Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 69

Thread: Minnesota Senate debating SSM bill

  1. #31
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,175

    Re: Minnesota Senate debating SSM bill

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post



    I never said I wanted it, I just noted that I find it interesting how the states that legalize SSM do not do so on the constitutional level like most states that legalize/uphold traditional marriage do so. I've always supported a state's right to define marriage for their state. I don't like it though when that decision is made by politicians when that doesn't reflect popular opinion (which is what I feared here).
    The difference is the laws in force. Most laws that are against SSM are not Amendments, so you don't need an amendment to change that. That's why they don't do an amendment. Passing the amendment raises the laws against to a constitutional level.

    I think that's why you see that is that people are voting it into the Constitution when it wasn't there before. But you don't need an amendment to change a law unless that law is in the Constitution.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  2. #32
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,985

    Re: Minnesota Senate debating SSM bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    It is hardly liberal when marriage comes with newly granted rights.

    The democrat's version of tyranny is the restraint from being able to use the mob to accomplish their ends, whenever they please? How awful.
    Using the mob? It's a public policy issue, the population who disagree or agree on an issue are not a mob. It is tyranny to silence opinion, prevent people from having their beliefs reflected in law, and not allowing a population to lawfully enact laws that do not violate the Constitution.

  3. #33
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,702

    Re: Minnesota Senate debating SSM bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    And here they come, the tolerant liberals..


    Tim-
    I'm too authoritarian or aristocratic for them, as well.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  4. #34
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: Minnesota Senate debating SSM bill

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I think it's dangerous to remove people's rights to vote on issues or remove their representation and try and circumvent lawful changes to laws because politicians don't want that to happen.



    If I had a dollar for every time the "inter-racial marriage" straw man gets flung around I could probably donate enough to DP to keep it running for the year.

    Can't discriminate based on religion or race, it's lawful to define marriage as one man one woman nor is that unlawful gender discrimination to say a woman cannot be a husband or man a wife.
    You can't discriminate based on religion/race because they have been held to be Constitutionally protected. The same would be true if the Court rules in favor of SSM. You are engaging in circular reasoning Digs.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  5. #35
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,702

    Re: Minnesota Senate debating SSM bill

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Using the mob? It's a public policy issue, the population who disagree or agree on an issue are not a mob. It is tyranny to silence opinion, prevent people from having their beliefs reflected in law, and not allowing a population to lawfully enact laws that do not violate the Constitution.
    Yes, they are. It's a legitimized mob. If the issues that I am personally affected by were voted away in the general or interim election cycles, I guarantee you, almost none of the protections I and many other minority groups were granted through aristocratic and oligarchic means would be in force. If anything, the resulting tyranny would be worse. All you have to do is whip up a frenzy before thousands of people, who will not be personally affected by such rights or removals of such rights, will vote to strip or bar entry.

    We have legislatures and a court system, to hopefully (and even this is not without potential for oppression) remove the power of the masses from being able to determine that such and such minority do not deserve equal protection under the law in cases X, Y, Z.

    In the past, the masses were a hurdle for most civil rights causes, but sometimes the political nature of their struggle meant that they had to overcome them. If you were to ask any leading women's suffragist who they would rather face: their legislature or the masses, they would have said the legislature, in a heart beat.
    Last edited by Fiddytree; 05-13-13 at 05:58 PM.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  6. #36
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Minnesota Senate debating SSM bill

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    I know a couple of gay couples raising children. They're as well-behaved, and more well adjusted than my children. While I agree that a man and a woman is optimal, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Gay parents is better than no parents. Ask my kids what no parents is like, they'll tell you it sucks unequivocably.
    I'm sure you do.. You're missing the point of my opinion. You, in order to understand my opinion must look at the consequences of NOT just gay marriage, but the destruction of marriage over the last 50 years. Gay marriage doesn't help traditional marriage, it can only serve to hurt it further by illegitimating it even more.


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  7. #37
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,702

    Re: Minnesota Senate debating SSM bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    I'm sure you do.. You're missing the point of my opinion. You, in order to understand my opinion must look at the consequences of NOT just gay marriage, but the destruction of marriage over the last 50 years. Gay marriage doesn't help traditional marriage, it can only serve to hurt it further by illegitimating it even more.


    Tim-
    Promoting a two-parent household, which we know through social science, increases educational and life outcomes for children-is now bad because it's two daddies or two mommies, rather than the time and effort they can afford to spend guiding their children?
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  8. #38
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,175

    Re: Minnesota Senate debating SSM bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    I'm sure you do.. You're missing the point of my opinion. You, in order to understand my opinion must look at the consequences of NOT just gay marriage, but the destruction of marriage over the last 50 years. Gay marriage doesn't help traditional marriage, it can only serve to hurt it further by illegitimating it even more.


    Tim-
    That destruction's already occurred. Without the help of gay people, I might add. Straights did it all by themselves. I fail to see how gay marriage weakens it further.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  9. #39
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Minnesota Senate debating SSM bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    If you're actually concerned about out of wedlock childbirths, the obvious upside to SSM is more married couples raising children. Also, y'know, not discriminating against people, but that's clearly not much of a priority for you.
    Why would they need to be married? Moreover, despite the fact that heterosexual marriages are at an all time high in divorce, we already know that homosexual relationships are even more at risk of dissolving within the first 5 years. No upside, and discriminating isn't a convincing argument coming from your side. We ALL discriminate buddy, whether it makes you feel comfortable or not admitting that is not my cause.


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  10. #40
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Minnesota Senate debating SSM bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Promoting a two-parent household, which we know through social science, increases educational and life outcomes for children-is now bad because it's two daddies or two mommies, rather than the time and effort they can afford to spend guiding their children?
    We do NOT know that a two parent household is the best. What we do KNOW is that a home with both an involved mother and father is what's best for children. Just recently the holy grail of research studies on gay parenting by Judith Stacey was blown to hell with her recent views on marriage and parenting in general. She LOST ALL CRED with her statements, and only served to disqualify her from the legitimate debate. I am NOT going to sit here and argue that study Vs. this study, as they are ALL flawed methodologically to the point of being completely useless is assessing the data. And that goes for both camps by the way. What I do know is that in both the Netherlands and Sweden, nuclear families are the minority where just 10 years ago they were by far the majority. In these societies, their legislatures have virtually done away with any incentives for married couples raising children. Other than two peoples commitment to stay together no matter what comes their way, it has become too easy to just end a marriage. Watch what happens here in the US when divorced Dad's represent a significant voting block. Family courts will change the way they do business just like they have in those nations. Mom's don't get the kids by default in those nations like they do here. It's already happening here in the US. Mom gets the kids isn't always the solution where once you'd pretty much need to catch them with a needle in their arm for her to lose them in a custody settlement. Now, if Dad lives in the same school district he gets to share the kids unless it can be shown that insodoing material harm would come to the children, but the burden of proof is on the one bringing the claim.

    Getting off topic, but the point is that I have no crystal ball, but I'm convinced that at the very least the intact family will be a thing of the past, there will be no incentive both morally, or socially to raise your children together, and I can't see how that would be a good thing. Is it all due to SSM? No, but it doesn't help AT ALL! Since I'm of the opinion that this isn't a constitutional matter, nor is it a civil rights issue I prefer that we as a society err on the side of caution.


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •