• 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!

Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162:334]

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

No one invents reasons to devalue the plights of other people like the conservatives.

You think this is over, it's not. They will find a way to get money out of this, it's not just about the right to do something....it never is. Most gays will probably get married and that'll be the end of it......but not for the activists, because they're in the victimhood business; and business is good.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

You think this is over, it's not. They will find a way to get money out of this, it's not just about the right to do something....it never is. Most gays will probably get married and that'll be the end of it......but not for the activists, because they're in the victimhood business; and business is good.

That is what I see here and gay marriage has been been legal for almost a decade.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

What a bunch of overstated, self-absorbed, codependent psychobabble.

They're not "barred". You can't be barred from something that can't be by basic definition. We're twisting the definition of a word to placate them so they can play pretend. Nothing more. Doesn't change what real marriage is.

And with that, I've spent WAY too much time on this ridiculous subject the past 24 hours. Hasta la vista.

Literally arguing semantics. That's how you know your side is losing. :lamo
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

We are reaching a serious low in this country when we don't know the difference between good and evil.

Hyperbolic twaddle!
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

That is what I see here and gay marriage has been been legal for almost a decade.

Maybe in Canada, don't know. But just like abortion, it starts out as a fight for the right to do something. But it doesn't end there, then the fight moves to the next level where you try to make other people pay for it.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

That is clearly unconstitutional as they are using race.

Except it wasn't "clearly" unconstitutional. It had been going on for decades upon decades prior to Loving. If it was so "clear" the laws wouldn't have even been on the books.

Is homosexuality now a race?

No, it's not.

It doesn't have to be though. The Equal Protection Clause doesn't cover just race.

Additionally, there was a time when Race wasn't viewed as protected under the constitution either.

Furthermore, as I already noted, "traditional" marriage can be argued as being unconstitutional of the grounds of Gender Discrimination.

Under our current laws a Man can legally enter into a contract with people a woman can't, and vise versa.

Can I tell you are homosexual just by looking at you?

You could theoritically guess, but no not really. You can't look at me and tell me exactly what age I am, but age discrimination is protected constitutionally to a certian degree. You can't look at me and tell me what religion I am just by looking at me. Yet that is protected just as equally as race under the law.

Is discrimination in any form unconstitutional?

Absolutely not. It's perfectly okay for the Government to discriminate against people as long as it meets the necessary criteria established through case law as it relates to the Equal Protection Clause. If the state can justify before the courts that the discrimination fits the required level of necessitiy and importance as it relates to the classification in question, then they can discrminate as they see fit. If they can't make said argument convincingly, then they can't discriminate in that fashion.

Do you even have to love someone to marry them?

Nope, you don't. You'll never see me arguing about the legalities of marriage based on "love". I think that's far and away one of the weakest arguments and one that invites the most obvious attempts to circumvent the argument.

To me it's been a simple matter of constitutional standards. The laws we have on the books are not substantly related to serving an important state interest as it relates to their discrimination on the basis of gender, and thus are not constitutional.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

As your arguments fail, it's irrelevant that you think so.



In order to understand the silliness of the slippery slope route, you have to back up:

"Once they allow people of different nationalities to marry, they'll be allowed to marry their table."
"Once they allow people of different religious faiths to marry, they'll be allowed to marry their table."
"Once they allow people of different races to marry, they'l etc. etc."

So if you're going to make the slipper slope argument, remember to start at the top of the slope.

There is no way the marriage laws are against the US constitution.

Next is to allow people to marry different species. All the groups you mentioned fit the laws of most states. The law was very simple and made sense. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Anyone who fits this category should be allowed to marry. At this point even incest is not a problem as our gene pools have become so varied. Now you want to add a whole new class based on emotions.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Maybe in Canada, don't know. But just like abortion, it starts out as a fight for the right to do something. But it doesn't end there, then the fight moves to the next level where you try to make other people pay for it.

Our activists have turned to condemning Arizona. We had the abortion fight a while ago and so far it has stayed dead.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Maybe in Canada, don't know. But just like abortion, it starts out as a fight for the right to do something. But it doesn't end there, then the fight moves to the next level where you try to make other people pay for it.

The goal of gay people is to have you pay for their marriage? :confused:
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

nope they are both equal rights and civil rights issues as pointed out in judge rulings :shrug:

also not only is your assessment wrong but so is your example/analogy

might want to look up the word war
two different examples for dictionaries
webster
b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces
google
a state of competition, conflict, or hostility between different people or groups.
"she was at war with her parents"

so those using war like you described, yes, yes they are using the word correctly
you're welcome, glad i could help out

You're so institutionally brainwashed with this topic, I'll just pass on the banter, pat you on the head, and ask you to run along. Good day.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Literally arguing semantics. That's how you know your side is losing. :lamo

Losing? You don't even understand the discussion. It's not even categorically debatable.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Except it wasn't "clearly" unconstitutional. It had been going on for decades upon decades prior to Loving. If it was so "clear" the laws wouldn't have even been on the books.



No, it's not.

It doesn't have to be though. The Equal Protection Clause doesn't cover just race.

Additionally, there was a time when Race wasn't viewed as protected under the constitution either.

Furthermore, as I already noted, "traditional" marriage can be argued as being unconstitutional of the grounds of Gender Discrimination.

Under our current laws a Man can legally enter into a contract with people a woman can't, and vise versa.



You could theoritically guess, but no not really. You can't look at me and tell me exactly what age I am, but age discrimination is protected constitutionally to a certian degree. You can't look at me and tell me what religion I am just by looking at me. Yet that is protected just as equally as race under the law.



Absolutely not. It's perfectly okay for the Government to discriminate against people as long as it meets the necessary criteria established through case law as it relates to the Equal Protection Clause. If the state can justify before the courts that the discrimination fits the required level of necessitiy and importance as it relates to the classification in question, then they can discrminate as they see fit. If they can't make said argument convincingly, then they can't discriminate in that fashion.



Nope, you don't. You'll never see me arguing about the legalities of marriage based on "love". I think that's far and away one of the weakest arguments and one that invites the most obvious attempts to circumvent the argument.

To me it's been a simple matter of constitutional standards. The laws we have on the books are not substantly related to serving an important state interest as it relates to their discrimination on the basis of gender, and thus are not constitutional.


Now its gender discrimination what a joke. Again I want the state out of marriage and no one should be rewarded by the government for getting married.
And where do you get this

Under our current laws a Man can legally enter into a contract with people a woman can't, and vise versa.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

There is no way the marriage laws are against the US constitution.
Demonstrably untrue, and I've already pointed out the why of it to you.

Next is to allow people to marry different species. All the groups you mentioned fit the laws of most states. The law was very simple and made sense. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Anyone who fits this category should be allowed to marry. At this point even incest is not a problem as our gene pools have become so varied. Now you want to add a whole new class based on emotions.

Only if you consider the change to marry outside of the tribe, then outside the nation, then outside the faith, and finally to marry outside your race as "based on emotions."
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

You think this is over, it's not. They will find a way to get money out of this, it's not just about the right to do something....it never is. Most gays will probably get married and that'll be the end of it......but not for the activists, because they're in the victimhood business; and business is good.

Even if that's the case, I don't see that as a reason to combat it.

"Activists" on EVERY side do this, and it drives me crazy. From Gun Nuts to Environmentalist Whackos, activists NEED controversy to fuel their incessent need for attention, power, self fulfillment, and wealth.

Annoyance or problems with activists are never a reason in my mind to necessarily oppose or be upset with a generalized notion.

You pretty much look at every movement. Once they reach their initial goal and seemingly succeed it weakens a bit and then those desperately trying to cling to relevancy and power have ot make it out that succeeding at what they wanted wasn't success and must constantly be creating the impression of a situation hanging on a knife's edge.

I get the annoyance with that; I just don't think it's anything to really go off of OTHER than feeling annoyed at activists.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

There is no way the marriage laws are against the US constitution.

Next is to allow people to marry different species. All the groups you mentioned fit the laws of most states. The law was very simple and made sense. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Anyone who fits this category should be allowed to marry. At this point even incest is not a problem as our gene pools have become so varied. Now you want to add a whole new class based on emotions.

LMAO
theres no faster way for a post to fail then to equate gays fighting for equal rights to bestiality or marrying other species, its an instant hyperbolic, dishonest failure that nobody honest and educated will ever buy or take seriously

thank you
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

The arguments are the same, which is why challenges to bans on gay marriage based on the 14th amendments are equally successful as the challenge to laws against interracial marriage.

It's all based on politics and make believe. Surely you don't consider the current evolution of our legal system or government to have serious intellectual integrity anymore.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

There is no way the marriage laws are against the US constitution.
Yes there is. Equal protection clause.

Next is to allow people to marry different species.
Slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy for a reason. Animals and children cannot enter legal contracts. If you're so interested in marrying your dog, you're free to start lobbying to allow animals to enter into legal contracts.

All the groups you mentioned fit the laws of most states. The law was very simple and made sense. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Anyone who fits this category should be allowed to marry.
Appeal to tradition fallacy. The definition used to be one man and one woman of the same race. Don't even get me started on the early biblical versions of marriage! How many wives and concubines did Solomon have?

At this point even incest is not a problem as our gene pools have become so varied. Now you want to add a whole new class based on emotions.
No, you are blocking peoples' rights based on emotions.
You're so institutionally brainwashed with this topic, I'll just pass on the banter, pat you on the head, and ask you to run along. Good day.

You said you were leaving the thread because you'd spent too much time here. Now you're demanding other people leave. That's even more desperate than your earlier argument of semantics. :lamo
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Cardinal;1063002921[B said:
]Demonstrably untrue, and I've already pointed out the why of it to you.
[/B]


Only if you consider the change to marry outside of the tribe, then outside the nation, then outside the faith, and finally to marry outside your race as "based on emotions."

Then why do states still have these laws?
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

You're so institutionally brainwashed with this topic, I'll just pass on the banter, pat you on the head, and ask you to run along. Good day.

Translation:

you have no accurate, factual or logical path to take to defend your factually proven wrong claims so you are deflection.
thanks for playing, facts win again.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

It's all based on politics and make believe. Surely you don't consider the current evolution of our legal system or government to have serious intellectual integrity anymore.

Gay people actually do exist and actually do want to be treated equally under the law. Sorry to burst your bubble, it's not "make believe." You talk about intellectual integrity, but you aren't responding to the intellectual arguments about how equal protection challenges work. Why is that?
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Now its gender discrimination

Actually, it's been Gender Discrimination in my eyes for multiple years and I've been saying such on this forum.

what a joke.

If it's such a joke put forward and argument against it. Otherwise, it seems you're just flippantly dismissing it because you have no counter.

Again I want the state out of marriage and no one should be rewarded by the government for getting married.

All well and good. I'm actually an advocate of abolishing the term "marriage" from the law and simply having "civil unions" rule the day across the board, allowing any two individuals of legal age and not already engaged in such a contract to enter into it.

However, that's IRRELEVANT to the notion of whether or not the CURRENT laws are unconstitutional or not. What laws you may want to happen doesn't change what's there currently.

Whether or not you think the current laws are constitutional or unconstitutional has nothing to do with whether you want the laws to be abolished entirely, unless your suggestion is that marriage as a government recognized entity is in and of itself unconstitutional.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

It's all based on politics and make believe. Surely you don't consider the current evolution of our legal system or government to have serious intellectual integrity anymore.

Thank you for your opinion. As it's not an actual argument, however, you've given me nothing to respond to.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Then why do states still have these laws?

Why did states still have interracial marriage bans in 1967?
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Then why do states still have these laws?

Because they have not yet been challenged in court or have not yet been repealed by their respective legislatures. Why did states who had those laws no longer have them?
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Translation:

you have no accurate, factual or logical path to take to defend your factually proven wrong claims so you are deflection.
thanks for playing, facts win again.

Now run along.
 
Back
Top Bottom