• 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!

Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

Conservative said:
Good, do the research and get back to me. While you are researching please find the term marriage in the Constitution.

Got it, if a homosexual told you something you would believe it but because I told you something you have to do the research. Try doing it with what the homosexual tells you as well and ask that homosexual as to what their problem is with civil unions?
Click to expand...

its hilarious watching you post this failed strawman over and over again and watching poster after poster destory it with facts lol The desperation in you posts is so obvious.
 
re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

Cardinal said:
He's referring to the equal protection clause, which was specifically made to protect minorities against the will of a majority.
Click to expand...

How does defining marriage do that? This equal protection argument is a slippery slope and can apply to just about anything.
 
re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

AGENT J said:
its hilarious watching you post this failed strawman over and over again and watching poster after poster destory it with facts lol The desperation in you posts is so obvious.
Click to expand...

Yep, you gay rights advocates are legends in your own minds
 
re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

Conservative said:
Yep, you gay rights advocates are legends in your own minds
Click to expand...

translation: you have nothing and havent for pages lol This thread proves that fact.

Im not a gay rights advocate, im an equal rights advocate, a freedom and liberty advocate. Im an advocate for my fellow americans to have the same rights as me. I know you find that very weird since you dont care about rights and freedoms but its the facts none the less.

Let us know when you have something besides failed and destroyed strawmen, while its entertaining and funny to us, it be nice if you had one single valid point you could back up with any logic or facts . Heck or anythign that even had merit or mattered lol

Keep pounding your drum though and trying to fight the fight against it, equal rights is winning and will continue too :)
 
re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

Conservative said:
How does defining marriage do that? This equal protection argument is a slippery slope and can apply to just about anything.
Click to expand...

Read the walker ruling.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.

DUE PROCESS

The Due Process Clause provides that no “State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” US Const Amend XIV, § 1. Due process protects individuals against arbitrary governmental intrusion into life,liberty or property. See Washington v Glucksberg, 521 US 702, 719-720 (1997). When legislation burdens the exercise of a rightdeemed to be fundamental, the government must show that the
intrusion withstands strict scrutiny.
Click to expand...

California Prop 8 Ruling (August 2010)

It begins on page 109 and continues into detail from there.
 
re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

Conservative said:
How does defining marriage do that? This equal protection argument is a slippery slope and can apply to just about anything.
Click to expand...

You still do not understand how the EPC works do you, even after having it explained to you.
 
re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

Conservative said:
Yep, you gay rights advocates are legends in your own minds
Click to expand...

And anti gay advocates, who seem to be stuck in 2nd grade science class, are at odds with what human development and sexuality are genuinely about.
 
re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

Redress said:
You still do not understand how the EPC works do you, even after having it explained to you.
Click to expand...

If you think of rulings in terms of "activist judges," I don't know if understanding more complex ideas like "due process" and "equal protection" is even possible.
 
re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

AGENT J said:
translation: you have nothing and havent for pages lol This thread proves that fact.

Im not a gay rights advocate, im an equal rights advocate, a freedom and liberty advocate. Im an advocate for my fellow americans to have the same rights as me. I know you find that very weird since you dont care about rights and freedoms but its the facts none the less.

Let us know when you have something besides failed and destroyed strawmen, while its entertaining and funny to us, it be nice if you had one single valid point you could back up with any logic or facts . Heck or anythign that even had merit or mattered lol

Keep pounding your drum though and trying to fight the fight against it, equal rights is winning and will continue too :)
Click to expand...

No, what you are is civics challenged and have no understanding of the Constitution and our Founders. The Constitution was created to define the role of the Federal Govt. Anything not in the Constitution was delegated to the states. Equal protection applies to items in that Constitution, Marriage isn't there.

You can point to justices that rule one way and I can point to justifies that rule the other way. The only true solution for this passionate issue is a Constitutional Amendment and advocates of SSM aren't going to like the outcome.
 
re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

How many people even care if Ellen Page is gay? :confused: No one I know does.
 
re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

Conservative said:
What a surprise, a liberal court giving a liberal opinion, the only true solution is a Constitutional Amendment
Click to expand...

Well it's not really, as we see with the 2nd Amendment and how that gets perverted by liberal judges, whom are after all just people with which we appoint to give us their opinions on how they interpret events and matters that are important to us all. And if that wasn't enough, for all the equal protection advocates in this thread, I can't imagine how the ultimate protection one society can afford it's citizens is that of protecting those that are unable to protect themselves, or have no voice. Abortion is a liberal tenant, ingrained and handed to us all by liberal judges, and the only protection afforded is that of the woman to have the right to choose to kill their unborn children because they made a mistake. The reasons needed for killing an unborn human child are arbitrary without due process to the child being murdered. Of course liberals justify their position by claiming that a clump of cells isn't really a baby, but the thinking among us know that whatever that clump of cells is, we do know that it is human, and that if left allowed to live it will grow into a baby just like everyone one of us did. I guess some things are easier to swallow than others for leftists. Gay marriage, oh boy we need that because of equality and fairness, but don't worry you can keep killing our unborn humans, us Lib's got no issue with that, just make sure that gays get their due process. ;)

If Roe v Wade happened today I fear it probably wouldn't pass muster. We have better technology and more money to sway public opinion on just how brutal it is to murder a human unborn child. Lib's, and feminists don't want that coming back to the courts, no Sir. Just keep quite about it, and hope other issues like gay marriage keep everyone engaged.


Tim-
 
re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

Peter Grimm said:
We're still waiting for you to show us these alleged facts. More deflections smh.
Click to expand...

LOL, AGENTJ doesn't know what a fact is. If we had the facts we wouldn't be on an internet message board debating them. :)


Tim-
 
re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

Conservative said:
No, what you are is civics challenged and have no understanding of the Constitution and our Founders. The Constitution was created to define the role of the Federal Govt. Anything not in the Constitution was delegated to the states. Equal protection applies to items in that Constitution, Marriage isn't there.

You can point to justices that rule one way and I can point to justifies that rule the other way. The only true solution for this passionate issue is a Constitutional Amendment and advocates of SSM aren't going to like the outcome.
Click to expand...


translation: you have no facts that support your failed claims
keep trying to desperately move the goal posts and back pedal and reword things but NOBODY honest and educated falls for it LMAO

ill stick to facts, laws, rights and case precedents

remind me what you have again? oh thats right just your OPINION lmao

sorry there will be no constitutional amendment on this nor is it needed and people that support equal rights are VERY happy right now and laughing at those that don't :)

Let us know when you have something FACTUAL that supports you, we'll be waiting
Facts win again
 
re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

Peter Grimm said:
We're still waiting for you to show us these alleged facts. More deflections smh.
Click to expand...

nothing yet? ill keep checking back
 
re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

Peter Grimm said:
Well next time you check back, be sure to bring your facts along with you because we're still waiting on those.
Click to expand...

already have plenty of times but i didnt make the claims that need backed up others did and then you blindly chimed in which was AWESOME lol

so unless you can prove what was factually already proven wrong by me and many many others your posts will continue to lose and get destroyed.

If you have a question by all means please presented, if you have anything on topic you think you can defend please presented, until then it will be more of the same. Facts winning and you posting off topic desperation that exposes you and gets laughed at we laugh at.

so is there anything you have on the OP topic or the sub topic that was proved wrong that granting equal rights to gays wont be equal rights it will be special rights or only a constitutional amendment is needed to do so? or that there will be one that goes against gays. pick any of these.

who wants to take bets this is all dodged and deflected from :)
 
re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

Conservative said:
What a surprise, a liberal court giving a liberal opinion, the only true solution is a Constitutional Amendment
Click to expand...

Well, I guess you've got your narrative picked out and you're going to the ball, come hell or high water, aren't you? If that's how you wish to approach this, that's fine. But please don't tell us you're informed on the matter when you can't even be arsed to read the arguments that explain the conflict. At the end of this, when the last state switches to ssm recognition, either through vote or forced by the courts, I expect you'll console yourself that it was all the "activist judges'" doing, but you'll have no more comprehension than you do now.

And also don't talk to me of an amendment to the constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman. That's delusion, pure and simple. Keep in mind that the following describes votes for a constitutional amendment back in 2006, when support for ssm recognition was considerably less than it is now:

The last Congressional vote on the proposed Amendment occurred in the United States House of Representatives on July 18, 2006, when the Amendment failed 236 to 187, falling short of the 290 votes required for passage in that body. The Senate has only voted on cloture motions with regard to the proposed Amendment, the last of which was on June 7, 2006, when the motion failed 49 to 48, falling short of the 60 votes required to allow the Senate to proceed to consideration of the Amendment and the 67 votes required to send the amendment to the states.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment
 
re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

Moderator's Warning:
Enough of the personal stuff. Stick to the topic.
 
re: Actress Ellen Page: "I am gay"[W:1222]

AGENT J said:
translation: you have no facts that support your failed claims
keep trying to desperately move the goal posts and back pedal and reword things but NOBODY honest and educated falls for it LMAO

ill stick to facts, laws, rights and case precedents

remind me what you have again? oh thats right just your OPINION lmao

sorry there will be no constitutional amendment on this nor is it needed and people that support equal rights are VERY happy right now and laughing at those that don't :)

Let us know when you have something FACTUAL that supports you, we'll be waiting
Facts win again
Click to expand...

You put a lot of faith in circuit courts including the 9th out of San Francisco which has a history of being the most overturned court in the country yet for some reason those justice rulings are supported by people like you but only when they support your point of view.

You want facts, then start with the Constitution and the history behind it. You have a very poor understanding of the FACT that if it isn't in the Constitution then it is a state responsibility and that is where marriage originated and belongs. Equal protection applies only to issues in the Constitution. Seems like a simple concept that you cannot grasp
 
Hicup said:
Hmmm... Sorry CC, but DV is actually correct. He is using the same measure, and it appears although maybe I read you wrong but you seem to be missing his point. In your above scenario, if a study wanted to show that a certain behavior has no adverse or mental effects on the one engaging in the behavior, one would expect that they could accomplish this by avoiding participants that have no expressed or reported mental health issues. I mean, that's just pretty basic logic. In the converse, if one wanted to show the opposite, then the opposite group would contain participants that did in fact express reported mental health effects. The Hooker study was the first of its kind in that it took participants that "self-reported" no adverse effects from homosexuality. All the studies that lead up to her study selected participants from groups that did report adverse effects.
Click to expand...

No, DV is wrong. The study compared two groups... heterosexual and homosexual. Both groups were comprised of people who had no history of mental illness. Now IF homosexuality was a mental illness, when the experts examined the results of the projectives, they should have EASILY been able to pick out the homosexuals, noticing the mental illness, But they could not. This demonstrated that homosexuality was NOT in and of itself a mental illness.


Well, I think you have it backwards, frankly. Ideally, one would select blindly from the general, administer the questions before controlling for the variables. So as an example, one might approach it this way.

1. Select 1000 random people (College kids looking for money are a good source)
2. Administer questions with the purpose of identifying mental issues assign a number to each participant's answers.
3. Take background information from the participants, identifying the variables of each participant. Age, sex, sexual orientation, etc..
4. Place similarly situated participants together as control groups and apply the results in a statistical model looking for correlations that are significant.
Click to expand...

I have explained this OVER AND OVER. For the purposes of this study, your scenario above would not work as it would increase the the amount of confounding variables. Hooker's study eliminates ALL confounding variables and leaves just one: are homosexuals inherently mentally ill because of the homosexuality?
 
Conservative said:
Courts do not have the authority to overturn a Constitutional Amendment and that is what you are going to force on the SSM crowd. You aren't going to like the outcome. Courts don't agree and it is interesting that you only buy the rulings that support your point of view
Click to expand...

Since there isn't a Constitutional Amendment, courts DO have the authority to overturn unconstitutional laws and decision. And if a Constitutional Amendment process when into effect, your side would be very disapointed with the outcome.
 
Conservative said:
No, what you are is civics challenged and have no understanding of the Constitution and our Founders. The Constitution was created to define the role of the Federal Govt. Anything not in the Constitution was delegated to the states. Equal protection applies to items in that Constitution, Marriage isn't there.

You can point to justices that rule one way and I can point to justifies that rule the other way. The only true solution for this passionate issue is a Constitutional Amendment and advocates of SSM aren't going to like the outcome.
Click to expand...

Actually, as I've told you, I would hope that a Constitutional Amendment process happens (though I doubt it will). If it does, those who are anti-SSM aren't going to like the outcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom