• 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!

Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.
Scalia, like you, loves to write homophobic screeds.

“It’s a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the ‘reduction to the absurd,’” Scalia told Hosie of San Francisco during the question-and-answer period. “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”
Scalia said he is not equating sodomy with murder but drawing a parallel between the bans on both."

He also has a low view of the Bill of Rights:

"He also dismissed the importance of the Bill of Rights as an “afterthought,” compared to the U.S. Constitution’s overall structure, observing, “Every tinhorned dictator in the world has a bill of rights.”
 
Deuce, appeal to tradition isn't an argument and, therefore, not a logical fallacy. Society does, in fact, have the right to legislate traditional values and there's no fallacy involved.

Dogfights don't harm YOU. And that was your position. That you must show how it harms YOU.

You misunderstood. I mentioned you specifically, but the point is that nobody can state how same-sex marriage harms themselves or society. The United States government has hurdles to cross if they want to restrict my choices. This is a discussion of a contract entered between two private individuals, as far as the government is concerned. The government is making a gender-based distinction in this contract and how the law treats it. Gender is a protected classification, the government must show an "important state interest" in making this distinction.

They have failed to do so.
 
You don't consider it extreme to overturn the will of the voters?

Not when the "will of the voters" violates the rights of others and contradicts the rights guaranteed under the US Constitution.

Voters wanted segregation in the South. Voters wanted bans on interracial marriage in the South. Voters wanted handguns banned in Chicago. All these things violate the US Constitution, which exists to protect the rights of all citizens, including minorities, from the will of the simple majority.
 
this is another failed argument people always make and it never works, nobody honest buys it, its laughable

tradition is a fallacy period. what its tradition in my marriage maybe not be in yours and vice versa its complete BS that never works

That's nonsense. We legislate based on tradition regularly and it ranges from Christmas being a national holiday to summer vacation for kiddies. But on a higher level, marriage really is about more than tradition. It's about establishing the fundamental building block of society and that's the family unit and the family unit starts is based on a mother and a father. Homosexuals have had to rely on claiming exceptional circumstances are the norm in order to rationalize that two men or two women living together and engaging in sexual relationshiops equates to "marriage". It's worked well enough to convince some states to change their laws and I agree that states should have the right to do that if they wish. On the other hand, that doesn't mean those handful of states have a right to force their definition of marriage on the rest of the country. Not everyone buys the "exceptions as the rule" argumentation.
 
You don't consider it extreme to overturn the will of the voters?

Sometimes the people are wrong.

Tyranny of the majority is exactly why court systems such as yours were set up.

People voting to restrict the rights of their neighbours is not an absolute power.
 
You misunderstood. I mentioned you specifically, but the point is that nobody can state how same-sex marriage harms themselves or society. The United States government has hurdles to cross if they want to restrict my choices. This is a discussion of a contract entered between two private individuals, as far as the government is concerned. The government is making a gender-based distinction in this contract and how the law treats it. Gender is a protected classification, the government must show an "important state interest" in making this distinction.

They have failed to do so.

The states haven't been asked to show "important state interest", so they can't have "failed to do so".
 
1.) this is a lie, would you like me to qoute you? you suggested that legal marriage cares about procreation/off spring, it does not
2.) but the fact remains you cant, you are guessing
3.) in this case yes you are
4.) marriage is meaningless to your guess, marriage had nothing to do with me being born and history disagrees with you, so you are wrong twice
5.) again its not false its 100% true because its meaningless to my creation, 100% meaningless lol this fact will never change

again do you have anything thats on topic to legal marriage and matters to the topic? anything?

You're having real trouble with this, and also what is a "lie" and what isn't, so I will spell it out for you.


1) NOWHERE in that relevant post #770 do I indicate legal marriage cares about procreation. I don't even mention procreation anywhere! In point of fact, AGAIN< i dont offer ANY OPINION whatsoever, except a clear statement that you are the byproduct of a heterosexual union. Your assertion that my statement indicating this is a "lie" is your own ignorance, and yet another examply why you shouldn't be wielding that word. Your error does not constitute my having lied.

2) I'm not guessing. You and everyone on the face of the planet are the product of heterosexual relationships.

3) I'm not just correct in your case, but EVERY SINGLE CASE for every single person on the face of the planet.

4) No. , marriage is not meaningless, to my non-guess certainty, and is in fact driven home by your own recognition that people can create offspring without marriage, and without any commitment at all. This ability to procreate without marriage, and without commitment is precisely why marriage is recognized as man-woman in every society in mankind's history, and that is 100% fact.

5) No, your statement was that I was referencing "marriage" not "heterosexual relationships" was incorrect. You specifically and mistakenly indicated I was discussing marriage by stating, " because i could easily exist with out marriage and do" . By this fact, your statement is 100% false. The problem with this, as with your claim of a "lie", is that you have trouble recognizing fact from fiction, and opinion from reality.

The reality is that you are the byproduct of a heterosexual relationship, and no human being is the byproduct of a gay relationship, thereby making it impossible for gay unions to be any sort of actual equivalent to marriage for societies.
 
1.)That's nonsense. We legislate based on tradition regularly and it ranges from Christmas being a national holiday to summer vacation for kiddies.
2.)But on a higher level, marriage really is about more than tradition.
3.) It's about establishing the fundamental building block of society and that's the family unit and the family unit starts is based on a mother and a father.
4.) Homosexuals have had to rely on claiming exceptional circumstances are the norm in order to rationalize that two men or two women living together and engaging in sexual relationships equates to "marriage".
5.) It's worked well enough to convince some states to change their laws and I agree that states should have the right to do that if they wish.
6.) On the other hand, that doesn't mean those handful of states have a right to force their definition of marriage on the rest of the country.
7.) Not everyone buys the "exceptions as the rule" argumentation.

1.) nope its just reality and facts because its based on hypocrisy
2.) I agree its a contract and about rights, traditions are meaningless
3.) this is your OPINION of what marriage is about and this is your OPINION of what a family is based on millions of families and the dictionary disagree with you and your restricted opinion
4.) no they have not :shrug: its haapened all through out time
5.) the few that have taken it to thier supreme court stated its an equality violation
6.) they wouldnt be forcing anything the government would be protecting rights which is its job
7.) they dont have to just like now in straight marriage, many people dont think many others are really married based on their OPINIONS but legally they are
 
1.)You're having real trouble with this, and also what is a "lie" and what isn't, so I will spell it out for you.


2) NOWHERE in that relevant post #770 do I indicate legal marriage cares about procreation. I don't even mention procreation anywhere! In point of fact, AGAIN< i dont offer ANY OPINION whatsoever, except a clear statement that you are the byproduct of a heterosexual union. Your assertion that my statement indicating this is a "lie" is your own ignorance, and yet another examply why you shouldn't be wielding that word. Your error does not constitute my having lied.

3) I'm not guessing. You and everyone on the face of the planet are the product of heterosexual relationships.

4.)) I'm not just correct in your case, but EVERY SINGLE CASE for every single person on the face of the planet.

5.) No. , marriage is not meaningless, to my non-guess certainty, and is in fact driven home by your own recognition that people can create offspring without marriage, and without any commitment at all. This ability to procreate without marriage, and without commitment is precisely why marriage is recognized as man-woman in every society in mankind's history, and that is 100% fact.

6) No, your statement was that I was referencing "marriage" not "heterosexual relationships" was incorrect. You specifically and mistakenly indicated I was discussing marriage by stating, " because i could easily exist with out marriage and do" . By this fact, your statement is 100% false. The problem with this, as with your claim of a "lie", is that you have trouble recognizing fact from fiction, and opinion from reality.

7.)The reality is that you are the byproduct of a heterosexual relationship, and no human being is the byproduct of a gay relationship, thereby making it impossible for gay unions to be any sort of actual equivalent to marriage for societies.

1.) no trouble at all you factually lies :shrug: but please proceed and i will further point out the facts

2.)did you think anybody would buy this? you know the thread is still here right? you keep talking about people coming from heterosexual relationships. see post776 this is meaningless and its you suggesting that it matters to marriage, it does not

3.) 100% false
4.) see 3

5.) yep as proven in 1 your opinion is meanignless its not need, facts prove you wrong again
also as already mentioned somewhere early in this thread the bolded is 100% false

6.) you can double down on this if you like but it already lost and was proven false

7.) false and meaningless to legal marriage

I AGAIN ask you "do you have anything thats on topic to legal marriage and matters to the topic? anything?"
 
You're the ideologue! The guy that has, IMO, 48 pt. font in the signature! You don't care about fairness. You don't care about equality. You don't care about justice. You only care about marriage for all. And gosh, all those flags!

Your analogy between the inequality of no SSM and the inequality of blacks only water fountains is valid only if no SSM results in the same 'lack of quality' as the blacks only water fountain. Blacks only water fountains had unsanitary water (water that didn't have the same quality as whites' water) in 'nasty' locations that were apart from whites. I've already pointed out that, in some states, unions have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. NOT a ludicrous simile like no SSM is like unsanitary water in a 'nasty' location apart from whites. Your rhetoric, however, flies sky high.

The reality remains....seperate but equal is never equal. Sorry Charlie.
 
The reality remains....seperate but equal is never equal. Sorry Charlie.

I wonder if peeping Tom's that like to hang out in women's restrooms can use your argument. Equal is equal and "separate" has no bearing on that.
 
I wonder if peeping Tom's that like to hang out in women's restrooms can use your argument. Equal is equal and "separate" has no bearing on that.

Peeping Tom's in a male restroom is still criminal as well.
 
I wonder if peeping Tom's that like to hang out in women's restrooms can use your argument. Equal is equal and "separate" has no bearing on that.

???
this makes zero sense and is not a parallel at all.
peeping tom is breaking the law and infringe on the rights of others, this is the most failed an inane argument i have ever seen
 
???
this makes zero sense and is not a parallel at all.
peeping tom is breaking the law and infringe on the rights of others, this is the most failed an inane argument i have ever seen

Separate but equal. Why are men's and women's restrooms separate because that means that men and women aren't equal. You're not following the bouncing ball here. Separation does not prove inequality.
 
Peeping Tom's in a male restroom is still criminal as well.

Yes, but why? Separate but equal? Why is a man excluded from using a woman's restroom? What if he says he's really a woman trapped in a man's body? Aren't you going to be sympathetic to his sexual deviance?
 
I wonder if peeping Tom's that like to hang out in women's restrooms can use your argument. Equal is equal and "separate" has no bearing on that.

Wow you are getting really desperate.
 
Yes, but why? Separate but equal? Why is a man excluded from using a woman's restroom? What if he says he's really a woman trapped in a man's body? Aren't you going to be sympathetic to his sexual deviance?

It pays to understand equal protection analysis at least a little. The Constitution does not prohibit differential treatment or even discrimination as long as the state has a legitimate or compelling or important reason for doing so (different levels of scrutiny apply depending on the class affected and the right infringed).
 
Wow you are getting really desperate.

Its fun watching the radical right-wingers waking up this morning realizing that they are losing their grip on the last vestiges of bigotry and desperately trying to hold on.
 
It pays to understand equal protection analysis at least a little. The Constitution does not prohibit differential treatment or even discrimination as long as the state has a legitimate or compelling or important reason for doing so (different levels of scrutiny apply depending on the class affected and the right infringed).

That's right and homosexuals aren't in one of those special classes that require special scrutiny.
 
That's right and homosexuals aren't in one of those special classes that require special scrutiny.

That is open to question. It appears that the court may treat homosexuality with intermediate scrutiny. But regardless, it doesn't even matter because even if they are regarded standard scrutiny...there are 5 votes on the Supreme Court indicating that their is not even a legitimate state interest in straight only marriages.
 
He also said he fulfilled the law. That is what he was talking about when he said "everything accomplished."

Then there's no point in following the 10 commandments, is there. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom