• 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!

Minnesota Senate debating SSM bill

digsbe said:
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.
Click to expand...

I believe the only way to protect the rights of all people, especially minorities, is to have a constitutional protection that is enforced by a judicial body. Without someone to enforce the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, then they mean very little.


digsbe said:
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.
Click to expand...

You can't discriminate based on sex/gender either. And yes, it is gender discrimination. A man cannot enter into a marriage contract with a man, but a woman can. Gender/sex discrimination. A woman cannot enter into a marriage with a woman, but a man can. Gender/sex discrimination. A woman is not trying to be a "husband", nor is a man trying to be a "wife" when it comes to same sex marriages. They are simply trying to be spouses to someone of the same gender.


Gender discrimination is any unequal treatment based on gender and may also be referred to as sexism. Characteristics of gender discrimination are any situation where a person shows a prejudice towards another that would not occur had they been the opposite sex.

Read more: Gender Discrimination Definition | eHow Gender Discrimination Definition | eHow
Click to expand...

Maybe a mathematical equation will help.

In America, a woman and a man under our marriage laws are equal.

M = W , where M is man and W is woman

Marriage = M + W in all US laws now

But since we have established in US law that M = W, then you can substitute M for W or W for M in the marriage equation and not change the truth of the equation.

So now Marriage = M + M is true and Marriage = W + W is true because we know that M is legally equal to W.
 
Deuce said:
One possible zombie sighted. Might have been a drunk.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that was me...I wasn't celebrating or anything, I was just drunk. The beer went well with the Porterhouse steak and baked potato I had for dinner.
 
chromium said:
I am thinking the ultimate test for the 'will of the people' crowd would be to subject their own marriage to a vote. For example, a vote to ban hicup or digsbe specifically from marrying. Maybe then they will understand the kind of hate they are advocating.
Click to expand...


It's not hate you know nothing. It's conservativism, meaning, we generally prefer to keep what works, preserving the virtue of traditional marriage, and it doesn't begin nor end at same sex marriage either. Most conservatives I know would like to do something about how our culture has become so hyper-sexualized, gender neutralized, over-worked, wussified, not to mention that SSM adds to the pile of stinking goo that our society is trending towards, and I don't like it, and frankly, I see a culture that in 50 years will resemble nothing like the culture my parents grew up in. I'm not talking about keeping the "Leave it to Beaver" society; although add in technology and there are a lot of things to admire about those days - no, what I am advocating is a return to common decency, self-respect, honor, pride, and integrity. Core values, that most would strive for; I wish for a return where shame was a powerful deterrent to misbehavior. Sadly, our politicians, social media, media, and entertainment have gone in another direction where young men and women feel tremendous pressure to fit in to the stereotype. They've become overtly sensitive narcissists needing to be coddled at every turn by an all too willing liberal agenda. Unfortunately, liberals are over-representative in the areas where our young minds are at the most vulnerability, and it has been a failure of conservatives to not recognize the trends in time to prevent them.

A lot of us are waking up, maybe it's too late to do anything about the current generation, but inserting ourselves into the many forms of outlets and positions of authority over our younger citizens with a concentrated effort to instill our values over the next few decades might reverse the trends and save us form ourselves, or more aptly; save us from liberals!


Tim-
 
rocket88 said:
Sorry, that was me...I wasn't celebrating or anything, I was just drunk. The beer went well with the Porterhouse steak and baked potato I had for dinner.
Click to expand...

Gaypocalypse Update:
Zombie sighting resolved at 9:23am. File closed.
Grey skies this morning. Brief, light rain shower. Possible buildup to doomsday thunderstorms. NEXRAD disagrees.
Substantial temperature increase from yesterday, forecast high temperature up by nearly 20 degrees. If trend continues, Minnesota will be uninhabitable by the end of the week.
Pray for us.
 
Hicup said:
A lot of us are waking up, maybe it's too late to do anything about the current generation, but inserting ourselves into the many forms of outlets and positions of authority over our younger citizens with a concentrated effort to instill our values over the next few decades might reverse the trends and save us form ourselves, or more aptly; save us from liberals!


Tim-
Click to expand...
Shouldn't future generations decide for themselves what values they wish to have?
Conservatives have a habit of equating "values" with "only Christians can make the rules for everyone else".

Societies change over time,and trying to keep is static may cause more harm than letting it change naturally.
If there is a problem with THIS generation,the previous generation need to look in the mirror themselves and see why that is.
 
Verthaine said:
Shouldn't future generations decide for themselves what values they wish to have?
Conservatives have a habit of equating "values" with "only Christians can make the rules for everyone else".

Societies change over time,and trying to keep is static may cause more harm than letting it change naturally.
If there is a problem with THIS generation,the previous generation need to look in the mirror themselves and see why that is.
Click to expand...


I'm not a Christian, so that sort of blows a whole in your argument. I'm not even remotely religious so what now? One does not need to be religious to see our culture the way it has become and have a sour taste in their mouths. You're whole argument that past generations dictates the path of future generations, kind of makes my point.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
I'm not a Christian,
Click to expand...

That's on you.Plenty of conservatives are Christian,though.
Hicup said:
so that sort of blows a whole in your argument.I'm not even remotely religious so what now?
Click to expand...
Actually,it doesn't. If you are not one of "those" conservatives I am talking about,then good for you .

Hicup said:
One does not need to be religious to see our culture the way it has become and have a sour taste in their mouths.
Click to expand...
I hope you are speaking only for yourself.And if there is a sour taste in your mouth,may I suggest Listerine and let this current and future generation decide for themselves the direction they want to take "culture".
Hicup said:
You're whole argument that past generations dictates the path of future generations, kind of makes my point.
Click to expand...
The role of past generations is to impart knowledge and wisdom onto future generations to help guide them,not rule them with an iron fist like a dictator.
Current and future generations have the right to forge their own paths,whether you like it or not.
 
Verthaine said:
That's on you.Plenty of conservatives are Christian,though.
Click to expand...

Plenty of Liberal democrats are Christian? Not seeing the connection?


Actually,it doesn't. If you are not one of "those" conservatives I am talking about,then good for you .
Click to expand...


What an odd thing to say? Do you have something against God fearing Christians or something? Aren't they part of our generation? Don't they have a voice?



I hope you are speaking only for yourself.And if there is a sour taste in your mouth,may I suggest Listerine and let this current and future generation decide for themselves the direction they want to take "culture".
Click to expand...


Um, I AM one of this current generations residents, and I have a voice, and I'm using it. Like you I suppose, JUST like you.



The role of past generations is to impart knowledge and wisdom onto future generations to help guide them,not rule them with an iron fist like a dictator.
Current and future generations have the right to forge their own paths,whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure you fully grasp the contradiction you're spewing? You DO realize that we are PART of the current generation, right? :)


Tim-
 
Aderleth said:
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.
Click to expand...

shhhhhhhhh

dont use facts to debunk a straw-man and appeal to emotion
 
the nonsensical illogical unsupportable fear over SSM is hilarious.

The strawmen and appeals to emotions and fallacy never stop amazing me. Its hilarious what fear, bigotry and or simple biased can make a person belief in or make them think that what they are saying is even the least bit logical or reality based.

All the made up stories and fantasies dont matter to objective people or equality.
My brother who labels himself as "not exactly gay friendly" gets the equality part of it and laughs at all the nonsense he hears and reads since being "not exactly gay friendly" makes people want to tell them way they arent gay friendly either. lol

Equality is coming and its long over due, you dont have to LIKE it. just like people still dont "like" minority rights, womans rights and interracial marriage but its coming and it will be a great day for amercia to right ONE of its wrongs, grant equality and suppress discrimination once again.

Whether i like homosexuality or not equality is coming and that makes me proud and happy for my fellow americans because thats what america is about.
 
AGENT J said:
wow what will that make? 13 states?

awesome I hope they pass it. Its coming regardless but its nice for some states to be ahead of the curve.
Click to expand...

Passed yesterday. Gov. Dayton will sign this afternoon. They're saying that in August, it will happen.
 
rocket88 said:
Passed yesterday. Gov. Dayton will sign this afternoon. They're saying that in August, it will happen.
Click to expand...

Thats AWESOME!

i think NH is the same way everything is passed but takes effect in Aug.

 
AGENT J said:
wow what will that make? 13 states?

awesome I hope they pass it. Its coming regardless but its nice for some states to be ahead of the curve.
Click to expand...

12, actually.
 
AGENT J said:
correct 12 and DC! :)
Click to expand...

And California likely to rejoin the ranks at #13 once the Prop 8 case resolves in June. Illinois might also pass a bill this year.

After that it will slow down a bit I think, barring an unlikely sweeping decision by SCOTUS. Most of the other states have roadblocks in the form of GOP legislatures or governors, constitutional amendments, etc, that are harder to get rid of. We'll probably see a few more from the 2014 elections via ballot measures.
 
Deuce said:
And California likely to rejoin the ranks at #13 once the Prop 8 case resolves in June. Illinois might also pass a bill this year.

After that it will slow down a bit I think, barring an unlikely sweeping decision by SCOTUS. Most of the other states have roadblocks in the form of GOP legislatures or governors, constitutional amendments, etc, that are harder to get rid of. We'll probably see a few more from the 2014 elections via ballot measures.
Click to expand...

yep

I believe SCOTUS will rule on prop 8 and equal rights is restored back in california allowing SSM.
I dont think it will be a general sweeping blanket rule stating SSM is a right foring all states to immediately grant equal rights (eventhough thats what should happen and i want to happen)

I think it will be a more local ruling about California

BUT depending on the verbiage i dont think it matters though becuase if they rule it was wrong for California to ban it based on equality and the constitution a very similar effect will happen.

The irony of it is that all the states that banned SSM actually make it EASIER for it to be overturned because all one has to do is challenge that ban.

Thats HILARIOUS to me that them banning it could actually help establish it :D
 
Deuce said:
And California likely to rejoin the ranks at #13 once the Prop 8 case resolves in June. Illinois might also pass a bill this year.

After that it will slow down a bit I think, barring an unlikely sweeping decision by SCOTUS. Most of the other states have roadblocks in the form of GOP legislatures or governors, constitutional amendments, etc, that are harder to get rid of. We'll probably see a few more from the 2014 elections via ballot measures.
Click to expand...

There are still a few states that do not have any constitutional bans. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, W. Virginia (this one surprised me), New Mexico (actually no laws address it at all in this state), Wyoming, Hawaii, and Indiana.

New Jersey is working on getting enough support in its legislature to overturn Christie's veto. The legislature already passed it once.

There are also a few states pushing through legislation to have their people vote to repeal their constitutional amendments in either 2014 or 2016, Michigan and Nevada are two. Oregon is another (although I think they're trying to push for something sooner?). Oh, and it looks like Colorado may also push to repeal its amendment next year too.

I do find it very interesting that many of those states that already have civil unions or some other form of recognition for same sex couples are among the first to just legalize same sex marriage. It shows that it is a waste of money to legalize other unions for same sex couples because they will basically be expensive stepping stones to simply allowing same sex couples marriage.
 
roguenuke said:
There are still a few states that do not have any constitutional bans. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, W. Virginia (this one surprised me), New Mexico (actually no laws address it at all in this state), Wyoming, Hawaii, and Indiana.

New Jersey is working on getting enough support in its legislature to overturn Christie's veto. The legislature already passed it once.

There are also a few states pushing through legislation to have their people vote to repeal their constitutional amendments in either 2014 or 2016, Michigan and Nevada are two. Oregon is another (although I think they're trying to push for something sooner?). Oh, and it looks like Colorado may also push to repeal its amendment next year too.

I do find it very interesting that many of those states that already have civil unions or some other form of recognition for same sex couples are among the first to just legalize same sex marriage. It shows that it is a waste of money to legalize other unions for same sex couples because they will basically be expensive stepping stones to simply allowing same sex couples marriage.
Click to expand...

Yeah, turns out people aren't willing to accept Separate But Equal. If only there were some way that could have been predicted! A historical precedent, perhaps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom