• 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!

Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings

My personal opinion on gay marriage is moot - I'm telling yall what the constitution says and the constitution say absolutely nothing about marriage between a woman and woman man and man or man and woman.... DOMA was the closest think and that was Bill Clinton's idea...

Sorry to explain to you that are possibly inept but there are 2) ways to legitimize gay marriage 1) would be to amend the constitution or 2) embrace the Tenth Amendment and allow states to decide...

My moral personal and ethical position on the issue is useless....

All I'm telling you "gay rights" fanatics is that "gay rights" is an epic exaggeration when your entire boggle boils down to a Tenth Amendment issue based on marriage and marriage alone.

You're not really answering any questions - why is this? Should the state have the right to discriminate against interracial marriage? Yes or no? There is nothing in the constitution about it. So is it a yes? Or a no?
 
The best part about this whole debate is the fact I hold the Bill of Rights and Constitution to a lesser extent in high regard..

My opinion on gays is moot....Mostly because I really don't have one.

I don have an opinion and respect for the founding documents tho...
 
The best part about this whole debate is the fact I hold the Bill of Rights and Constitution to a lesser extent in high regard..

The bill of rights and constitution say nothing about interracial marriage. Should blacks and whites be allowed to married? Yes or no?
 
Subjective morality? Of course the state should not use subjective morality. Do have an agreement that killing people is socially harmful? Yes. Regardless of religion or even creed - most people - with the exception of sociopaths and the mentally ill - are born with the knowledge that killing is inherently wrong. Do we have an agreement that gay relationships are wrong? Obviously we don't - most people who say it's wrong have no actual argument for why it's wrong other than their deity tells them so through a third party. So - why exactly should it be discriminated against? Does it present a problem legally? No. The same laws which apply for heterosexuality would apply for homosexual marriages. That leaves us this litmus test of questions:

Does it present a danger socially?

Is anyone physically harmed by gay marriages? No. Well, only whomever is getting it up the ass. That must be painful. Yet no reason to ban gay sex anymore than straight sex.

Is anyone legally harmed by gay marriages? No. Well, depends - usually the husband gets ****ed on the straight divorce. But gays don't have that problem.

Is anyone emotionally harmed by gay marriages? No. Well, only if your spouse cheats.

So with all joking aside, and seriousness on point - gay marriage does not present a danger to anybody but the people involved in the marriage. That's not a reason to discriminate against their unions.

if you use force to take life, liberty, of property, your committing a crime, we all agree government is here to secure those rights, so it is not taking a moral position on those, its fulfilling it primary duty of its existence...to secure rights of the people.

but government is not a morality authority at all, it has not been given a power to decide whether marriage between two people is right or wrong, therefore it has not power to promote nor deny such a thing.

government has no authority in marriage or sexuality, those who wish to use government as a force to stop SSM and those who use SSM as a way of using government to promote through laws/polices it as normal behavior are both wrong.

government should be completely out of marriage and anything of a sexual behavior.
 
Last edited:
You're not really answering any questions - why is this? Should the state have the right to discriminate against interracial marriage? Yes or no? There is nothing in the constitution about it. So is it a yes? Or a no?

As a libertarian my personal opinion on the issue is not needed...

I'm merely pointing out "why" gay marriage is not accepted federally and why some states allow the idea and others don't...

For the last time I'm going to tell you that heterosexual "marriage" isn't even legal - it's status quo.

Once again this has absolutely nothing to do with "gay rights" - this is adequate to "no fair" not discrimination or "gay rights."

Seems you're too big of an advocate to even consider, rationalize or even acknowledge what I'm telling you.
 
From your learned understanding, is the USA secular or not?

the u.s. government was meant to be secular, but not the states, because states had state religions.

the bill of rights did not apply to states until after the civil war, states were able to make religious laws,
 
As a libertarian my personal opinion on the issue is not needed...

So wait, your personal opinion on interracial marriage is not needed - but your personal opinion on gay marriage is?
 
The bill of rights and constitution say nothing about interracial marriage. Should blacks and whites be allowed to married? Yes or no?

You're right - the Bill of Rights mentions nothing at all about marriage...

This is why I don't make an issue about marriage when it comes to civil liberties...

The Bill of Rights are individual rights NOT collective rights - to elaborate further the Bill of rights LIMITS the government, they were not civil liberties granted to the people by the government for the people but rights manifested by the people for the people...
 
Oh yeah but you're still stuck on "gay rights" as if gays are being systematically discriminated against...

mitt-romney-laugh-animated-gif.gif
 
if you use force to take life, liberty, of property, your committing a crime, we all agree government is here to secure those rights, so it is not taking a moral position on those, its fulfilling it primary duty of its existence...to secure rights of the people.

Ah, glad you've read your Locke. Would gays be taking away life, liberty or property if they were to get married?

but government is not a morality authority at all, it has not been given a power to decide whether marriage between two people is right or wrong, therefore it has not power to promote nor deny such a thing.

government has no authority in marriage or sexuality, those who wish to use government as a force to stop SSM and those who use SSM as a way of using government to promote through laws/polices as normal behavior are both wrong.

government should be completely our of marriage and anything of a sexual behavior.

And yet, we live in a society where government and legal recognition go in hand because of the same free market policies which you advocate. The government is in charge of legally recognizing contracts with both private businesses, amongst individuals and individuals and the government itself.

It recognizes citizenship, guardianship (of both people and property) as well as heirs, marriages and all of their ramifications. All that said, keeping a consistent guideline for who is eligible for the benefits, rights and privildges is of utmost importance. As it stands, the guidelines for who is allowed to marry and who is not are not in any way consistent. We allow heterosexuals to enter a 2 party contract and yet deny homosexuals from doing the same. Why? Would the laws change? No. Would our general understanding of the universe change? No. So why is it so important for the government to keep homosexuals isolated?

I don't care about right and wrong. I care about consistency.
 
So wait, your personal opinion on interracial marriage is not needed - but your personal opinion on gay marriage is?

Both aren't even mentioned in the Bill of Rights...

I think that says a lot and justifies both without directly pointing the ideas out... I think if the founding fathers were obsessed with gay marriage and interracial marriage they would have made an amendment addressing the issue. Somehow our founders thought the Fist Amendment was enough to address that issue if the need for it to be address was ever a an issue.

Remember there were free black men when the Bill of Rights was ratified - and as free individuals they had the right to marry whomever they pleased.
 
You're right - the Bill of Rights mentions nothing at all about marriage...

This is why I don't make an issue about marriage when it comes to civil liberties...

The Bill of Rights are individual rights NOT collective rights - to elaborate further the Bill of rights LIMITS the government, they were not civil liberties granted to the people by the government for the people but rights manifested by the people for the people...

So should interracial marriages be banned? For example, if a state wants to ban them - does it have that right? Please stop lecturing me on what bits of the constitution you understand. After 6 years on DP, I've discussed the constitution in further depth than you could possibly grasp. Now answer the question.
 

I'm not exactly a present day republican nor a neocon but your misunderstanding of my libertarian views and understanding of the constitution shows just how immature you actually are.
 
I'm not exactly a present day republican nor a neocon but your misunderstanding of my libertarian views and understanding of the constitution shows just how immature you actually are.

Alright, John Galt, whatever you say.
 
So should interracial marriages be banned? For example, if a state wants to ban them - does it have that right? Please stop lecturing me on what bits of the constitution you understand. After 6 years on DP, I've discussed the constitution in further depth than you could possibly grasp. Now answer the question.

You're asking me weather "I think it should be banned" and excluding the idea that the Constitution vaguely banned the idea...

I'm not a legislator so my opinion is moot, however I generally agree with the constitution - the document is vague after the Bill of Rights ( I wish it was more blunt) ...

Since I have dated several black woman in my life what do you think my position on interracial relationships or even marriage is??

I like who I like and I go with the woman I like regardless of race.... If that was against the law that would be a violation of both my girl and my civil liberties - more specifically the Fist Amendment..

I'm not shallow - I don't view race as a reason to reject a woman I may like...

Then again I really don't like black/latino/white thugs either.....
 
You're asking me weather "I think it should be banned" and excluding the idea that the Constitution vaguely banned the idea...

I'm not a legislator so my opinion is moot, however I generally agree with the constitution - the document is vague after the Bill of Rights ( I wish it was more blunt) ...

Since I have dated several black woman in my life what do you think my position on interracial relationships or even marriage is??

I like who I like and I go with the woman I like regardless of race.... If that was against the law that would be a violation of both my girl and my civil liberties - more specifically the Fist Amendment..

I'm not shallow - I don't view race as a reason to reject a woman I may like...

Then again I really don't like black/latino/white thugs either.....

You're not answering my question. I asked you based on your own arguments whether or not interracial marriage should be banned by states and whether they have a legal right to do so.

According to your words:

Interracial marriage:

1. It's not in the constitution.
2. It's not a right.
3. It's not a civil liberty.

So should states have a right to ban it? Yes or no.
 
Ah, glad you've read your Locke. Would gays be taking away life, liberty or property if they were to get married?.

the answer is of coarse no, two people getting married does not infringe on my rights.




And yet, we live in a society where government and legal recognition go in hand because of the same free market policies which you advocate. The government is in charge of legally recognizing contracts with both private businesses, amongst individuals and individuals and the government itself.

It recognizes citizenship, guardianship (of both people and property) as well as heirs, marriages and all of their ramifications. All that said, keeping a consistent guideline for who is eligible for the benefits, rights and privildges is of utmost importance. As it stands, the guidelines for who is allowed to marry and who is not are not in any way consistent. We allow heterosexuals to enter a 2 party contract and yet deny homosexuals from doing the same. Why? Would the laws change? No. Would our general understanding of the universe change? No. So why is it so important for the government to keep homosexuals isolated?

I don't care about right and wrong. I care about consistency.

I am not suggesting one person be treated differently than another, people should be treated the same.

however today marriage is by license, and nothing can be a right with a licensed attached to it, no right needs the approval of a government official and that's what your getting then the government bureaucrat signs off on it.

yes government is suppose to protect contract, however I don't see their duty as promoting any such contract.

currently marriage is presented as a privilege, and privileges which can be denied, because government controls privileges, they don't control rights.

which is why government needs to remove themselves from marriage, and it recognized as a right, without that government interference.

as long as government is involved in marriage and sexuality, there will continued to be problems, and government is given no authority in those two areas.
 
Last edited:
Alright, John Galt, whatever you say.

Dude, you don't even know what the **** I stand for...

I'm an individual that hates your society and you're the "group think" pawn that feels all good inside because you do as you're told and follows the rules.

Too bad I was taught the problem you presently have but used my intellect to see past this collectivist robot bull**** by the age of 22-23...

So do as your told, hate as your told, vote as your told and propagandize as you're told and I'm sure we can have a fun debate for a few seconds.
 
You're not answering my question. I asked you based on your own arguments whether or not interracial marriage should be banned by states and whether they have a legal right to do so.

According to your words:

Interracial marriage:

1. It's not in the constitution.
2. It's not a right.
3. It's not a civil liberty.

So should states have a right to ban it? Yes or no.

I have already explained to you that interracial marriage is legal per the Fourteenth Amendment (it was legal before that)...

You do realize the equal protection clause justifies just about ANYTHING your mind can make up correct?

This is the debate you want to have is it not?

what limits are placed on the Equal Protection clause?

Oh yeah it's anarchistic babble that can mean or defy just about gay marriage to socialism...

I suppose the vagueness works for anything you want it to mean..
 
It appears that this thread has moved away from discussion specifically about the news article - although related...

However, I wanted to reply because I heard some additional information about this incident on a local talk radio show, while driving to work.
Since it was a conservative talk radio show (or at least, leaning that way), and the information came from someone who called in, it must be taken with a grain or 3 of salt.

Anyways...
Apparently this caller said that the statement mentioned in the news article was taken out of context - Corbett was actually just making a comment about how gay marriage is illegal for the moment, much like incestual marriage is illegal.

Which, if I understood the point, is not the same as saying gay marriage is the same as incest.


It's an easily misunderstood statement though, if this caller was correct. In hindsight, he should have known better than to say something like that...
--------------
Edit: After continuing to read the article, I see that it mentions this...

article in OP said:
Later Friday, Corbett issued a statement saying his "words were not intended to offend anyone" and apologizing if they did. His office said the interview was taped Monday.

"I explained that current Pennsylvania statute delineates categories of individuals unable to obtain a marriage license," he said. "As an example, I cited siblings as one such category, which is clearly defined in state law. My intent was to provide an example of these categories."

Seems that some of the persons responding didn't bother to read further than the first bit.


Edit 2: Still, it provided a further spark for discussion in PA, so in some ways his statement was useful...heh
 
Last edited:
I have already explained to you that interracial marriage is legal per the Fourteenth Amendment (it was legal before that)...

The 14th establishes freedom of contract. Which is universal regardless of race or sexuality. So are you now saying that gay marriage is legal and to ban it is a breach of constitutional law on the same basis?
 
Do people not realize they can cite the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment as a constitutional means to establish socialism? -- the Clause is that vague!

The document reads "give me whatever the **** I want or it's discrimination" unless congress shall pass no law...

WTF...
 
It's an odd analogy but makes sense from the fact that homosexuality is as abnormal as incest and not to mention the slippery slope gay marriage represents.... Hell, gay marriage by de facto discriminates against others in "taboo" relationships...

I don't think it takes a "conservative" to realize that... An intelligent person of any political affiliation (or no political affiliation at all) can see that...

actual, based on facts it makes no sense and the honest and intelligent people are pointing out how stupid it was

people who are educated about this specific topic no this, you just arent among them, you have proved yourself factually ignorant of this topic many times and many posters have pointed this fact out.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom