• 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!

5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

Talking about discrimination makes a person racist? That's an interesting new definition of the term.

Claiming gays not having the right to change the definition of marriage over every other sexual interest group is the same thing as what blacks have gone through is racist and disgusting

Gay Marriage is not a "Civil Right"
 
Gay Marriage is not a "Civil Right"

By your definition

By an actual definition

civil rights
pl.n.
The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.


Freedoms and privileges. Even if you see marriage as a privilege, it's there.
 
Claiming gays not having the right to change the definition of marriage over every other sexual interest group is the same thing as what blacks have gone through is racist and disgusting

Gay Marriage is not a "Civil Right"

The definition of marriage is not a civil right.
 
By your definition

By an actual definition




Freedoms and privileges. Even if you see marriage as a privilege, it's there.

Which means the state cannot restrict it in any way. Correct?
 
By your definition

By an actual definition




Freedoms and privileges. Even if you see marriage as a privilege, it's there.

Should churches be forced to marry gay couples?

Any sexual interest group can have their own definition of marriage right?
 
So that's a yes, the state can restrict it as it can see fit, but not in the way you desire.

It's not a yes, but if it makes you feel like you won, by all means...

Other rights, such as voting are age restricted. Should we not let gays vote either?
 
It's not a yes, but if it makes you feel like you won, by all means...

Other rights, such as voting are age restricted. Should we not let gays vote either?

Either the state can impose its own restrictions, or they can't. And please define what you describe as a "class" of people.
 
No, that would violate the First Amendment.

What if a gay couple demands a church marry them and they refuse? Which civil right takes precedence?

Silppery slope fallacy is still false when you use it.

There is no slippery slope fallacy. Your feelings do not equal facts.
 
Either the state can impose its own restrictions, or they can't. And please define what you describe as a "class" of people.

No, they can't just impose restrictions on anything on anybody. You have no "right" to own a house, but the State can't pass a law saying "Italians can't own houses." I know you guys balk at interracial marriage comparisons or any other civil rights restrictions, but saying the State can impose any restrictions it wants on a right or privilege leads to exactly that - Why can a state say "No gay marriage," but not "No Chinese/Vietnamese marriage?"
 
Should churches be forced to marry gay couples?

Any sexual interest group can have their own definition of marriage right?

Nobody is proposing forcing a church to marry gay couples. Where on earth did you get that idea?

What if a gay couple demands a church marry them and they refuse? Which civil right takes precedence?



There is no slippery slope fallacy. Your feelings do not equal facts.

The church ceremony isn't part of the equation. We're talking about the legal contract that the government recognizes. Churches don't have to perform a marriage ceremony for straight couples either, you know. I have a right to free speech, but that doesn't mean I have a right to use Fox News' equipment to broadcast my free speech. They are under no obligation to host my free expression. I have the right to an attorney when accused of a crime, but that doesn't mean any particular lawyer is legally compelled to represent me.
 
Last edited:
No, they can't just impose restrictions on anything on anybody. You have no "right" to own a house, but the State can't pass a law saying "Italians can't own houses." I know you guys balk at interracial marriage comparisons or any other civil rights restrictions, but saying the State can impose any restrictions it wants on a right or privilege leads to exactly that - Why can a state say "No gay marriage," but not "No Chinese/Vietnamese marriage?"

Are you saying that gender differences are on the same playing field as race differences? I think that is a terrible correlation to make.
 
What if a gay couple demands a church marry them and they refuse? Which civil right takes precedence?

It has nothing to do with a Church. This is about marriage as a civil institution. A church can refuse people certain "sacraments" or whatever they want to call them. A "sacrament" is not a civil right. Equal access to civil institutions is.


There is no slippery slope fallacy. Your feelings do not equal facts.

Neither do yours.
 
Are you saying that gender differences are on the same playing field as race differences? I think that is a terrible correlation to make.


Why do you think it's a terrible correlation?
 
Yeah so if the majority in the state want slavery, we should allow that too because we don't want to overturn the will of the majority right?

No, because the 13th Amendment explicitly forbids slavery.

By contrast, please note every instance in which the Constitution, amended or otherwise, includes the word "marriage."


Once you've noted that you have 0 results, please re-read the 10th Amendment.
 
No, because the 13th Amendment explicitly forbids slavery.

By contrast, please note every instance in which the Constitution, amended or otherwise, includes the word "marriage."


Once you've noted that you have 0 results, please re-read the 10th Amendment.

14th amendment.
 
Why do you think it's a terrible correlation?

Because there is no differences in races. I thought its long been established that men and women are actually different.
 
As noted above, 0 results found.

It doesn't use the word marriage so can't possibly be applied to marriage?

Well, I guess the 14th amendment means absolutely nothing to you because it doesn't go into anything specific.
 
Because we elect idiots who don't even read proposed legislation.

If one doesn't read a bill how the hell would one know it's constitutional or not?

Are you satisfied with representatives who don't even read legislation and only vote on said legislation for partisan reasons?

Obamacare is only 6 feet high... Yeah stack books 6 feet high and that is the "law."

IMO, I would love to know who writes that crap... Who has the time to write a "book" 6 feet high?

At least some people are willing to be responsible and read it... I have read some and there is a lot of substance within the bill that has nothing to do with health care.


One word: Insiders. (Baucus Thanks Wellpoint VP Liz Fowler for Writing Health Care Bill | FDL Action) (The revolving door spins faster on healthcare reform - Salon.com)

In addition to this, the reform isn't even really reform. (Obamacare: A Health Insurance Subsidy, Not Health Care Reform | Roosevelt Institute)
 

I would also point out that legislation and regulation are written in a format that puts very little actual text on each page. I read the 2000 page health care bill in a day.
 
Back
Top Bottom