Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The right to Marry.

donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 3:56:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Gay advocates talk about how it's their constitutional right to marry.. I was curious how? Marriage isn't a Constitutional right, in fact, the words Marriage, Marry, or Civil Union, aren't even mentioned once in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, or in any Amendment afterwards.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 5:17:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 3:56:41 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Gay advocates talk about how it's their constitutional right to marry.. I was curious how? Marriage isn't a Constitutional right, in fact, the words Marriage, Marry, or Civil Union, aren't even mentioned once in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, or in any Amendment afterwards.

9th amendment.....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 5:25:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 3:56:41 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Gay advocates talk about how it's their constitutional right to marry.. I was curious how? Marriage isn't a Constitutional right, in fact, the words Marriage, Marry, or Civil Union, aren't even mentioned once in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, or in any Amendment afterwards.

Marriage as it exists today as a legal institution cannot be confiscated by the government just because you have different genes.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 5:25:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 5:17:26 PM, imabench wrote:
At 8/23/2013 3:56:41 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Gay advocates talk about how it's their constitutional right to marry.. I was curious how? Marriage isn't a Constitutional right, in fact, the words Marriage, Marry, or Civil Union, aren't even mentioned once in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, or in any Amendment afterwards.

9th amendment.....

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Doesn't grant the right to marriage. Marriage is a private right (much like the right to shop in a building is granted by the owner of the building, not the Government), not a Constitutional Right.

The 9th Amendment isn't used to imply every right is granted no matter what it is. The courts use it imply certain rights... We see this in United States v. Fry, where the court says the right to produce, sell, or use Marijuana isn't granted by the 9th Amendment. The Right to Marriage has never been implied or granted by the 9th Amendment.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 5:28:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 5:25:33 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/23/2013 3:56:41 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Gay advocates talk about how it's their constitutional right to marry.. I was curious how? Marriage isn't a Constitutional right, in fact, the words Marriage, Marry, or Civil Union, aren't even mentioned once in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, or in any Amendment afterwards.

Marriage as it exists today as a legal institution cannot be confiscated by the government just because you have different genes.

Marriage has been recognized by most as a religious institution.

Many scientific tests have proven that Homosexuality isn't found in genes. This included a test during the 2000's that tested large groups of twins (a group with twins where both twins are straight, and a group where a twin is straight, and one is gay.) The test came back showing that there was no genetic different between any of the twins to proved being gay was genetic.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 5:36:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 5:28:37 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/23/2013 5:25:33 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/23/2013 3:56:41 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Gay advocates talk about how it's their constitutional right to marry.. I was curious how? Marriage isn't a Constitutional right, in fact, the words Marriage, Marry, or Civil Union, aren't even mentioned once in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, or in any Amendment afterwards.

Marriage as it exists today as a legal institution cannot be confiscated by the government just because you have different genes.

Marriage has been recognized by most as a religious institution.

Many scientific tests have proven that Homosexuality isn't found in genes. This included a test during the 2000's that tested large groups of twins (a group with twins where both twins are straight, and a group where a twin is straight, and one is gay.) The test came back showing that there was no genetic different between any of the twins to proved being gay was genetic.

What a horrible study then. There are many identical twins where one gets a genetic disease and another doesn't. Not all genes get activated. Also, sexuality is in degrees, not absolutes.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 5:40:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 5:36:31 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/23/2013 5:28:37 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/23/2013 5:25:33 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/23/2013 3:56:41 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Gay advocates talk about how it's their constitutional right to marry.. I was curious how? Marriage isn't a Constitutional right, in fact, the words Marriage, Marry, or Civil Union, aren't even mentioned once in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, or in any Amendment afterwards.

Marriage as it exists today as a legal institution cannot be confiscated by the government just because you have different genes.

Marriage has been recognized by most as a religious institution.

Many scientific tests have proven that Homosexuality isn't found in genes. This included a test during the 2000's that tested large groups of twins (a group with twins where both twins are straight, and a group where a twin is straight, and one is gay.) The test came back showing that there was no genetic different between any of the twins to proved being gay was genetic.

What a horrible study then. There are many identical twins where one gets a genetic disease and another doesn't. Not all genes get activated. Also, sexuality is in degrees, not absolutes.

Being a horrible study implies it's doing a bad job and breaking the conduct a study should follow. The Study did it's job right. If the study doesn't support you where hoping it would, doesn't mean it's bad.

The study showed, in all cases, that no twin had a unique genetic difference that corresponded with differences in other twins.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 5:44:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 5:40:53 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/23/2013 5:36:31 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/23/2013 5:28:37 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/23/2013 5:25:33 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/23/2013 3:56:41 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Gay advocates talk about how it's their constitutional right to marry.. I was curious how? Marriage isn't a Constitutional right, in fact, the words Marriage, Marry, or Civil Union, aren't even mentioned once in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, or in any Amendment afterwards.

Marriage as it exists today as a legal institution cannot be confiscated by the government just because you have different genes.

Marriage has been recognized by most as a religious institution.

Many scientific tests have proven that Homosexuality isn't found in genes. This included a test during the 2000's that tested large groups of twins (a group with twins where both twins are straight, and a group where a twin is straight, and one is gay.) The test came back showing that there was no genetic different between any of the twins to proved being gay was genetic.

What a horrible study then. There are many identical twins where one gets a genetic disease and another doesn't. Not all genes get activated. Also, sexuality is in degrees, not absolutes.

Being a horrible study implies it's doing a bad job and breaking the conduct a study should follow. The Study did it's job right. If the study doesn't support you where hoping it would, doesn't mean it's bad.

The study showed, in all cases, that no twin had a unique genetic difference that corresponded with differences in other twins.

You are correct. What a horrible conclusion then. The study is fine.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 5:46:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Does it matter whether it's a right? Why not just use basic human dignity and not deny privileges to entire groups of people; privileges that are essential to a functioning society.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 5:48:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, from the Universal Declaration for Human Rights:

"Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

Don't give me none of that "it doesn't specifically say sexual orientation" rubbish.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 5:53:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If gay marriage sponsored by the state is unconstitutional, then the entire ADA needs to be thrown out as unconstitutional as well. And how in the hell can you assert marriage is not a legal institution?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 5:55:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 5:53:37 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If gay marriage sponsored by the state is unconstitutional, then the entire ADA needs to be thrown out as unconstitutional as well. And how in the hell can you assert marriage is not a legal institution?

American Dental Association?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 5:59:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 5:55:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2013 5:53:37 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If gay marriage sponsored by the state is unconstitutional, then the entire ADA needs to be thrown out as unconstitutional as well. And how in the hell can you assert marriage is not a legal institution?

American Dental Association?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 5:59:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 5:59:01 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/23/2013 5:55:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2013 5:53:37 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If gay marriage sponsored by the state is unconstitutional, then the entire ADA needs to be thrown out as unconstitutional as well. And how in the hell can you assert marriage is not a legal institution?

American Dental Association?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

ah. lol.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 6:05:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 5:25:46 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/23/2013 5:17:26 PM, imabench wrote:
At 8/23/2013 3:56:41 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Gay advocates talk about how it's their constitutional right to marry.. I was curious how? Marriage isn't a Constitutional right, in fact, the words Marriage, Marry, or Civil Union, aren't even mentioned once in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, or in any Amendment afterwards.

9th amendment.....

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Doesn't grant the right to marriage. Marriage is a private right

That's horse sh*t and you know it

(much like the right to shop in a building is granted by the owner of the building, not the Government), not a Constitutional Right.

The 9th Amendment isn't used to imply every right is granted no matter what it is.

No, it's used to prevent hacks from claiming something isn't a right because its not listed in the Constitution

The courts use it imply certain rights... We see this in United States v. Fry, where the court says the right to produce, sell, or use Marijuana isn't granted by the 9th Amendment. The Right to Marriage has never been implied or granted by the 9th Amendment.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 6:57:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 6:05:50 PM, imabench wrote:
At 8/23/2013 5:25:46 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/23/2013 5:17:26 PM, imabench wrote:
At 8/23/2013 3:56:41 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Gay advocates talk about how it's their constitutional right to marry.. I was curious how? Marriage isn't a Constitutional right, in fact, the words Marriage, Marry, or Civil Union, aren't even mentioned once in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, or in any Amendment afterwards.

9th amendment.....

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Doesn't grant the right to marriage. Marriage is a private right

That's horse sh*t and you know it


Prove this point? The Amendment doesn't grant every right someone wants. Marriage isn't granted by the Government. Civil Unions are, but not Marriage.

(much like the right to shop in a building is granted by the owner of the building, not the Government), not a Constitutional Right.

The 9th Amendment isn't used to imply every right is granted no matter what it is.

No, it's used to prevent hacks from claiming something isn't a right because its not listed in the Constitution

What of the right to produce, sell, or use Marijuana?
What of the right to possess an unregistered submachine gun? (United States v. Warin)

The courts, in United States v. Vital Health Products, claimed that the federal courts will not recognize constitutional rights claimed to derive solely from the Ninth Amendment.


The courts use it imply certain rights... We see this in United States v. Fry, where the court says the right to produce, sell, or use Marijuana isn't granted by the 9th Amendment. The Right to Marriage has never been implied or granted by the 9th Amendment.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 7:00:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 5:48:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Also, from the Universal Declaration for Human Rights:

"Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

Don't give me none of that "it doesn't specifically say sexual orientation" rubbish.

To start... It doesn't. Sexuality is neither Race, Nationality, or Religion... But that aside, it claims Men and Women have the right.

Men and Women =/= Men and Men
Men and Women =/= Women and Women.

I've already read that document. It specifically says Men and Women may marry.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 7:01:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
First of all, as republican Lawyer Ted Olson noted on Fox news, that the Supreme Court during interracial marriage debates ruled overwhelmingly over 11 times that "marriage is a fundamental right to all" that's it. Now he was talking in the context of prop 8, so he also advocated that we "don't put the Bill of Rights up for a debate" That's why Gays and Lesbians have the RIGHT to marry. The Supreme Court did it to it's self and set the precedence, they do in fact have the right to marry, if those laws prohibiting them from doing so are unconstitutional.

As for historical, no it's not infringing on religious liberties to force them to marry Gays. Or anyone in the LGBT for that matter for several reasons:
First of all, in the context of ancient Rome, China, Greece, etc... gay marriage had always existed. In fact, it isn't until Constantine turns christian that marriage becomes religious, and that it's illegal.
Secondly, over 40 species actually practice homosexuality, only one discriminates against it. And yes, actually, it does appear in those studies that genes played a part. In fact in 2006, the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and National Association of Social Workers stated in an amicus brief presented to the Supreme Court of the State of California: "Gay men and lesbians form stable, committed relationships that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential respects. The institution of marriage offers social, psychological, and health benefits that are denied to same-sex couples. By denying same-sex couples the right to marry, the state reinforces and perpetuates the stigma historically associated with homosexuality. Homosexuality remains stigmatized, and this stigma has negative consequences. California's prohibition on marriage for same-sex couples reflects and reinforces this stigma".
And yes, again, biology does play a part in this. Homosexuality is not a choice...can you tell me when you remember choosing to be straight?
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm out y'all!
Thank you for voting!
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 7:14:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes, marriage is currently totally private... That's why married couples get different government privileges, right?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 7:25:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 7:01:58 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
First of all, as republican Lawyer Ted Olson noted on Fox news, that the Supreme Court during interracial marriage debates ruled overwhelmingly over 11 times that "marriage is a fundamental right to all" that's it. Now he was talking in the context of prop 8, so he also advocated that we "don't put the Bill of Rights up for a debate" That's why Gays and Lesbians have the RIGHT to marry. The Supreme Court did it to it's self and set the precedence, they do in fact have the right to marry, if those laws prohibiting them from doing so are unconstitutional.

Sexuality =/= Interracial.
Everyone technically does have the right to marry, so long as it's with someone of the opposite sex.

What it implies isn't that any man may marry a man, but that any man may marry a woman regardless of race.

As for historical, no it's not infringing on religious liberties to force them to marry Gays. Or anyone in the LGBT for that matter for several reasons:
First of all, in the context of ancient Rome, China, Greece, etc... gay marriage had always existed. In fact, it isn't until Constantine turns christian that marriage becomes religious, and that it's illegal.

You are talking about occurrences from 1500 years ago.
Ancient Rome =/= US
Ancient China =/= US
Ancient Greece =/= US

Secondly, over 40 species actually practice homosexuality, only one discriminates against it.

All nearly ever species practices:
- Pedophilia
- Incest
- Polygamy
- Cannibalism
- Racism (yes, it is common in the Animal Kingdom.)

In fact, Albinos are more common in nature than Gay Animals.
Apart from that, this is Argument from Nature.

And yes, actually, it does appear in those studies that genes played a part.

In fact in 2006, the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and National Association of Social Workers stated in an amicus brief presented to the Supreme Court of the State of California: "Gay men and lesbians form stable, committed relationships that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential respects. The institution of marriage offers social, psychological, and health benefits that are denied to same-sex couples. By denying same-sex couples the right to marry, the state reinforces and perpetuates the stigma historically associated with homosexuality. Homosexuality remains stigmatized, and this stigma has negative consequences. California's prohibition on marriage for same-sex couples reflects and reinforces this stigma".

And? If that's the case, fight to make Civil Unions more equal. Marriage isn't granted by who works best.

Besides, studies show that Gay Couples go through more breakups and physical abuse than Heterosexual Couples.

And yes, again, biology does play a part in this. Homosexuality is not a choice...can you tell me when you remember choosing to be straight?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Aside from using Wikipedia in a political issue...

That's a fallacious question. That's like asking when you choice to like living in the City more than the Country side... There wasn't a point of choosing, you simply grew into that way of life. This still doesn't make it genetic.

Now tell me about all the people who become gay after a long time.. or all the gay people who choice to become straight?

a) http://abcnews.go.com...

You make that claim "It's not a choice" and that's it...
Studies have yet to prove it's genetic, but have came back showing no relevant difference in genes.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 7:37:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 3:56:41 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Gay advocates talk about how it's their constitutional right to marry.. I was curious how? Marriage isn't a Constitutional right, in fact, the words Marriage, Marry, or Civil Union, aren't even mentioned once in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, or in any Amendment afterwards.

You're right. There is nothing that says that the government has to grant anyone the right to marry. But since the government has decided to get involved in that whole business, to create a legal and civil conception of marriage, involving statuses on which it bestows people, the constitution demands that it do it equally.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 7:43:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 7:25:04 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/23/2013 7:01:58 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
First of all, as republican Lawyer Ted Olson noted on Fox news, that the Supreme Court during interracial marriage debates ruled overwhelmingly over 11 times that "marriage is a fundamental right to all" that's it. Now he was talking in the context of prop 8, so he also advocated that we "don't put the Bill of Rights up for a debate" That's why Gays and Lesbians have the RIGHT to marry. The Supreme Court did it to it's self and set the precedence, they do in fact have the right to marry, if those laws prohibiting them from doing so are unconstitutional.

Sexuality =/= Interracial.
Everyone technically does have the right to marry, so long as it's with someone of the opposite sex.

That's not what the supreme court said. They only said it's a right to everyone. That's it. Nothing about opposite sex as a requirement. I'm saying that is what they said. not what it ought to be, which if you think it ought to be different is a completely different matter. This coupled with the 9th amendment pretty much destroys you in court every time. Especially with the prop 8 court case.

What it implies isn't that any man may marry a man, but that any man may marry a woman regardless of race.

No, it simply states anyone can get married. There are no restrictions. Therefore your argument is crap. They never specified only interracial, they stated "marriage is a fundamental right to all".

As for historical, no it's not infringing on religious liberties to force them to marry Gays. Or anyone in the LGBT for that matter for several reasons:
First of all, in the context of ancient Rome, China, Greece, etc... gay marriage had always existed. In fact, it isn't until Constantine turns christian that marriage becomes religious, and that it's illegal.

You are talking about occurrences from 1500 years ago.
Ancient Rome =/= US
Ancient China =/= US
Ancient Greece =/= US

So? If your claiming religious liberties are harmed by forcing them to marry gays against their views, I'm showing that historically it was the opposite, the religious hi-jack marriage from society and we're reclaiming it. That's it, that's all. And furthermore, that this isn't just a modern occurrence, it's been around for centuries. Do we still look to Rome and Greece for the fundamental functions of a modern democracy? If so, why can't we look to them for an answer on a modern problem?

Secondly, over 40 species actually practice homosexuality, only one discriminates against it.

All nearly ever species practices:
- Pedophilia
- Incest
- Polygamy
- Cannibalism
- Racism (yes, it is common in the Animal Kingdom.)

In fact, Albinos are more common in nature than Gay Animals.
Apart from that, this is Argument from Nature.

True, but the difference is the psychological harm from it. For instance, pedophilia is harmful to children, same as incest, cannibalism, and racism, however unlike those, preventing homosexuals from being able to be homosexual does cause serious mental harm, and furthermore, this is pretty much agreed upon by the majority in the psych community.

And yes, actually, it does appear in those studies that genes played a part.



In fact in 2006, the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and National Association of Social Workers stated in an amicus brief presented to the Supreme Court of the State of California: "Gay men and lesbians form stable, committed relationships that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential respects. The institution of marriage offers social, psychological, and health benefits that are denied to same-sex couples. By denying same-sex couples the right to marry, the state reinforces and perpetuates the stigma historically associated with homosexuality. Homosexuality remains stigmatized, and this stigma has negative consequences. California's prohibition on marriage for same-sex couples reflects and reinforces this stigma".

And? If that's the case, fight to make Civil Unions more equal. Marriage isn't granted by who works best.

And why not? This is not for civil unions you idiot, straw man like hell. There is no reason as to not allow them to not marry.

Besides, studies show that Gay Couples go through more breakups and physical abuse than Heterosexual Couples.

Those studies in the finding of fact by Judge Walker also noted, that the claims in a lot of those studies (such as more drug use or more physical trauma in the homosexual community) are completely and utterly garbage. He outright called it "junk science" ... this is a republican lawyer BTW.

And yes, again, biology does play a part in this. Homosexuality is not a choice...can you tell me when you remember choosing to be straight?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Aside from using Wikipedia in a political issue...

Because you don't do it too, hypocrite.

That's a fallacious question. That's like asking when you choice to like living in the City more than the Country side... There wasn't a point of choosing, you simply grew into that way of life. This still doesn't make it genetic.

Yes it does. There is nothing indicating that it's environmental, only that tolerance of it is environmental. If nothing environmental causes it what else is there by deduction? Genetics? Oh yeah ..

Now tell me about all the people who become gay after a long time.. or all the gay people who choice to become straight?

Again, ever read the prop 8 case? They never "become straight" one testimonial even noted after the psych test "I was still as gay as when I first went in there" he even went on to note that the alumni on there simply left and continued to be gay. However one case was really well noted for what it did. Dr Rekers, who treated a child at the age of 4 years old exhibiting "deviant sexual behaviors" and tried to "cure" him. The child's name was Kirk Murphy. Kirk eventually committed suicide as a direct result of the repression Rekers imposed upon him, and his struggle with "homosexuality". Even worse, Rekers himself has been accused of sexual misconduct, by hiring a male prostitute, and resigned amid sex allegations against him. Case-and-point, this study lacks all legitimacy, and Rekers has long since resigned from being a psychologist. Not the best psychologist in the world. Then again, I guess that's expected when your a southern baptist minister trying to practice psychology.

a) http://abcnews.go.com...

You make that claim "It's not a choice" and that's it...
Studies have yet to prove it's genetic, but have came back showing no relevant difference in genes.

I just gave you a bunch off them showing otherwise ... can you google bro?
Thank you for voting!
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 8:05:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 7:37:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 8/23/2013 3:56:41 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Gay advocates talk about how it's their constitutional right to marry.. I was curious how? Marriage isn't a Constitutional right, in fact, the words Marriage, Marry, or Civil Union, aren't even mentioned once in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, or in any Amendment afterwards.

You're right. There is nothing that says that the government has to grant anyone the right to marry. But since the government has decided to get involved in that whole business, to create a legal and civil conception of marriage, involving statuses on which it bestows people, the constitution demands that it do it equally.

See, now you assume the Government should even be involved. The Government has also decided to get involved in Iraq, Income Tax, and Healthcare. So what's your point?

The Government only regulates it, but doesn't constitutional have a say in it.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 8:14:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 7:43:39 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/23/2013 7:25:04 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/23/2013 7:01:58 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
First of all, as republican Lawyer Ted Olson noted on Fox news, that the Supreme Court during interracial marriage debates ruled overwhelmingly over 11 times that "marriage is a fundamental right to all" that's it. Now he was talking in the context of prop 8, so he also advocated that we "don't put the Bill of Rights up for a debate" That's why Gays and Lesbians have the RIGHT to marry. The Supreme Court did it to it's self and set the precedence, they do in fact have the right to marry, if those laws prohibiting them from doing so are unconstitutional.

Sexuality =/= Interracial.
Everyone technically does have the right to marry, so long as it's with someone of the opposite sex.

That's not what the supreme court said. They only said it's a right to everyone. That's it. Nothing about opposite sex as a requirement. I'm saying that is what they said. not what it ought to be, which if you think it ought to be different is a completely different matter. This coupled with the 9th amendment pretty much destroys you in court every time. Especially with the prop 8 court case.


What it implies isn't that any man may marry a man, but that any man may marry a woman regardless of race.

No, it simply states anyone can get married. There are no restrictions. Therefore your argument is crap. They never specified only interracial, they stated "marriage is a fundamental right to all".


As for historical, no it's not infringing on religious liberties to force them to marry Gays. Or anyone in the LGBT for that matter for several reasons:
First of all, in the context of ancient Rome, China, Greece, etc... gay marriage had always existed. In fact, it isn't until Constantine turns christian that marriage becomes religious, and that it's illegal.

You are talking about occurrences from 1500 years ago.
Ancient Rome =/= US
Ancient China =/= US
Ancient Greece =/= US

So? If your claiming religious liberties are harmed by forcing them to marry gays against their views, I'm showing that historically it was the opposite, the religious hi-jack marriage from society and we're reclaiming it. That's it, that's all. And furthermore, that this isn't just a modern occurrence, it's been around for centuries. Do we still look to Rome and Greece for the fundamental functions of a modern democracy? If so, why can't we look to them for an answer on a modern problem?

Secondly, over 40 species actually practice homosexuality, only one discriminates against it.

All nearly ever species practices:
- Pedophilia
- Incest
- Polygamy
- Cannibalism
- Racism (yes, it is common in the Animal Kingdom.)

In fact, Albinos are more common in nature than Gay Animals.
Apart from that, this is Argument from Nature.

True, but the difference is the psychological harm from it. For instance, pedophilia is harmful to children, same as incest, cannibalism, and racism, however unlike those, preventing homosexuals from being able to be homosexual does cause serious mental harm, and furthermore, this is pretty much agreed upon by the majority in the psych community.

And? If that's the case, fight to make Civil Unions more equal. Marriage isn't granted by who works best.

And why not? This is not for civil unions you idiot, straw man like hell. There is no reason as to not allow them to not marry.

Besides, studies show that Gay Couples go through more breakups and physical abuse than Heterosexual Couples.

Those studies in the finding of fact by Judge Walker also noted, that the claims in a lot of those studies (such as more drug use or more physical trauma in the homosexual community) are completely and utterly garbage. He outright called it "junk science" ... this is a republican lawyer BTW.

His opinion =/= scientific Survey...


And yes, again, biology does play a part in this. Homosexuality is not a choice...can you tell me when you remember choosing to be straight?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Aside from using Wikipedia in a political issue...

Because you don't do it too, hypocrite.

That's a fallacious question. That's like asking when you choice to like living in the City more than the Country side... There wasn't a point of choosing, you simply grew into that way of life. This still doesn't make it genetic.

Yes it does. There is nothing indicating that it's environmental, only that tolerance of it is environmental. If nothing environmental causes it what else is there by deduction? Genetics? Oh yeah ..

Now tell me about all the people who become gay after a long time.. or all the gay people who choice to become straight?

Again, ever read the prop 8 case? They never "become straight" one testimonial even noted after the psych test "I was still as gay as when I first went in there" he even went on to note that the alumni on there simply left and continued to be gay. However one case was really well noted for what it did. Dr Rekers, who treated a child at the age of 4 years old exhibiting "deviant sexual behaviors" and tried to "cure" him. The child's name was Kirk Murphy. Kirk eventually committed suicide as a direct result of the repression Rekers imposed upon him, and his struggle with "homosexuality". Even worse, Rekers himself has been accused of sexual misconduct, by hiring a male prostitute, and resigned amid sex allegations against him. Case-and-point, this study lacks all legitimacy, and Rekers has long since resigned from being a psychologist. Not the best psychologist in the world. Then again, I guess that's expected when your a southern baptist minister trying to practice psychology.

a) http://abcnews.go.com...

You make that claim "It's not a choice" and that's it...
Studies have yet to prove it's genetic, but have came back showing no relevant difference in genes.

I just gave you a bunch off them showing otherwise ... can you google bro?

You gave me one... That dealt with psychology... No other study....
Have you heard of Ad Hominem? Try to keep your bias anger and personal attacks out.

I am replying to everything else here...
The 9th Amendment does not grant every right you so want. This has already been discussed. We see this in the US v. Fry.

Any Supreme Court ruling as no ground in the US Constitution has of the acceptance of Separation of Church and State and the 1st Amendment. Marriage has been governed by the Church, the Government is wrong to restrict the Church's right to decide for themselves who may be Married.
You have Prop 8, I have Separation of Church and State and First Amendment.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 8:20:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Marriage as a civic institution most certainly is NOT governed by the church. Otherwise only Catholics could marry...and only other Catholics. Or whatever flavor.

The 14th amendment is as important as the 9th, here, in my opinion.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 8:24:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 3:56:41 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Gay advocates talk about how it's their constitutional right to marry.. I was curious how? Marriage isn't a Constitutional right, in fact, the words Marriage, Marry, or Civil Union, aren't even mentioned once in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, or in any Amendment afterwards.

Marriage isn't a constitutional right. Equality before the law is.

Really, you could have answered this yourself with a little thought.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 8:25:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And seriously, bringing in the first amendment to justify your imposing your religious views on other people is just hypocritical.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 10:08:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 7:00:49 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/23/2013 5:48:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Also, from the Universal Declaration for Human Rights:

"Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

Don't give me none of that "it doesn't specifically say sexual orientation" rubbish.

To start... It doesn't. Sexuality is neither Race, Nationality, or Religion... But that aside, it claims Men and Women have the right.

Men and Women =/= Men and Men
Men and Women =/= Women and Women.

I've already read that document. It specifically says Men and Women may marry.

Seriously? You're playing a semantic game with me? Bring it on, bud.

"And" is a conjunction that implies neither mutual exclusiveness nor inclusiveness, especially in the context that it was used e.g. "men and women have a right to marry" is not the same as "man has a right to marry a woman." The latter can in no way be derived from the former.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 11:00:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 10:08:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/23/2013 7:00:49 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/23/2013 5:48:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Also, from the Universal Declaration for Human Rights:

"Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

Don't give me none of that "it doesn't specifically say sexual orientation" rubbish.

To start... It doesn't. Sexuality is neither Race, Nationality, or Religion... But that aside, it claims Men and Women have the right.

Men and Women =/= Men and Men
Men and Women =/= Women and Women.

I've already read that document. It specifically says Men and Women may marry.

Seriously? You're playing a semantic game with me? Bring it on, bud.

"And" is a conjunction that implies neither mutual exclusiveness nor inclusiveness, especially in the context that it was used e.g. "men and women have a right to marry" is not the same as "man has a right to marry a woman." The latter can in no way be derived from the former.

Pedantic grammatical analysis FTW! (and I mean that...I like me some grammar)
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 11:03:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 3:56:41 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Gay advocates talk about how it's their constitutional right to marry.. I was curious how? Marriage isn't a Constitutional right, in fact, the words Marriage, Marry, or Civil Union, aren't even mentioned once in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, or in any Amendment afterwards.

Let me ask you this: do you think that the literal words of the constitution are sufficient law for the United States?
Tsar of DDO