Appeals Court Strikes down Indiana and Wisconsin Same-Sex Marriage Bans

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by bradl, Sep 4, 2014.

  1. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #1
    A quote from another thread:

    A quote from an Appeals Court Judge:

    With that, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals just struck down Indiana's and Wisconsin's Same-Sex Marriage bans, and very scathingly at that.

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...-wisconsin-and-indiana-same-sex-marriage-bans

    Unanimous from this Appellate court. This may cause Louisiana to revisit their recent ruling.

    BL.
     
  2. SwiftLives macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #2
    Are there any arguments against same sex marriage that do not involve either a religious component or a procreation component?
     
  3. zin Suspended

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #3
    Yes. It's icky and makes me feel uncomfortable.

    :p
     
  4. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #4
    Not sure what you think you've proved given what we were discussing. I never claimed that "traditional marriage" trumped the laws regarding marriage. On the contrary, my point is that by making marriage available in forms other than the traditional man and woman pairing, we're sliding down that slippery slope wherein it won't be possible to legally deny marriage to just about anybody with a non-traditional lifestyle (polygyny, polyandry, incestuous, etc.).
     
  5. zin Suspended

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #5
    So what is your issue with that?
     
  6. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #6
    I think traditional marriage was the best model for raising children. Now that it's a free-for-all, I'm just interested in seeing where the experiment will lead. It'll most likely be a final train wreck for the American family, but those results won't be in for about a century.
     
  7. chrono1081 macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #7
    Extremely poor argument. Two loving consenting adults should NEVER be denied the most important part of their life because someone else doesn't like it.

    How would you like if I voted on your marriage? Not so much.

    There is not one single valid logical argument against gay marriage. Not one. Period.
     
  8. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #8
    You yourself admitted that only 1-5% of the US population is gay. And since gay marriages tend to happen between gay people, well...

    ...it won't exactly lead to the collapse of the traditional concept of the nuclear family now, will it? There won't be enough people engaging in the practice to make it a widespread issue.
     
  9. chrono1081 macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #9
    Studies show otherwise: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-...ame-sex-couples-healthier-study-finds/5574168

    Not to mention in many places an entire family or entire village raise children. The idea of the "Atomic family" being ideal holds no water.
     
  10. zin Suspended

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #10
    Giving people equal rights is not an experiment. Nothing is going to happen to your ability to raise children. The sky won't fall despite how much I can see you want it to.

    The U.S. marriage rate has been declining for decades and continues to do so. It is evident that fewer and fewer people seem to think a traditional marriage is necessary to raise children in the best way.
     
  11. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #11
    I figured "why not"
     
  12. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #12
    Yeah, I wanted to bring up boarding schools in England, where wealthier, well-to-do couples let someone else do it, ultimately only playing an indirect part in raising their child.

    A man and a woman raising a kid isn't the only way to do it. A single dad can do it, or a single mom, or a school, or the village, or an institution. Two dads or two moms isn't exactly stretching the concept of child-rearing to its breaking point.
     
  13. zin Suspended

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #13
    Are you continuing to make this point because you support multi-spouse marriage or because you're attempting to argue against same-sex marriage?
     
  14. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #14
    I'm arguing that if we're going to change the definition for one group, we can't really disallow another group to re-define marriage to suit their desires. Either there is a right to marry the person you love or their isn't. The fact that you may already be in-love and married to another person you love should not matter as long as all affected parties are cool with it.
     
  15. bagelche macrumors 6502

    bagelche

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Location:
    Western Mass.
    #15
    Slippery slopes like the polygyny found throughout the bible? It's been well documented that what we call "traditional marriage" has a whole lot of variety just within Western cultures, even setting aside that other cultures exist and have their own traditions and evolutions of those traditions.

    The notion of a traditional marriage isn't a convincing argument unless one chooses to set aside both empirical historical knowledge and the text of the religious book upon which so many base this argument.
     
  16. Ledgem macrumors 65816

    Ledgem

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hawaii, USA
    #16
    The concept of marriage as a contract between two adults of opposite genders is being challenged for the gender restriction, not the number restriction. As we've discussing in another thread, changing one clause of the agreement (gender restriction) does not automatically mean that the other clause (numbers) is free to change, as well. We've also discussed the logistical problems that would arise by removing the restriction of marriage being between two adults; such problems do not arise by removing the gender restriction.
     
  17. zin Suspended

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #17
    So you support this court ruling?

    Arguing for multi-spouse marriage is not an argument against same-sex marriage. Either way, from what you have written, I can't see how you can be against this court ruling, among the dozens of others. I just want to make sure of your view on same-sex marriage because so far you have not wrote it explicitly.
     
  18. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #18
    That's pretty bold for an unfounded assertion.
     
  19. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #19
    Extremely poor argument. When you take away traditional marriage, then ALL forms of marriage have to be accepted. "Two loving consenting adults"? Why not ten? Twenty? How DARE you keep a dozen men and women who love each other from tying the knot?

    Not my problem since I'm in a traditional marriage. But if I was living a non-traditional lifestyle, no doubt I'd want everybody to accept it as the norm.

    There are plenty of logical arguments, but there hasn't been enough time to gather statistics to prove their validity. In a generation or two, we'll know if kids raised by two mommies or two daddies fare as well as those raised by a mommy and daddy.
     
  20. Ledgem macrumors 65816

    Ledgem

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hawaii, USA
    #20
    The logistics of adjusting marriage to allow for same-gender marriages isn't really any different than "traditional" heterosexual marriage. The logistics of allowing the number of individuals in a marriage to go beyond two are very different. This is why the claim that "all" other forms of marriage is moot: logistics.
     
  21. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #21
    If we're willing to change on clause to accommodate a different type of marriage, then we need to be prepared to change other "clauses" to accommodate other types of marriages too. And we need to figure out logistics because logistical difficulty isn't a good enough reason to deny someone their constitutional rights.
     
  22. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #22
    Why would they turn out any different? I mean you're saying these things, but you're not doing anything to back up your claims?

    What exactly is it about a same sex marriage that would somehow damage a child? How would it be any different than, say, a dad and an uncle raising their kids? A mom and an aunt?

    Even if you don't have any proof, at least explain the reasoning behind why you believe what you believe?
     
  23. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #23
    I "admitted it"? Too rich! I pointed out how far off your ludicrous claim that gays made up 10% of the population were.

    It's not just gay marriage. Once you've opened marriage to anyone other than between a man and a woman, there are no legal limits on who can marry once he or she is an adult.

    ----------

    You're using logistics to deny a person's RIGHT to get married?! Shock.

    ----------

    There's plenty of statistical data on traditional marriages, for example, it's better to be raised in a stable family with a father present. That's some of what we've learned after thousands of years examining traditional marriages.

    The stats on whether it's harmful for kids to be raised in same-sex families is far more equivocal. There just hasn't been enough time to gather data.
     
  24. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #24
    Yeah, by "stating" as much, you've admitted your belief that gays only make up 1-5% of the population. If you didn't believe it, then why'd you say it?

    Yeah, because if a human being can marry another human being, the only logical conclusion is that pretty soon we'll all be marrying moon rocks, buses, and apache attack helicopters, right?

    Now make sure you point out the ridiculousness of my hyperbole, and ignore any salient points I've made.
     
  25. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #25
    Why wouldn't they?

    A good parent is a good parent. Being heterosexual doesn't automatically make someone a good parent.

    And for homosexuals, having children can sometimes be an expensive, complicated process. We choose to do it. No accidents here.

    In my case, my partner had to go through the adoption process before she passed away. They checked our home, our finances, our jobs. Everything.

    An excellent case can be made that the children of homosexuals are being raised in more stable environments.

    And if you have any questions, you're welcome to come to Houston and meet my children. To even imply they may not "fare" as well because I'm a lesbian is ridiculous and offensive. And absolutely ignorant.
     

Share This Page