• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

Care to cite just where that "race protection" is in our constitution?
 
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...

Like the Court striking down marriage restrictions based on race, being behind on child support payments, and being an inmate? Why were these okay but not restrictions based on sex/gender? They are all restrictions on entering into marriage. Voted on by the people or their representatives.
 
AGENT J said:
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
Click to expand...

It wasn't a claim, it was an example, one which you have yet to respond your position to.
 
AGENT J said:
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.
Click to expand...


Fact: most states ban SSM, these bans are legal and haven't changed (with one exception, California where existing same sex unions would be nullified).
Fact: I have backed up my statements, I have pointed to the SSM bans in other states and the legality of DOMA when concerning a state's right to redefine marriage to include SSM.
Here is the fact: the chart is old because Cali is likely to become a SSM approving state, but this is what is factually correct concerning marriage in the states.
gay-marriage-map-2013.jpg


Stop throwing around the word "fact." It doesn't make you magically right. Also, recognize where your opinions are exactly that, opinions. It's your opinion that SSM is an equal rights issue or somehow on par with racial discrimination. That's not a fact, that's your opinion and your view.
 
Last edited:
davidtaylorjr said:
So you aren't going to answer me.....
Click to expand...
theres nothign to answer
what is your question?
you made a meaningless statment that had nothign to do with anything

what you are claiming is false and had no barring on what i said its somethign you made up in your head. go back reread my post and you will see how yours doesnt apply in any logical sense what so ever this is why other posters even pointed this out, thats why its apples and oranges. try to keep up
 
davidtaylorjr said:
It wasn't a claim, it was an example, one which you have yet to respond your position to.
Click to expand...

a failed example pointed out to you by me and other posters
 
roguenuke said:
Like the Court striking down marriage restrictions based on race, being behind on child support payments, and being an inmate? Why were these okay but not restrictions based on sex/gender? They are all restrictions on entering into marriage. Voted on by the people or their representatives.
Click to expand...

Yes, those were restrictions on entering marriage. None of them were a fundamental conflict with the very definition of marriage, though, so they were just restrictions. Trying to say that the definition of marriage as one man and one woman is a "restriction" against same sex couples is like saying that quacking and having webbed feet is a restriction against chickens from being ducks.
 
digsbe said:
1.)Fact: most states ban SSM, these bans are legal and haven't changed.
2.) Fact: I have backed up my statements, I have pointed to the SSM bans in other states and the legality of DOMA when concerning a state's right to redefine marriage to include SSM.
3.)Here is the fact: the chart is old because Cali is likely to become a SSM approving state, but this is what is factually correct concerning marriage in the states.
gay-marriage-map-2013.jpg

4.) Stop throwing around the word "fact." It doesn't make you magically right.
5.) Also, recognize where your opinions are exactly that, opinions.
6.) It's your opinion that SSM is an equal rights issue or somehow on par with racial discrimination. That's not a fact, that's your opinion and your view.
Click to expand...

1.) yes this is a fact and this changes NOTHING to the discssuion. the issue wasnt heard in those states by a court
2.) no t a fact. no you havent because your argument fails majorly, the courts havent heard the issue for all those stats nor did scotus tackle the issue. Scotus DID NOT have a direct rulling on if state bans are constitutional. SO there is no fact here, you simply do not understand the difference.
3.) yes thats how it is currently which has nothing to do with what im discussing. nothing
4.) everything i called a fact is indeed a fact :shrug: disagree please prove otherwise.
5.) yes i agree when we are discussing my opinions thats is exactly what they are and no more. is there an example where i factually pushed my opinion to be more than that?
6.) false, its a FACT for the courts that have actually hear this issues, they decided it violated equality. My opinion is meaningless to them.
7.) see answer 6, you are confused.

i noticed you still havent answered my question yet but that was in another post
 
digsbe said:
Fact: most states ban SSM, these bans are legal and haven't changed (with one exception, California where existing same sex unions would be nullified).
Fact: I have backed up my statements, I have pointed to the SSM bans in other states and the legality of DOMA when concerning a state's right to redefine marriage to include SSM.
Here is the fact: the chart is old because Cali is likely to become a SSM approving state, but this is what is factually correct concerning marriage in the states.
gay-marriage-map-2013.jpg


Stop throwing around the word "fact." It doesn't make you magically right. Also, recognize where your opinions are exactly that, opinions. It's your opinion that SSM is an equal rights issue or somehow on par with racial discrimination. That's not a fact, that's your opinion and your view.
Click to expand...

First of all, I want to point out that your map is outdated.

Second, in most of those states where same sex couples cannot enter into marriage, those laws simply haven't been challenged yet. A law cannot be struck down until it is challenged in court.

And last, along with the challenges in court that are likely to be popping up in so many states where same sex marriage is not allowed, there will also be pushes toward repealing those laws, several of which have a strong chance of making it.

But this is still an issue about equality, whether you or anyone else recognizes it. States do not have the right to maintain laws, either enacted by voters or their representatives, that treat people differently and cannot be shown to further any legitimate state interest. Once challenged, laws that are like this are very likely to go down.
 
Papa bull said:
Yes, those were restrictions on entering marriage. None of them were a fundamental conflict with the very definition of marriage, though, so they were just restrictions. Trying to say that the definition of marriage as one man and one woman is a "restriction" against same sex couples is like saying that quacking and having webbed feet is a restriction against chickens from being ducks.
Click to expand...

You can argue this failed "definition of marriage" argument as much as you want but legally it will always be a failing argument. It didn't hold up in SCOTUS concerning DOMA so why would think it would hold up for the states?
 
AGENT J said:
did you not read post 57? guess not lol
Click to expand...

I read it, it didn't answer anything. You have simply dodged the example because you think it is extreme. However, you still didn't address what would be your position if it were to happen. That is because you know you were wrong when you said just because the court says something makes it so, instead of just law. In other words, from my point of view, what I hear you saying, is that you trust the courts decisions 100% and that they can never be wrong.

Still waiting on your answer instead of a dodge.
 
roguenuke said:
First of all, I want to point out that your map is outdated.

Second, in most of those states where same sex couples cannot enter into marriage, those laws simply haven't been challenged yet. A law cannot be struck down until it is challenged in court.

And last, along with the challenges in court that are likely to be popping up in so many states where same sex marriage is not allowed, there will also be pushes toward repealing those laws, several of which have a strong chance of making it.

But this is still an issue about equality, whether you or anyone else recognizes it. States do not have the right to maintain laws, either enacted by voters or their representatives, that treat people differently and cannot be shown to further any legitimate state interest. Once challenged, laws that are like this are very likely to go down.
Click to expand...

DING DING DING DING DING

some how SOME people seem to think that a court not hearing a case yet is the same as the court ruling that its ok
 
roguenuke said:
You can argue this failed "definition of marriage" argument as much as you want but legally it will always be a failing argument. It didn't hold up in SCOTUS concerning DOMA so why would think it would hold up for the states?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the fact that chickens don't have webbed feet and don't quack isn't a restriction against them being ducks. It's that they just aren't ducks. It neither held up nor failed in the SCOTUS because it wasn't about the state definition of marriage. It was about whether or not the federal government had the right to override the state definition.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
I read it, it didn't answer anything. You have simply dodged the example because you think it is extreme. However, you still didn't address what would be your position if it were to happen. That is because you know you were wrong when you said just because the court says something makes it so, instead of just law. In other words, from my point of view, what I hear you saying, is that you trust the courts decisions 100% and that they can never be wrong.

Still waiting on your answer instead of a dodge.
Click to expand...

wow, here is the post again, since you have serious comprehension and honesty issues i will BOLD the important parts for you
AGENT J said:
theres nothign to answer
what is your question?
you made a meaningless statment that had nothign to do with anything

what you are claiming is false and had no barring on what i said its something you made up in your head. go back reread my post and you will see how yours doesnt apply in any logical sense what so ever this is why other posters even pointed this out, thats why its apples and oranges. try to keep up
Click to expand...

so please stop making stuff up because it will only cause me and other posted to point it out again

let me know if you are still confused
 
The following is for people who have a fear of homosexuals...

my-gay-agenda.png




As a heterosexual, I'm puzzled, amazed, and completely astounded at the belief systems of those who are somehow intimidated by a very small population of people who in no way impacts the majorities lives in any respect. I'm really beginning to wonder if humanity deserves to survive extinction, which if it happens will be a product of its inability to get over its need to abuse itself.
 
AGENT J said:
wow, here is the post again, since you have serious comprehension and honesty issues i will BOLD the important parts for you


so please stop making stuff up because it will only cause me and other posted to point it out again

let me know if you are still confused
Click to expand...

Ok since you are incapable of comprehending the statement let me restate it for you....

You said that because a court says something makes it more than just law, it makes it so. What I take that to mean is that the court is always right.

That being said, if there were to come up a case where a court decided that we have the right to kill for any reason, aka murder, would you still hold that postion, or would you cry foul the court is wrong?
 
AGENT J said:
After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits - First Read




this is why the fall of DOMA will aid in getting equal rights nationalized.
All its going to take now is some court cases here and there to pave the way.

SO many scenarios can now push the issues and shine light on the fact this is inequality.

The process will now be faster and soon all states will have to end their discrimination.
Click to expand...

Well, ignoring the inevitable and idiotic "discrimination against religious people" and "they're trying to change the definition!" non sequiturs, this seems reasonable. The legal limbo that resulted guarantees a case within the year, and for the Supreme Court to have to review it within at least three.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
1.)Ok since you are incapable of comprehending the statement let me restate it for you....

2.) You said that because a court says something makes it more than just law, it makes it so.
3.)What I take that to mean is that the court is always right.
4.)That being said, if there were to come up a case where a court decided that we have the right to kill for any reason, aka murder, would you still hold that postion, or would you cry foul the court is wrong?
Click to expand...

1.) nice try but has me and others pointed out the problem was yours, you stated something that made no sense, so you failed again. mistake 1
2.) nope i NEVER said that it makes it MORE than law but it does make it so. See this is exactly why you post failed how you come to the determination that makes it so means more than law is illogical. mistake 2
3.) mistake 3
4.) see the answers above, your nonsensical inane illogical conclusions and made up assumptions are false therefore you question makes no sense.

if we were granted the right to kill for any reason the fact is it would no longer be murder
i would not support that and would personally think its wrong
but another fact would be we could kill for any reason and the law would make it so.

thanks for pointing out where you made your mistakes and why we diidnt understand anything you said.
 
Cardinal said:
1.)Well, ignoring the inevitable and idiotic "discrimination against religious people" and "they're trying to change the definition!" non sequiturs, this seems reasonable.
2.) The legal limbo that resulted guarantees a case within the year, and for the Supreme Court to have to review it within at least three.
Click to expand...

1.) yes those failed arguments are quit idiotic
2.) i agree it probably will be a year before the first cases happens and a review in three.

i only wonder how many cases and if they will all be solid/big enough to force a sweeping rule or give them an ability to punt
 
Papa bull said:
Sorry, but the fact that chickens don't have webbed feet and don't quack isn't a restriction against them being ducks. It's that they just aren't ducks. It neither held up nor failed in the SCOTUS because it wasn't about the state definition of marriage. It was about whether or not the federal government had the right to override the state definition.
Click to expand...

The legal definition of duck or chicken is based off of physical factors, including DNA among other things, that make that animal what it is. Such an analogy fails because marriage is not something with physical characteristics at all. Marriage is a concept. It is an abstract. You cannot compare an abstract to a physical/concrete thing.

Marriage is defined in how it operates in the laws, not by what restrictions are placed on who can enter into marriage. You are still trying to use circular logic "it is that way because it is that way".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom