• 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!

US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

clownboy said:
Indeed, and SCOTUS in their original ruling on DOMA found there was no "unequal treatment". Now was the original ruling correct or the subsequent one? Did the text of the Constitution change? How about voting law then, are sub-18 year olds treated unequally? How about any state licensing, are those unequal treatment of priviledge because they have certain requirements to meet licensing that not everyone has? And what of states that disallow first cousins and siblings to marry, is that unequal treatment?
Click to expand...

What original ruling was that? The one last summer?

Disallowing first cousins to marry can be considered a "compelling state interest" because it leads to deformities. But aside from that, any person can marry someone other than their cousin. To my knowledge, no one is exclusively attracted to their cousin.

Voting age law...you really need to look up "compelling state interest" as applies to 14th amendment.
 
Rocketman said:
If your arguments held any water all states would allow it, they don't end of story, you lost again. I love beating you down on this issue over and over
Click to expand...

Applying your logic, segregation was perfectly valid on a legal basis because some states still had segregation.

"People say separate but equal is inherently unequal, but if that argument held any water we wouldn't have segregation here in the south!" - You, a few decades ago.
 
clownboy said:
Indeed, and SCOTUS in their original ruling on DOMA found there was no "unequal treatment". Now was the original ruling correct or the subsequent one? Did the text of the Constitution change? How about voting law then, are sub-18 year olds treated unequally? How about any state licensing, are those unequal treatment of priviledge because they have certain requirements to meet licensing that not everyone has? And what of states that disallow first cousins and siblings to marry, is that unequal treatment?
Click to expand...

I've explained to you how equal protection challenges work before. Clearly it didn't stick.
 
Deuce said:
I've explained to you how equal protection challenges work before. Clearly it didn't stick.
Click to expand...

facts are often ignored when an argument fails so your explanation of equal protection will continue to be ignored because it proves you right and others wrong.
 
Deuce said:
I've explained to you how equal protection challenges work before. Clearly it didn't stick.
Click to expand...

No it didn't, I generally don't allow garbage to stick. There is little evidence that the marriage of first cousins will lead to deformities especially in this day and age and yet that is excused as a compelling state interest. The problem with using that as a metric is that it's highly subjective and not at all defined in law. Is it in the states interest to uphold social mores? Yet we do regardless.
 
clownboy said:
Once again, race and creed are protected by constitution, sexual orientation is not.
Click to expand...

If that were true, Colorado's Amendment 2 would not have been overturned as unconstitutional.

BTW - what part of "All persons" in the 14th excludes homosexuals?


>>>>
 
clownboy said:
Indeed, and SCOTUS in their original ruling on DOMA found there was no "unequal treatment".
Click to expand...

chromium said:
What original ruling was that? The one last summer?
Click to expand...



I believe I asked what was the case of this "original ruling" about DOMA by the SCOTUS was in a previous post.


Never did get a case name.


>>>>
 
clownboy said:
w0200806305347982032031.jpg
Click to expand...

Nope, no proof of fetishism there, move along now. LOL

These gaystopo types trying to redefine the absurd is incredibly amusing. I know they're not laughing, but the rest of us sane types are at just how far to the extreme they're willing to go to call a pig a butterfly. :)


Let them have at er though, they're mostly harmless on internet forums. Where they do cause trouble is in catching democrat appointed judges to rule in their favor. An majority will only take that for so long.



Tim-
 
Rocketman said:
If your arguments held any water all states would allow it, they don't end of story, you lost again. I love beating you down on this issue over and over
Click to expand...


As Phil Robertson would say. "It's like shootin turkeys in a barrel" :)


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
As Phil Robertson would say. "It's like shootin turkeys in a barrel" :)


Tim-
Click to expand...

so you have factual proof this is not an equal rights issue?

please post those facts in your next post, we'd love to read it lol



who wants to take bets this request is DODGED again like always, no facts will be posted proving its not an equal rights issues, just deflections, failed insults and pure entertaining desperation.

#EqualRIghtsIsWInning
 
clownboy said:
No it didn't, I generally don't allow garbage to stick. There is little evidence that the marriage of first cousins will lead to deformities especially in this day and age and yet that is excused as a compelling state interest. The problem with using that as a metric is that it's highly subjective and not at all defined in law. Is it in the states interest to uphold social mores? Yet we do regardless.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's not that there is little evidence, there is actually no evidence that cousins, or even brothers, sisters, and fathers, daughters cause deformities. The fact is that, even clones could mate and produce healthy offspring. evolution would still happen even in clones, and that isn't a matter of opinion, it's a fact. The only thing that occurs when siblings or close relatives mate is that a specific genetic trait is more likely to be passed on than it would otherwise. That is it folks, that's the evidence. :)

Tim-
 
Last edited:
AGENT J said:
so you have factual proof this is not an equal rights issue?

please post those facts in your next post, we'd love to read it lol



who wants to take bets this request is DODGED again like always, no facts will be posted proving its not an equal rights issues, just deflections, failed insults and pure entertaining desperation.

#EqualRIghtsIsWInning
Click to expand...


Did already in the other thread. As I stated, it seems like an equal rights issue for you and the gaystopo, and your activists judges, but there is plenty of cases where equality isn't even mentioned, and that marriage, is a civil matter, and or a social matter best left to society to decide. I already posted it to you, lazy boy, you just ignored them, like you do with everything that doesn't sit well with you. :)

By the way, I love Phil Robertson. If it wasn't for that recent failed gaystopo uproar about Duck Dynasty I would never have discovered that show. It's awesome, one of the best shows on TV.. You should watch it. Lot's of good family values stuff in there. You probably won't though because you're so fixated on this singular issue, in fact do you post about anything else on this forum? Go Duck Dynasty! Normal American's right there brah.. ;)


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Did already in the other thread. As I stated, it seems like an equal rights issue for you and the gaystopo, and your activists judges, but there is plenty of cases where equality isn't even mentioned, and that marriage, is a civil matter, and or a social matter best left to society to decide. I already posted it to you, lazy boy, you just ignored them, like you do with everything that doesn't sit well with you. :)

By the way, I love Phil Robertson. If it wasn't for that recent failed gaystopo uproar about Duck Dynasty I would never have discovered that show. It's awesome, one of the best shows on TV.. You should watch it. Lot's of good family values stuff in there. You probably won't though because you're so fixated on this singular issue, in fact do you post about anything else on this forum? Go Duck Dynasty! Normal American's right there brah.. ;)


Tim-
Click to expand...

BAM!!! called it. Failed insults, ZERO facts supporting his lie and complete entertaining desperation lol I love it!
Facts defeat your post again

so the answer is "No agent J, i have no facts proving this is not an equal rights case", but we knew that already

let us know when you do! thanks again for proving us right ;)
 
AGENT J said:
BAM!!! called it. Failed insults, ZERO facts supporting his lie and complete entertaining desperation lol I love it!
Facts defeat your post again

so the answer is "No agent J, i have no facts proving this is not an equal rights case", but we knew that already

let us know when you do! thanks again for proving us right ;)
Click to expand...

Brah... Man, I'm just sitting here drinkin a brown pop, and about to smoke some bud. Trust me, you're only mildly entertaining. I already destroyed you, in fact everytime I take the time to engage your nonsense I destroy you. You're a superficial debater barely approaching high school level. ;)


Tim-
 
WorldWatcher said:
I believe I asked what was the case of this "original ruling" about DOMA by the SCOTUS was in a previous post.


Never did get a case name.


>>>>
Click to expand...

That was my failure of memory. I was blaming SCOTUS for an argument I saw in dissent. I withdraw the wrong comment.
 
Hicup said:
Brah... Man, I'm just sitting here drinkin a brown pop, and about to smoke some bud. Trust me, you're only mildly entertaining. I already destroyed you, in fact everytime I take the time to engage your nonsense I destroy you. You're a superficial debater barely approaching high school level. ;)


Tim-
Click to expand...

translation: "No agent J, i have no facts proving this is not an equal rights case"
facts prove otherwise, posting lies wont change this lol

im not the topic so when you are ready to post on topic, be civil and support your failed claims and lies let us know. This is how things work but since you are arguing against facts your posts will have little success, as history proves. So your options at this point is simply admit you were 100% factually wrong as many posters have proven and SSM is a equal rights issue or simply deny this fact and continue the entertainment. Your mistake is you think this is a debate, its not, facts have been presented and as usual your posts loses to them and are destroyed again.

Let us know, there will be no reply until you have any facts supporting you and proving all those other posters, links, facts, rights laws, court cases and court precedence wrong. We have all that on or side, remind us what FACTS you have on your side besides "nu-huh" lol
 
clownboy said:
That was my failure of memory. I was blaming SCOTUS for an argument I saw in dissent. I withdraw the wrong comment.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, my memory isn't what it used to be.

I honor and acknowledge your withdrawal of the claim and good on-ya for the correction.



>>>>
 
clownboy said:
No it didn't, I generally don't allow garbage to stick. There is little evidence that the marriage of first cousins will lead to deformities especially in this day and age and yet that is excused as a compelling state interest. The problem with using that as a metric is that it's highly subjective and not at all defined in law. Is it in the states interest to uphold social mores? Yet we do regardless.
Click to expand...

Of course it's subjective. But pretty much everything is. How would you define a test for equal protection?

You should file a lawsuit regarding marrying cousins. I agree that the evidence for substantial genetic issues is thin at best. My moral disapproval for marrying first cousins isn't sufficient to make it illegal for other people. They should be able to get married, it's none of my business.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) me too, its always a joke when people try to vote away others rights.
2.) to bad the opposite is happening with this topic.
3.) you are free to feel this way, you could always go to russia if you dont like freedom and rights
4.) i agree if this gets you to russia and all those that opposes equal rights the sooner the better! the country will be better because of this and without those who oppose it.
Click to expand...
I won't be going anywhere UNFORTUNATELY. I would much rather raise my kids in Europe and not here. There won't be a country left soon enough...fine with me we can get along with cleansing this country finally.

Lursa said:
Is the Constitution a joke?
Click to expand...
Yes.
winston53660 said:
What if people in N Carolina voted Jews were second class citizens? Would you be okay with that?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Lysander said:
1.)I won't be going anywhere UNFORTUNATELY.
2.)I would much rather raise my kids in Europe and not here.
3.)There won't be a country left soon enough...
4.) fine with me we can get along with cleansing this country finally.
.
Click to expand...

1.) that is unfortunate that you have to be in a country that is about equal rights, must be horrible for you
2.) i hope this wish comes true for you so you can be in a country that isnt for equal rights and one more towards your wants
3.) there is unfortunate for you too, this country isnt going anywhere anytime in out life times or our grandkids at least not based on equal rights winning and bigotry/discrimination losing
4.) you already identified one step, you leaving for europe
 
AGENT J said:
1.) that is unfortunate that you have to be in a country that is about equal rights, must be horrible for you
2.) i hope this wish comes true for you so you can be in a country that isnt for equal rights and one more towards your wants
3.) there is unfortunate for you too, this country isnt going anywhere anytime in out life times or our grandkids at least not based on equal rights winning and bigotry/discrimination losing
4.) you already identified one step, you leaving for europe
Click to expand...

You will be saying its about "equal rights" as well when pedophiles claim they are born that way etc etc etc...easy way to make a degeneracy into something normal.

They said the same thing about Rome...they were wrong. Rome died for 2 reasons. 1. Allowing non white immigration/conquering non white nations mixing with them etc. 2. Allowing the moral code to be destroyed. Same thing is happening here at a very very fast pace.
 
Lysander said:
You will be saying its about "equal rights" as well when pedophiles claim they are born that way etc etc etc...easy way to make a degeneracy into something normal.
Click to expand...

Not this **** again. That is such a stupid and retarded comparison. Big, HUGE, GIANT difference between consenting adults and children.
 
Indeed. But same people who are pushing for homosexual marriage are also pushing for pedophilia to be thought of as "normal"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom