The Homo-Un-Erectus Thread (Aka, Same Sex Marriage Debate)

**wickedsolo** · 03-26-2015, 07:35 PM

Carry on...

**darb72** · 03-27-2015, 12:10 AM

Love between two women is a beautiful thing.

Particularly when I'm the love between them.

**blah3** · 03-27-2015, 08:52 AM

Yes, they happened. I never argued otherwise. It's your line of argument that repetitive, filled with theories that don't stand up to historical or legal muster.

If old state cases meant something legally in todays world and in this debate, I'd give it its due. But they don't. No matter how many times you repeat it.

Your MN case is especially worthless considering MN legalized gay marriage in 2013. It doesn't have the precedent you think it does.

Oh, the gay couple in that case are married and live in MN rather happily.

You are simply missing the point. The argument is that procreation can be a primary consideration in marriage laws. The cases cited support that. It show's it has been a consideration. Now it does not matter if a state wants to continue that or not. What matters is that there is a legitimate govt function involved in such. Meaning that it does not violate the Constitution if a State chooses to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

**blah3** · 03-27-2015, 08:52 AM

Homo-un-erectus.....

**wickedsolo** · 03-27-2015, 09:46 AM

That basically means hat your wang is not huge-ified by a woman.

**HoustonRaven** · 03-27-2015, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by blah3

You are simply missing the point. The argument is that procreation can be a primary consideration in marriage laws. The cases cited support that. It show's it has been a consideration. Now it does not matter if a state wants to continue that or not. What matters is that there is a legitimate govt function involved in such. Meaning that it does not violate the Constitution if a State chooses to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

One, yes it 'can' be a consideration but it still cannot violate the other parts of the Constitution. Again, the Constitution doesn't stop at the 10th Amendment. Yes, states have a compelling interest to do lots of things that are quiet in the Constitution. They just can't violate the Constitution in doing so. Three federal courts (and a litany of state courts) have ruled that banning gay people from marrying is wholly unconstitutional. Which leads me to point two.

Two, you're trying to argue precedent when, in this case, it's been changed or overruled, either by more recent decisions or straight up legislation by the people. In both states from those cases, the people of those states have decided to go in a different direction. Thus, you're insistence on bringing them up is meaningless. The law of the land NOW in both of those states is that gay marriage is perfectly legal.

**blah3** · 03-27-2015, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

One, yes it 'can' be a consideration but it still cannot violate the other parts of the Constitution. Again, the Constitution doesn't stop at the 10th Amendment. Yes, states have a compelling interest to do lots of things that are quiet in the Constitution. They just can't violate the Constitution in doing so. Three federal courts (and a litany of state courts) have ruled that banning gay people from marrying is wholly unconstitutional. Which leads me to point two.

Two, you're trying to argue precedent when, in this case, it's been changed or overruled, either by more recent decisions or straight up legislation by the people. In both states from those cases, the people of those states have decided to go in a different direction. Thus, you're insistence on bringing them up is meaningless. The law of the land NOW in both of those states is that gay marriage is perfectly legal.

I have not stopped at the 10th amendment. I have repeatedly pointed out that equal protection is not violated because there is a compelling govt reason to limit marriage to one man and one woman. I have also pointed out that makes the case wholly different than inter-racial couples.

First, I have no issue if the states change their meaning. I've said from the beginning of this debate that it is up to the states to decide.
Secondly, the CA voters actually voted to limit marriage to one man and one woman, but the courts decided otherwise.

Second, I am not arguing precedent, I am simply providing evidence that marriage and procreation were linked by states. This has also been the case through the majority of societies throughout history.

It's really a simple argument. You simply refuse to grasp it because you cannot fathom that someone would disagree with you about not allowing gays to marry is not discrimination.
First, marriage and procreation has been linked throughout the history of societies. I've provided proof of such in the US.
Second, because the State has a compelling govt interest in steering procreation into traditional marriage, (as societies have done throughout history), it does not violate Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Now, again the states can decide to allow gays to marry, or not allow gays to marry. It's a state issue because the constitution is silent on the matter.
If someone wants to petition their state govt to recognize homosexuals in a marriage, I have no issue. Let them present their case and explain why they feel it is beneficial to society. Then let the States people or elected representatives enact such measures. Instead we have tortured logic to ignore historical and biological fact, so that the courts can rule by fiat.

**OhThePossibilities** · 03-27-2015, 06:18 PM

Question for anyone opposed to gay marriage: How does letting gay people be married effect your rights?

Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk 2

**wickedsolo** · 03-27-2015, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by OhThePossibilities

Question for anyone opposed to gay marriage: How does letting gay people be married effect your rights?

Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk 2

It doesn't.

At all.

**NCRAVEN** · 03-27-2015, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by OhThePossibilities

Question for anyone opposed to gay marriage: How does letting gay people be married effect your rights?

Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk 2

I'm not sure that makes sense. To me, it implies that people are opposed to it because it affects their rights. Which I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue.

**I Touchdown There** · 03-27-2015, 09:36 PM

Pro-gay marriage. Love is love. Also, I now have yet another reason not to visit Indiana.

**OhThePossibilities** · 03-28-2015, 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

I'm not sure that makes sense. To me, it implies that people are opposed to it because it affects their rights. Which I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue.

If it doesn't to them, in some way, then why would they argue against it?

Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk 2