• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriage

Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

You need to revisit the 9th amendment.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Furthermore, you can't make your argument unless you object to Loving v Virginia as well, which also infringed upon the states' rights to define marriage.
The only way Loving v Virginia had standing is by first acknowledging that marriage was a right, which was already established in other previous rulings.


I am curious how long it will take for Congress to pass the next amedment. The last attempt was the DOMA amendment attempt.
I think we won't see any amendments from Congress for a long time.

Reread the Ninth and recognize where it says "by the people."

There should be no precedence out there because the SCOTUS has absolutely zero authority over marriage - it's a Tenth Amendment issue, and if these clowns want to make it a federal issue then they can attempt to amend the Constitution.

The proponents of gay marriage cant do that (progressives in general) so they argue (or interpret) language despite the fact the Bill of Rights and Constitution is about as blunt as a Dr. Seuss book...
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

It's different because homosexuality is abnormal -.

That is simply YOUR OPINION.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Mr.Nick;1061607165 I find it amusing how the progressive atheists sit there an attempt to imply evangelicals should be perfect.... [/QUOTE said:
No, they should practice what they preach and not be hypocrites.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

I didn't. I thought you were trying to make a funny.

"Flaunting your heterosexuality" in the same context implies groping women in public so everyone knows how straight you are. I said that's sexual assault or at least very strongly frowned upon.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

In real life I try not to do that.
"Flaunting your heterosexuality" in the same context implies groping women in public so everyone knows how straight you are. I said that's sexual assault or at least very strongly frowned upon.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

That is simply YOUR OPINION.

Well, I by no means am a homophobe, but I will say that whether his comment is a fact or fiction depends on its context. To say heterosexuality is socially normal, is in fact, an opinion.
However, in strictly biological context, the only purpose of our species is to be able to reproduce. That is the theory of evolution. Considering homosexual couples cannot naturally conceive children with third party participants, it is fair game to say that heterosexuality is biologically necessary for survival while homosexuality is not. That would be a fact. Just something to think about.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

In real life I try not to do that.

Obviously, but I think you understand my point that being homosexual doesn't give one a different set of rules.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

That was a joke. See post 24 for my real opinion.
Obviously, but I think you understand my point that being homosexual doesn't give one a different set of rules.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Reread the Ninth and recognize where it says "by the people."
I just quoted it for you.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
"by the people" doesn't change anything to eliminate my point.
The point is that you were complaining that marriage was not listed as a right in the constitution.
Doesn't matter.
9th amendment.

There should be no precedence out there because the SCOTUS has absolutely zero authority over marriage - it's a Tenth Amendment issue, and if these clowns want to make it a federal issue then they can attempt to amend the Constitution.
Again, Loving v Virginia.
If you read the ruling, you would see that one of the first things they had to do is establish WHY they had grounds to rule on the issue.
And they did show that. They established marriage WAS a constitutionally protected right.

You don't seem to recognize that if marriage is NOT a constitutionally protected right, then there is no grounds for SCOTUS to rule in Loving v Virginia and the ruling cannot have existed in the first place.

The proponents of gay marriage cant do that (progressives in general) so they argue (or interpret) language despite the fact the Bill of Rights and Constitution is about as blunt as a Dr. Seuss book...
Again, 9th amendment...
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Just cause marriage is not explicitly listed DOES NOT mean it isn't a right "retained by the people".
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Well, I by no means am a homophobe, but I will say that whether his comment is a fact or fiction depends on its context. To say heterosexuality is socially normal, is in fact, an opinion.
It's also a question of culture. It's treated as normal in many societies, and has certainly become normalized in many contemporary societies.

Similarly, India had an extensive caste system for well over a thousand years, with very strict rules about social relations between castes. This was so "normal," that it was never even questioned. Does that prove the caste system is beneficial or "natural" or preferable?


That is the theory of evolution. Considering homosexual couples cannot naturally conceive children with third party participants, it is fair game to say that heterosexuality is biologically necessary for survival while homosexuality is not. That would be a fact. Just something to think about.
Or not.

Homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom; it's been observed in over 1500 species already. Homosexuals can in fact reproduce, just not with a sexual partner of their preference (obviously). The plumbing still works, y'know.

Social relations are extremely complex, and suggesting that one particular behavior is somehow a "problem" is somewhat naïve.

In addition, the vast majority of human activities these days are not "necessary for survival." Including participating on web forums on the Internet. :mrgreen:
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

There should be no precedence out there because the SCOTUS has absolutely zero authority over marriage...
The SCOTUS does have jurisdiction, if the laws banning same-sex marriage run afoul of the Due Process and/or Equal Protection Clause.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Actually the government has no need to be involved in marriage. They have no business to know who you are marrying. It's time to get the government out of our lives. :shrug:
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Obviously, but I think you understand my point that being homosexual doesn't give one a different set of rules.

No one is suggesting different rules. Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike will have the same access to same sex marriage. Or are you suggesting that the right to marry outside of your sexuality is meaningless and discriminatory without the corresponding right to marry your preferred gender partner?

On the invoking of the 10th amendment...I always love when people make sweeping statements about how the government works that contradict 200 years of legal and political precedent. In order for Nick's (and plenty of other posters on this forum) position to be correct, basically the entirety of our legal system since before 1800 would have to be scrapped. Many of the liberties they enjoy would disappear overnight. And assertions that the supreme court has no jurisdiction over this or that topic that the person arguing about happens to have a problem with... Its jurisdiction extends to all cases under US law. It's in article 3, section 2. Only someone totally ignorant of the American judicial, political, and legal processes and whose understanding of the constitution amounts to little more than cherrypicking their favorite parts could make such an assertion.

The whole "state's rights" argument only ever seems to argue for the right to discriminate. It was true in the 1850's and it's true now.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

It's also a question of culture. It's treated as normal in many societies, and has certainly become normalized in many contemporary societies.

Similarly, India had an extensive caste system for well over a thousand years, with very strict rules about social relations between castes. This was so "normal," that it was never even questioned. Does that prove the caste system is beneficial or "natural" or preferable?



Or not.

Homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom; it's been observed in over 1500 species already. Homosexuals can in fact reproduce, just not with a sexual partner of their preference (obviously). The plumbing still works, y'know.

Social relations are extremely complex, and suggesting that one particular behavior is somehow a "problem" is somewhat naïve.

In addition, the vast majority of human activities these days are not "necessary for survival." Including participating on web forums on the Internet. :mrgreen:

There is no such thing as a "normal" social structure. I think social structure is one of those things where you can judge it based on its stability, freedom, and productivity, but there is no "perfect" social structure. Also, if no one ever challenged the social structure in India, it would still be a caste system. Obviously, people did challenge it and it was overthrown and replaced. I would say that suppression of the freedom of exchange and freedom of choice in any way shape or form is tension on the stability of such a system. Or perhaps the caste system was a reflection of social values in India that eventually became dated. Who knows.


Note, I did not say that it is "natural." I said it is not biologically necessary, while heterosexuality is. Major difference.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

No one is suggesting different rules. Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike will have the same access to same sex marriage. Or are you suggesting that the right to marry outside of your sexuality is meaningless and discriminatory without the corresponding right to marry your preferred gender partner?

On the invoking of the 10th amendment...I always love when people make sweeping statements about how the government works that contradict 200 years of legal and political precedent. In order for Nick's (and plenty of other posters on this forum) position to be correct, basically the entirety of our legal system since before 1800 would have to be scrapped. Many of the liberties they enjoy would disappear overnight. And assertions that the supreme court has no jurisdiction over this or that topic that the person arguing about happens to have a problem with... Its jurisdiction extends to all cases under US law. It's in article 3, section 2. Only someone totally ignorant of the American judicial, political, and legal processes and whose understanding of the constitution amounts to little more than cherrypicking their favorite parts could make such an assertion.

The whole "state's rights" argument only ever seems to argue for the right to discriminate. It was true in the 1850's and it's true now.

I'd appreciate if you didn't lecture me for comments you didn't understand the context of. I was referring to overt public displays of affection, where I find it socially unacceptable regardless of sexual orientation. That is what I was referring to about the separate set of rules.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

What this thread conclusively demonstrates:

1. Right-wing 'libertarians' are political whores who will mouth any rhetorical point their socially conservative handlers tell them to.

2. We cannot expect any sort of expansion of freedom from these "guardians of liberty".
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

You could allow the Presidential candidate to develop their own support for gay marriage. At this point, it would not be out of the question for a Republican candidate to resort to the notion that it should be determined by the states and that they support gay marriage conceptually.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

You could allow the Presidential candidate to develop their own support for gay marriage. At this point, it would not be out of the question for a Republican candidate to resort to the notion that it should be determined by the states and that they support gay marriage conceptually.

Formerly in American history Presidential nominees operated basically independently of their Party platform (the most famous example is probably that of the Democratic peace platform of 1864, which was unceremoniously ignored by the Democratic candidate, General George McClellan). That wouldn't fly today, because the political process has been altered to make a point of neutering nominees before they even get to the ballot.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Actually the government has no need to be involved in marriage. They have no business to know who you are marrying. It's time to get the government out of our lives. :shrug:

Strange timing, don't you think? When divorce rates rose, and national conversation about the marriage institution was under discussion, few would ever suggest this would be an acceptable consideration. When homosexuals and their allies want to gain entrance, suddenly, no government-backed marriages seems to be a good idea.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Formerly in American history Presidential nominees operated basically independently of their Party platform (the most famous example is probably that of the Democratic peace platform of 1864, which was unceremoniously ignored by the Democratic candidate, General George McClellan). That wouldn't fly today, because the political process has been altered to make a point of neutering nominees before they even get to the ballot.

Correct, but a compromise could be where Democratic Candidate supports federal endorsement of gay marriage, Republican candidate could support a state path, while making clear he personally supports the concept of gay marriage.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

Correct, but a compromise could be where Democratic Candidate supports federal endorsement of gay marriage, Republican candidate could support a state path, while making clear he personally supports the concept of gay marriage.

My point is that I don't think you'd ever get a Republican National Convention to pass a platform even allowing for a State's rights take on the issue of gay marriage. Our right-wing libertarian friends will huff, and they will puff, and... then they'll fall right in line behind a platform calling for a Federal Marriage Amendment, because selling out is What They Do.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

If it really matters to you - I've gotten pretty "hot" with chicks in public (bars or private venues) and you want to know what happened? "security" told us to knock it off....

So why shouldn't those same rules apply to gays?

Gays probably have more liberty at gay bars than heterosexual people do at "normal bars."

I just don't want to see two guys at Denny's making out while I'm trying to eat my breakfast - but that is the type of crazy **** gays do...

That **** isn't progress it's disrespectful.... There is always a time and place for everything but gays don't understand that.

Funny how gay conservatives realize that but gay progressives don't.

Gay bars are private businesses. What goes on in there is up to the business owners.

That you are so knowledgeable and concerned with what happens in a gay bar makes me wonder if you frequently patronize them.
 
Re: Karl Rove: 'I Could' Imagine Next GOP Presidential Nominee Supporting Gay Marriag

My point is that I don't think you'd ever get a Republican National Convention to pass a platform even allowing for a State's rights take on the issue of gay marriage. Our right-wing libertarian friends will huff, and they will puff, and... then they'll fall right in line behind a platform calling for a Federal Marriage Amendment, because selling out is What They Do.

Ever is such a jaded term with political platforms! It may or may not be in this upcoming Presidential election cycle, but it will likely come soon (by the time the next President's first term is over).
 
Back
Top Bottom