anything else other than 1 person and 1 person. I don`t think there are any Swedish marriages involving one man and a chair...at least none that are recognized by the state. My marriage will not hurt yours. And yours, well, I don`t even care about.
0
Reply
Male 663
>>>Here is the issue: It would create an undue burden on employers and the state to grant polygamous relationships full entitlement status.<<<

And thus ONLY an issue because the Fed. grants, and forces states, and other organizations to grant rights to people based on their relationship status. The whole issue would go away if everyone was treated the same at all times.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]but leave the definition of marriage alone as 1 man + 1 woman.[/quote]

Why? All the reasoning for this stance is ridiculous and sloppy. If the main purpose is for two individuals to come together and certify their love for each other then they all should be called marriages.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote] Polygamy would be next, but it wouldn`t stop there.[/quote]

Funny, polygamy was standard practice in medieval Europe
0
Reply
Male 17,511
If marriage cannot be defined as 1 men + 1 woman, then it`s definition is malleable enough to include every other combination imaginable.

That is why I`m against `gay marriage`, but for civil unions for gays. You can complain about civil unions not being equal, fine then change them, but leave the definition of marriage alone as 1 man + 1 woman.

Otherwise the word marriage means what ever some group of people want it to mean, and that is not socially or legally responsible. Polygamy would be next, but it wouldn`t stop there.
0
Reply
Male 5,000
Can`t we get to the point where people ignore the ridiculous polygamy comments? Love and tolerance is wining. Public approval is past 50%.
0
Reply
Male 15,259
"Why not polygamy? I haven`t found a solid argument against it."

It`s not a matter of morality, nor about the sanctity of marriage in the religious context, or a matter of societal recognition, as I am sure that the Mormons for example would happily reendorse polygamous marriages. Nor is it about spouse`s rights to other spouses` assets under divorce or inheritance.

Here is the issue: It would create an undue burden on employers and the state to grant polygamous relationships full entitlement status.
0
Reply
Female 500
Woohooh!
0
Reply
Male 15,259
I can`t believe that`s still debate worthy.
0
Reply
Male 1,399
@IIB

That`s what contracts are for.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Thanks Fatninja! ;-)
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@Baelzar
think of all the rights and privileges given to spouses, now try to split that between 12 people
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Then again had marriages been treated like a private contract it would`ve been a first amendment issue.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
QueenZira... awesome pic is awesome!
0
Reply
Female 2,674
I think the ban on polyamory (it`s not always 1 man with tons of women, people...) is really stupid, so I`m curious about RuralNinja`s point as well. How will it be affected? Of course new laws would need to be set up for how to legally handle multiple marriages, but that`s the *only* problem I see with it.
0
Reply
Male 2,422
Shhh Listen! I can hear the voice of George Wallace calling from beyond the grave:

In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust
and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny and I say traditional marriage now!
traditional marriage tomorrow! traditional marriage forever!
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Oh, and some birds for our resident conservative trolls too:



Let it never be said that aunt Zira never gave you anything.
0
Reply
Male 1,399
Why not polygamy? I haven`t found a solid argument against it.

Heck, I think people should be able to contract marriage in any configuration they want. If 6 guys and 6 women want to marry, so be it.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Spoken like an angry social conservative. Look, at this point "where we go" will be decided by the courts, my guess is within the next few years same sex marriage will be legal from coast to coast. Until there is a segment of society that complains about equality we`re done. As far as blue laws go they`re disappearing one county at a time because that`s not a federal issue.
0
Reply
Female 2,228



Now *this* is the case that comes before SCOTUS, assuredly, though there are lots o` others too. :-)
0
Reply
Male 519
I`m not clamoring for polygamy to be legal. I`m not taking anything away from this victory. You need to stop focusing on one word and listen to the entire point I`m making. I was using polygamy as a thought example. Now that this battle is decided, where do we as a society go from here? Now that the ball is in motion, where should it end? What other laws are written that appease the morals of a group but serve no actual value?
0
Reply
Male 3,477
Straight people are so gay.
0
Reply
Female 90
common sense prevails!
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Right now the laws set up for marriage to benefit both spouses. Under polygamy that would be impossibe or prohibitively costly. Do you limit the amount of benefits between polygamous wives? If the patriarch died which wife would get power of attorney? Likewise divorce laws are set to evenly split equity between the divorcing partners whereas polygamous marriage that would be impossible. Would a sister wife be able to divorce another wife? You haven`t thought it through and that minimizes the strides gained by this ruling.
0
Reply
Male 1,793
excellent...
0
Reply
Male 519
I didn`t compare polygamy and gay marriage. I was stating how I wonder if this will affect other laws. If this sets a precedent, what happens to other subjectively moral laws, some of which are both hated (alcohol sales) and supported (polygamy)?
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Polygamy is not something a percentage of Americans are clamoring for. You need to show that you are being discriminated against to even bring a case. As it stands polygamy is illegal and to compare it with same sex marriage uses the same logic the haters of society who throw the words incest and bestiality to make their points.
America had polygamy. We learned that we didn`t like it so they outlawed it. Done and done.
0
Reply
Male 39,880

"Unconstitutional" just means they have to pass a constitutional ammendment to make it "constitutional".

The ubber-conservatives have lost on abortion, so this is the new focal point for their "moral" political base. All of the republican candidates are running with anti-gay marriage as part of their platform. Imagine someone running for office on an anti-inerracial marriage platform. They`d be laughed out of town.

Welcome to my world.
0
Reply
Male 519
If their justification is to say that its wrong to subject others to your moral beliefs, why is polygamy illegal? Or alcohol sales on sunday illegal? Its definately the most widespread, but its only the first of many subjective moral laws that need to be abolished.
0
Reply
Female 90
doesn`t work. ):
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Link: DOMA Ruled Unconstitional [Rate Link] - `The imposition of subjective moral beliefs of a majority on a minority cannot provide a justification.`
0
Reply