• 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!

After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

digsbe said:
I do care about freedom and liberty, that's why I respect the rights of those who disagree with me and recognize the issue as a social issue that, those who disagree with me on, can have their votes heard and put into legal action. People are free to vote on issues, they have the liberty to believe what they want and have the democratic process change laws. Forcing same sex marriage is not a constitutional right, the default definition is that marriage is between a man and woman. The law has to change to accommodate for same sex marriages and have the term of "marriage" be redefined. It's a social issue discussing changing a legal definition, and on such a change people can have their voices heard and their votes cast like with other issues.
Click to expand...

"People are free to vote on issues, they have the liberty to believe what they want and have the democratic process change laws."

Yet, just because they engaged in a democratic process doesn't suddenly nullify the fact that they are infringing upon the liberty and freedom of others. Whether it is done by the barrel of a gun or at the ballot box, infringing on liberty and freedom is still just that, infringing on liberty and freedom.

"Forcing same sex marriage is not a constitutional right, the default definition is that marriage is between a man and woman."

Well, that has been changed quite recently with the SCOTUS ruling and that doesn't change the fact that people should still have the freedom to marry whomever they want (given of course it is consensual and everyone is of legal age). Thus, with this most recent SCOTUS ruling, "The law has to change[d] to accommodate for same sex marriages and [has allowed[ the term of 'marriage' [to] be redefined."
 
AGENT J said:
1.) i know i am, facts make it that way
2.) realistically you are wrong
3.) yes when the issues has actually been pushed, what you are trying to sell and nobody is buying is that the courts that didnt hear the issues and havent ruled disagree, this simply isnt true because thats not the same thing.
4.) yes it dsoes make it so, thats exactly what happens
5.) your opinion of right or wrong is meaningless to me and this debate and the law
6.) false and already proven wrong when the courts actually decided on this matter. if that was true the courts couldnt have ruled it violated equality. But that didnt happen, hence you are wrong.
Click to expand...

So if the courts suddenly ruled one day that murder was ok you would agree that that makes murder ok? Obviously it would be law, but would the courts be right? That is essentially what you just argued.
 
No more so than states having different "qualifications" for the right to keep and bear arms is, or basing their state taxation system on income verses sales. What you advocate is that all states must now adhere to some uniform (federal?) standard, simply because it affects treatment under a federal law.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
So if the courts suddenly ruled one day that murder was ok you would agree that that makes murder ok? Obviously it would be law, but would the courts be right? That is essentially what you just argued.
Click to expand...

apple-desktop-wallpapers-159.jpg
 
digsbe said:
No comment on my argument :lol:?

1.)Hypotheticals don't always make for strong arguments.

2.) If I get licensed as a pharmacist and move to another state why can I not use my license from the other state to work?
3.) Why can't I legal make decisions related to pharmacy practice?
4.) Do those states not recognize my legal credentials and legal license issued somewhere else?
5.) It's up to the state, if a state doesn't recognize a same sex marriage then they don't have to extend any kind of benefits or legal status to it. It's a state issue, as far as another state is concerned there is no legal validity between two men or women who are "married" somewhere else. It doesn't matter what PA does, when in SC the laws of SC govern things.

6.) Pot may be legal in Colorado, but if you bring it to another state expect a lawsuit. The other state doesn't have to recognize the laws of Colorado and give you a pass or special privileges that their citizens do not have. If the other state has laws against what you could legally do in another state then expect to have a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

1.)are you tryign to deflect now and say my example is unrelaistic or 100s of others just like it are unrelaistic? i hipe not because that would be silly and further expose your stance

2.) this is not a marriage contract and is not the same thing at all so it instantly fails but lets go further is is your licenses seen by the fed AND do you have the option of getting a licences. Has there been any court cases that have ruled this inequality? is this a civil rights or rights issue?

all these things make your example meaningless

3&4.) see 2

5.) again when pushed the courts disagree with your opinion
answer the question do you think its right if your wife dies or was in the hospital in a state that didnt recognize your marriage to not let you see her, notify you of her death or let you make medical decisions

6.) please stop with the meaningless examples. are you comparing pot to marriage? this is just nonsensical and intellectual dishonest.
WHat 1000+ benefits and rights does smoking pot grant you? what federal protections does smoking pot grant you. seriously quit, you are better than this.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
"People are free to vote on issues, they have the liberty to believe what they want and have the democratic process change laws."

Yet, just because they engaged in a democratic process doesn't suddenly nullify the fact that they are infringing upon the liberty and freedom of others. Whether it is done by the barrel of a gun or at the ballot box, infringing on liberty and freedom is still just that, infringing on liberty and freedom.

"Forcing same sex marriage is not a constitutional right, the default definition is that marriage is between a man and woman."

Well, that has been changed quite recently with the SCOTUS ruling and that doesn't change the fact that people should still have the freedom to marry whomever they want (given of course it is consensual and everyone is of legal age). Thus, with this most recent SCOTUS ruling, "The law has to change[d] to accommodate for same sex marriages and [has allowed[ the term of 'marriage' [to] be redefined."
Click to expand...

Freedom and liberty would be infringed upon to say that people cannot vote on a legal social issue and have their voices heard. The default definition of marriage in the US is traditional marriage. This gets changed in states that want it changed. The "liberty and freedom" from the extent of marriage goes is that you are at liberty and free to marry anyone of the opposite gender that is of age. This is the minimum and can be expanded by including "anyone of any gender."

The court doesn't set policy, they make rulings according to the Constitution. According to DOMA it violates the ability of states that legalize SSM to allow those legally wed couples to receive federal benefits. DOMA went beyond what the fed should do in trying to enforce or change marriage policy, it trampled on the states. This doesn't change the fact that in a majority of states same sex unions are not recognized as a marriage.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
"People are free to vote on issues, they have the liberty to believe what they want and have the democratic process change laws."

Yet, just because they engaged in a democratic process doesn't suddenly nullify the fact that they are infringing upon the liberty and freedom of others. Whether it is done by the barrel of a gun or at the ballot box, infringing on liberty and freedom is still just that, infringing on liberty and freedom.

"Forcing same sex marriage is not a constitutional right, the default definition is that marriage is between a man and woman."

Well, that has been changed quite recently with the SCOTUS ruling and that doesn't change the fact that people should still have the freedom to marry whomever they want (given of course it is consensual and everyone is of legal age). Thus, with this most recent SCOTUS ruling, "The law has to change[d] to accommodate for same sex marriages and [has allowed[ the term of 'marriage' [to] be redefined."
Click to expand...
What the court effectively did with the DOMA ruling was to basically leave it up to the states. They ruled that the federal government could not dictate the terms of marriage to the states. Supporters of SSM hailed this ruling as a victory because it effectively nullified DOMA but, more accurately, it was a victory for states rights.
 
AGENT J said:
1.)are you tryign to deflect now and say my example is unrelaistic or 100s of others just like it are unrelaistic? i hipe not because that would be silly and further expose your stance

2.) this is not a marriage contract and is not the same thing at all so it instantly fails but lets go further is is your licenses seen by the fed AND do you have the option of getting a licences. Has there been any court cases that have ruled this inequality? is this a civil rights or rights issue?

all these things make your example meaningless

3&4.) see 2

5.) again when pushed the courts disagree with your opinion
answer the question do you think its right if your wife dies or was in the hospital in a state that didnt recognize your marriage to not let you see her, notify you of her death or let you make medical decisions

6.) please stop with the meaningless examples. are you comparing pot to marriage? this is just nonsensical and intellectual dishonest.
WHat 1000+ benefits and rights does smoking pot grant you? what federal protections does smoking pot grant you. seriously quit, you are better than this.
Click to expand...

You aren't addressing my arguments, your chopping things up into points, putting arguments and words into my mouth that I never said and then arguing that. If anything I think you may be trying to deflect with your posts what I'm actually arguing and not addressing that.

I have addressed court concerns, and it appears that the courts uphold that it's a state issue. I bring up examples to show that a state doesn't have to recognize all the laws and legal recognition that another state may have. The state is sovereign in regards to their laws, and when in that state you are under that state's laws. Pot may be legal somewhere and illegal somewhere else, being legal in 1 place doesn't allow someone from that state to bring it wherever they want. Being licensed in a state doesn't mean that other states have to recognize your license. A physician could have their license somewhere, know how to practice medicine, but then have a lawsuit if they go to another state and do so without a license in that state. What the other state does is irrelevant. Some states ban SSM, others go strongly (Like LA's state Constitutional Amendment) that says they will not recognize any union performed anywhere else that does not fit within LA's definition of marriage. The people of a state may approve of SSM, but they do not have the sovereignty to force every other state in the nation to recognize their laws and marital definitions and force other states to violate their own laws to accommodate for couples that are not legally wed.
 
digsbe said:
Freedom and liberty would be infringed upon to say that people cannot vote on a legal social issue and have their voices heard. The default definition of marriage in the US is traditional marriage. This gets changed in states that want it changed. The "liberty and freedom" from the extent of marriage goes is that you are at liberty and free to marry anyone of the opposite gender that is of age. This is the minimum and can be expanded by including "anyone of any gender."

The court doesn't set policy, they make rulings according to the Constitution. According to DOMA it violates the ability of states that legalize SSM to allow those legally wed couples to receive federal benefits. DOMA went beyond what the fed should do in trying to enforce or change marriage policy, it trampled on the states. This doesn't change the fact that in a majority of states same sex unions are not recognized as a marriage.
Click to expand...

"Freedom and liberty would be infringed upon to say that people cannot vote on a legal social issue and have their voices heard."

So I guess the freedom and liberty of millions of Southerners was violated when they had to integrate their schools with black people.

What is going on is that people are having their freedoms and liberties trampled upon by having them dictated by others.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
"Freedom and liberty would be infringed upon to say that people cannot vote on a legal social issue and have their voices heard."

So I guess the freedom and liberty of millions of Southerners was violated when they had to integrate their schools with black people.

What is going on is that people are having their freedoms and liberties trampled upon by having them dictated by others.
Click to expand...

Race is protected under the Constitution. The Federal Constitution is the highest dictator of rights. As is it today the Constitution doesn't demand that it's a violation of rights and liberties for a state to uphold the traditional definition of marriage. The ban on my state on SSM is still as legal and valid as it was before the ruling. It's also not a logical comparison to compare race issues in the South to SSM.

We can declare anything a liberty. I could say that my liberties are infringed upon in states that won't let me get marriage in an incest relationship. But unless the Constitution says so then legally that liberty is subject to the legal bodies deciding that and isn't something I'm entitled to.
 
digsbe said:
Please don't categorize what I said into points, that's not what I posted.
2.) Also, don't misrepresent what I said because it's convenient for you.
3.) I am not claiming that bigotry and discrimination is made up for doesn't exist. There are plenty of people on the pro-SSM side that are bigots and discriminatory against those who are against it and visa versa.
4.) Although the fact remains that it's a social issue discussing changing a civil right.
5.) So, you say I'm 100% wrong on the fact of the matter being that SSM is a social issue and disprove that with your opinion that it's an equal rights issue?
6.)When pushed into courts it seems that it is the state's right to define marriage either way :shrug:
7.)In my state SSM is banned
8.) DOMA is unconstitutional largely because it prevents legal couples in states that legalize SSM to receive federal benefits.
9.) I also never claimed that gays are never discriminated against, what I did say is that it's far overplayed and over-hyped.

Your post is dishonest, you are applying things to my argument that I never said, argued, or believed.
Click to expand...

1.) its exactly what you posted, disagree choose your words better
2.) didnt do this, i took your words for their face value, be more clear next time
3.) sure seemed that way by your words
4.) no matter how many times you repeat every time you call it a fact its 100% wrong, if you disagree back up your statment lol you made it prove its a fact its only a social issues, court cases already disagree with you
5.) yes i do because you factually are, see the court cases that deemed it so, its not my opinion its what some courts have decided and its why you are wrong when you call it a fact, it makes it easy
6.) well you would be wrong because that hasnt been pushed in many courts yet and when it was it was ruled that it violated equality
7.) and that is meaningless to anything being discussed unless you are trying to claim your state heard this exact issue in its supreme court and ruled that its a social issue and the state can discriminate.
8.) yes correct another thing that doesnt matter to what we are discussion
9.) by what standards? your opinion it doesnt happen much lol
10.) really? weird only ONE of us has called something a fact that isnt and it wasnt me

speak more clear next time and this wont happen, giving examples of discrimination you dont think happens and saying they have done a good job inventing their issues certainly implies you think it doesnt really happen much.
 
Wiseone said:
If gay marriage doesn't affect you at all, why do you care?
Click to expand...

Some people think the government should be used to enforce their selective morality. Just big government supporters trying to excuse their call for government force against the individual.
 
digsbe said:
Race is protected under the Constitution. The Federal Constitution is the highest dictator of rights. As is it today the Constitution doesn't demand that it's a violation of rights and liberties for a state to uphold the traditional definition of marriage. The ban on my state on SSM is still as legal and valid as it was before the ruling. It's also not a logical comparison to compare race issues in the South to SSM.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing whether or not it is currently legal, what I am arguing is that such laws are limiting the freedom of others because other people have opposing views. Your state's ban on SSM is a tyranny of the majority. Just because someone doesn't morally agree with what I do, I should still be allowed to do it (given of course what I am doing does not infringe on their or anyone else's liberties/freedoms).

EDIT: Edited a sentence to provide clarification.
 
digsbe said:
The courts did not reverse the bans in states that have legal traditional marriage. Largely the courts did agree with me, I wanted DOMA struck down because it prevented federal marriage benefits from states that legalize SSM. I have supported that SSM is a state issue and that it's appropriate either way to redefine marriage to include SSM or to uphold the traditional definition of marriage and not recognize same sex relationships.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that this is an issue of states' rights and the state should have the right to define marriage as it sees fit. Marriage is a product of the state instead of a right. If it was a right, no one would have to pay the state and buy a license before getting married.
 
digsbe said:
1.)You aren't addressing my arguments, your chopping things up into points, putting arguments and words into my mouth that I never said and then arguing that. If anything I think you may be trying to deflect with your posts what I'm actually arguing and not addressing that.

1.)I have addressed court concerns, and it appears that the courts uphold that it's a state issue.
3.) I bring up examples to show that a state doesn't have to recognize all the laws and legal recognition that another state may have.
4.) The state is sovereign in regards to their laws, and when in that state you are under that state's laws.
5.) Pot may be legal somewhere and illegal somewhere else, being legal in 1 place doesn't allow someone from that state to bring it wherever they want. Being licensed in a state doesn't mean that other states have to recognize your license. A physician could have their license somewhere, know how to practice medicine, but then have a lawsuit if they go to another state and do so without a license in that state. What the other state does is irrelevant.
6.)Some states ban SSM, others go strongly (Like LA's state Constitutional Amendment) that says they will not recognize any union performed anywhere else that does not fit within LA's definition of marriage. The people of a state may approve of SSM, but they do not have the sovereignty to force every other state in the nation to recognize their laws and marital definitions and force other states to violate their own laws to accommodate for couples that are not legally wed.
Click to expand...

1.) well you would be wrong again, ive deflected NOTHING you said not one thing, only given you examples of why your argument isnt supported.
2.) and has you were told this is false when actually hearing that issue courts ruled it violated equality so you didnt address them
3.) your examples majorly failed because they dont even come close to applying to marriage, rights and equality violations.
yes states have some rights nobody is denying that lol
4.) yes again another thing nobody is arguing its not a black and white issue like you are so desperate to make it. Can a state keep all women out? no.
5.) pot example was already destroyed and showed to be inane and not a parallel, same with physician etc
6.) and this is the part that is falling and when has been pushed to the courts was ruled to violate equality. :shrug:
 
davidtaylorjr said:
For one, any tax benefits would affect my tax dollars and they way my government does business.
Click to expand...

O so we should get rid of all tax benefits for marriage then, that will reduce the cost of benefits.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
So if the courts suddenly ruled one day that murder was ok you would agree that that makes murder ok? Obviously it would be law, but would the courts be right? That is essentially what you just argued.
Click to expand...

what the hell? lol
yes you are right thats exactly what i just said
this is why your post so often fail
 
The problem was that it forces states to use another state's level of strict scrutiny when recognizing SSM, so in all, it is an end run around states' rights.

Jack Fabulous said:
What the court effectively did with the DOMA ruling was to basically leave it up to the states. They ruled that the federal government could not dictate the terms of marriage to the states. Supporters of SSM hailed this ruling as a victory because it effectively nullified DOMA but, more accurately, it was a victory for states rights.
Click to expand...
 
Wiseone said:
O so we should get rid of all tax benefits for marriage then, that will reduce the cost of benefits.
Click to expand...

It may come to that to disentangle the fed from marriage.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
It's not apples and oranges, though I do like your graphic. It is a perfect example to refute what he is saying.
Click to expand...

accept he applied it to you and your obvious broken logic, you still cant even see how absurd and inane your claim was and thats halarious
 
Wiseone said:
O so we should get rid of all tax benefits for marriage then, that will reduce the cost of benefits.
Click to expand...

I can't say I would be against that. The government should have never gotten involved with marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom