I challenge anyone to argue that SCOTUS will establish gay marriage as a right

1. Not a ban of gay marriage.
2. If "the entire point of marriage" is for the benefits from government... you seriously need to rethink your life, man.

 

No- the Supreme Court has held that marriage is an inherent right of individuals.

In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,


Loving v Virginia
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Even prisoners have a right to marriage, the Supreme Court decision Turner.

- - - Updated - - -

No it is a ban. It is a ban on a right that confers some benefits.

 

Okay. People in states that don't allow gay marriage have still had weddings. Please find a case where they were arrested or otherwise prosecuted for it. You cant, because you're defending an absurdity. A gay marriage ban doesn't ban any marriages, at all. It's a misnomer.

 

Would you be happier if I called it a 'Marriage license ban'?

It is immaterial- because a couple is not legally married unless they are issued a marriage license, and states such as Wisconsin and PA forbade the issuance of marriage licenses to same gender couples and specifically stated that they could not be married.

 

Clearly a ban of gay marriage

Marriage is a civil institution. There is no reason to get married if not for the familial benefits.

 

Except of course for all the marriage same sex marriages ban.

Are you serious with this?

 

I can't take you seriously. There are blatantly obvious points just going right over your head, and your not making any serious points. If you want to discuss this further, you're welcome to accept the challenge to a formal debate.

The simple fact that no one will accept the challenge, I find kind of indicative. I mean it was an open challenge to anyone and no one will defend the position in a formal debate.

 

lol, I not only accepted the challenge but I'm mopping the floor with you. You are pretending there is no ban, when this is demonstrably false.

But run away if you wish.

 

it's a challenge to a formal debate - you are not engaging in a formal debate, you're engaging in willful ignorance. If you wish to accept a formal debate on the issue of whether or not SCOTUS will determine that gay marriage is constitutionally protected (by the 14th's equal protection, or any other clause you wish to), then we can start a formal debate. This challenge thread is too clotted to have one in this thread.

 

I've already done so.........

 

Your argument already refuted; double face palm already issued; it's just sad you think a post=a debate. Nothing more I can do to help you there.

 

Lol, clearly not as my argument has won 14 straight cases.

How was my post not a debate?

 

Well since you ask, a big reason I wouldn't bother with it is that somebody can win the debate even if SCOTUS rules 9-0 against his prediction, so the outcome has no necessary connection to reality. We might as well debate whether Mighty Mouse can kick Superman's ass.

 

A good debate does not need the winner to be inevitably right or have the most popular outcome to be the winner or to make it a worthwhile endeavor, and mighty mouse would totally kick Superman's ass..

 

Please, even if MM is better p4p, Superman has about a 100:1 size advantage - besides which he could just burn the little bastard to a crisp with his heat vision.

 

MM runs across Lois Lane's foot; she screams; Clark/Superman comes running; MM konks him in the head with a frying pan and then eats his eyeballs out like a homeless drunk passed out in a subway tunnel. Game over.

 

Has it? I'll give you a century or two, but ceremonies that bound persons together have existed far longer than institutionalized marriage. If it were but just a ceremony binding persons of the opposite sex together I'd concede, but that's no longer what marriage is, today it is a contract, one that comes with benefits provided by the state and since that state is the United States, it is bound by the Constitution and therefore cannot prohibit that contractual agreement based on gender.

Fine by me, so long as these people have access to the same privileges as everyone else I couldn't possibly care less what you call it.

Caveat: This sounds an awful lot like "separate but equal" so I'm loathe to commit wholeheartedly to the concession.

 

Since with real man/woman marriage both genders can enter the "contract" equally (and under the same conditions), the state is not "prohibiting that contractual agreement based on gender" at all. And since apparently it's all about the state benefits, it seems reasonable that the state can demand the same requirements and conditions be met by all in order to qualify. That is equality under the law.

On the contrary, "separate but equal" is exactly what the gay agenda wants: a parallel subculture of marriage "equal" in "marriage rights" but separate from mainstream society. It's like saying that the blacks should marry the blacks, just substitute the word "gay" for "black". What I want is the opposite of "separate but equal": full integration. TRUE equality.

 

This argument didn't work for interracial bans either.

.
Lol, no. Same sex marriage is identical to opposite sex marriage. There is no separation.

His sentence contradicts the rest if your post

 

I can't speak for the Justices or any other person or citizen, but I can express how I would settle this issue.

People need to decide what terms to use, or what institutions they agree to use or not use,
in order to separate the religious beliefs about marriage from "whatever you call" the civil unions or contracts the govt has jurisdiction over.

Since people may not agree on the same solution, I URGE people to separate by party, state, city or whatever level ALLOWS an agreement.

Approaches I would RECOMMEND for conflict resolution by consensus (in order to protect and represent all views equally, not impose by govt against
anyone's consent or beliefs)
Examples:
1. agreeing to allow churches/individuals/private groups to conduct and recognize marriages of their choice, and keep this out of the state
2. agreeing for states to endorse marriages, but agree how to word the language to be neutral and/or not impose lanuage seen as biased by beliefs
3. keeping states to have jurisdiction only over civil unions, contracts, custody etc.
4. separate policies by party, church or other organization or network, where people can recognize and receive benefits as they believe without imposing on others
5. writing laws to be neutral, where different parties or sides agree they can interpret them equally their own way without imposing that on others with different ways (similar to how the writing of the Second Amendment is interpreted different ways)
6. set up local conferences to address and resolve issues on the level that allows consensus, and/or separate policies to be private (and not under govt
unless all the public agrees, since religious beliefs are involved)
7. agree just to make marriage open for all, if people do not agree to accept responsibility for their beliefs and separating these policies privately,
and instead they all agree to let the state recognize all marriages even if they disagree with that policy

the problems caused are from
A. people trying to make a policy for a larger audience than just themselves and the people who agree with their views
if they stick to just the groups that share their beliefs, the rest can be worked out; but not if any group is taking their belief and imposing this by law or govt
B. people are projecting their personal emotions, beliefs or issues onto other people or groups
that is not the point of the political process, but it is a human factor affecting ability to resolve conflict and reach a consensus on policy or agreement to separate
C. people do not recognize each other's beliefs as valid and/or equally protected by law
for the process to work, it helps if people have equal respect and understanding of each other's beliefs even if they disagree
if people go into the process not recognizing or respecting beliefs and consent of others as equal
this is why people are violating each other's beliefs or consent.
Govt and the political/legal process should never be abused to violate beliefs or consent of others.

I would recommend setting up an agreed process first, and understanding to respect beliefs as equal,
BEFORE attempting to address the actual points to arrive at either a reconciled policy or agreement to separate policies.

I would leave it to the people to represent themselves, so the results reflect consent of the people.
If results or solutions from one group help another, they can be freely adopted, but I do not think it is lawful to impose on others
because of the religious beliefs involved. Decisions should be made by consensus in order to effect public laws,
or else separate under private policies and groups, as churches do if people disagree religiously.

I believe the state can reflect or represent a consensus decision of the people, so there is no imposition on anyone's beliefs, religious
political or otherwise, but cannot impose a biased policy or belief that discriminates against dissenting beliefs by creed.

 

Frankly you are just making all of that up.

The gay friends of mine who want to get married want to be treated legally and socially the same as my wife and I are treated.

Why do you believe that they should be treated unequally?

 

All arguments are "made up". I just made mine up myself, instead of parroting it from someone else who made it up, like gaybots do. The difference is that your argument was "made up" for you, so that you don't have to think.

I don't. I think they should be treated equally. EXACTLY equally. As in, if your gay male friends want to marry, let them find a willing female, exactly like the rest of male society. The idea that they should marry within a gay subculture is the essence of "separate but equal" - which is NOT equal.

 

And that argument is not exactly equally- anymore than the ban on inter-racial marriage was 'exactly' equal.

You say: gay male can marry anyone he wants as long as she is female.
Virginia said: Black male can marry anyone he wants as long as she is black.

Equal would be equal- there is no 'marrying within the gay subculture' anymore than there was 'marrying within the miscegnation subculture'.

Equal would be treating two consenting adults the same as two consenting adults- regardless of skin color or gender.

 

I guess you haven't been paying attention to reality. Men have been marrying men for over a decade.

 

The difference should be obvious to you if you hadn't already decided that the "gay rights" agenda perfectly parallels the real civil rights movement. People who wanted blacks to marry blacks did so because they wanted to keep them separate. I want the opposite. I want them to be fully integrated. You want gays to marry gays, keeping them separate. I want them to join mainstream society, while you want segregation. You are on the opposite end of the argument from what you think you are on.