• 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!

Texas Gay Marriage Ban Latest to Be Struck Down[W:97]

WCH said:
What gives the minority the right to over-rule the majority's decision? And again this is just one judge's opinion.
Click to expand...

The majority in this case wishes to limit the benefits and priviliges of the minority. What gives the majority the right to do that?

I have yet to see anyone explain how SSM does harm to anyone or anything.
 
If this is ok, rationalize rationalize, then that must be ok and if that's ok, rationalize rationalize, then anything goes. What do I think will come through the "metaphorical" floodgates? Its as boundless as the human mind is.
Deuce said:
What do you think is going to come through these metaphorical floodgates?

Or do you think it will be a literal biblical flood?
Click to expand...
 
WCH said:
What gives the minority the right to over-rule the majority's decision? And again this is just one judge's opinion.
Click to expand...

Majorities change all the time. But regardless, the US Constitution gives the minority that right. That is why we are not a true democracy. The US Constitution protects our rights from being violated by a vote of a simple majority, even when it is the states taking those votes.
 
roguenuke said:
They made that vote many years ago.

And, Virginians and South Carolinians voted (in some way) to ban interracial marriages. How did that work out for them?
Click to expand...

Those things are not comparable. If we accept that they were, it would leave the door open for any sort of behavior to become normal.
 
WCH said:
What gives the minority the right to over-rule the majority's decision? And again this is just one judge's opinion.
Click to expand...

And if the majority tomorrow decided slavery was ok again you'd be ok with that?
 
WCH said:
Those things are not comparable. If we accept that they were, it would leave the door open for any sort of behavior to become normal.
Click to expand...

What is wrong with behavior that harms no one else? Esp. a completely natural behavior for them? It's not like they are acting out intentionally. And most certainly, what business of the govt's should ever prohibit it or exclude it from the same rights and privileges of other Americans?
 
roguenuke said:
Majorities change all the time. But regardless, the US Constitution gives the minority that right. That is why we are not a true democracy. The US Constitution protects our rights from being violated by a vote of a simple majority, even when it is the states taking those votes.
Click to expand...

Does it allow one activist judge the ability to speak for all of us? I think not.
 
Jetboogieman said:
And if the majority tomorrow decided slavery was ok again you'd be ok with that?
Click to expand...

Exactly...segregation and equal civil rights for blacks had to be forced on many states.
 
WCH said:
Does it allow one activist judge the ability to speak for all of us? I think not.
Click to expand...

And if it was one 'activist' judge that turned the decision your way?

Yeah.
 
WCH said:
Those things are not comparable. If we accept that they were, it would leave the door open for any sort of behavior to become normal.
Click to expand...

They are comparable. You simply do not wish to recognize the comparison because you are against same sex couples, but not interracial couples. Being in an interracial relationship was not (and still isn't in plenty of places in this country) considered "normal". My own grandparents felt it was wrong. My best friend's grandmother (who raised and had custody of her) did not allow her to date black boys (in fact, if her grandmother had found out that she hung out with me and my black boyfriend during high school, she wouldn't have been allowed to hang out with me). I've even met many young people my age who feel such relationships are wrong. They have just as much of a right to their beliefs/opinions as you do. That is why we do not base rights on what people believe or how they feel, but rather determine laws/restrictions as constitutional or not on what furthers a legitimate state interest in a measurable/observable way. Neither race nor sex/gender restrictions on marriage further any state interest.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
What is wrong with behavior that harms no one else? Esp. a completely natural behavior for them? It's not like they are acting out intentionally. And most certainly, what business of the govt's should ever prohibit it or exclude it from the same rights and privileges of other Americans?
Click to expand...

That's where I disagree. IMO this isn't about equality at all. It's about pushing the envelope of normalcy and tearing down traditional morality and religion.

Also IMO traditioanl marriage is a sacrament from God, not a right.
 
WCH said:
Does it allow one activist judge the ability to speak for all of us? I think not.
Click to expand...

Actually, that would depend on how far people are willing to take their case/claim. It allows for a small group of judges to speak for all of us because that is part of their job, particularly when it comes to constitutional challenges.
 
WCH said:
That's where I disagree. IMO this isn't about equality at all. It's about pushing the envelope of normalcy and tearing down traditional morality and religion.
Click to expand...

That's your personal view. Many Americans do not share your view on morality OR religion. However no one else is trying to limit the rights and privileges of someone else.

You have demonstrated no harm to others or society at all. If *you* dont like gays in society, that is your hang up, but it demonstrates no harm.

Edit: btw, SSM does not tear down my religion, Christianity, at all. My faith is much stronger than allowing societal pressures to damage it. If that were the case, divorce, adultery, domestic violence, child abuse, etc would have done so long ago.)
 
Last edited:
WCH said:
That's where I disagree. IMO this isn't about equality at all. It's about pushing the envelope of normalcy and tearing down traditional morality and religion.

Also IMO traditioanl marriage is a sacrament from God, not a right.
Click to expand...

Tradition, morality, and normality, nor your religious beliefs (or anyone's for that matter) have a place in our laws.
 
WCH said:
That's where I disagree. IMO this isn't about equality at all. It's about pushing the envelope of normalcy and tearing down traditional morality and religion.

Also IMO traditioanl marriage is a sacrament from God, not a right.
Click to expand...

Your religion has nothing to do with it and this false notion that marriage has always meant one man and one woman is false as well.

Marriages purpose has evolved throughout time depending on many factors, location, social status, culture etc.

Many instances of same sex marriage have been observed in many cultures throughout history as well as men with multiple wives (which still exists), women with multiple husbands (which still exists), marriages were once used as a living, breathing peace treaty...

Marriage has never and will never belong exclusively to you or your ilk.
 
roguenuke said:
Tradition, morality, and normality, nor your religious beliefs (or anyone's for that matter) have a place in our laws.
Click to expand...
I think you're wrong but, sooner or later there will be a final butting of heads to decide.
 
WCH said:
Also IMO traditioanl marriage is a sacrament from God, not a right.
Click to expand...

Then why does our country allow atheists to marry? People from ALL other religions?

How about felons in jail, fornicators, adulterers, etc? All are allowed to marry and indulge in that 'sacrament from God.'

So it's obvious that marriage means different things to different people...yet they are allowed by law to use the term and have the privileges and benefits that go along with it.
 
I'm not going to draw pictures for you, it wouldn't help anyway.
Lursa said:
Unintelligible...which is par for the course for you....feel free to not bother. You obviously dont have anything to say.
Click to expand...
 
WCH said:
Well that's leaves us at an impasse.
Click to expand...

Yes...both are opinion-based only with regards as to the judicial decisions. I can see where they are based on the Constitution and civil rights. You do not.
 
sneakosview said:
I'm not going to draw pictures for you, it wouldn't help anyway.
Click to expand...

If you cannot post content directly related to the thread, save your fingers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom