• 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

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?

equal rights is winning and the anti posts in these threads prove that. So much fear, hate, panic and or anger is being inspired in those that oppose equal rights for gays its funny and reassuring. The writing is on the wall and everybody sees it. My guess is at the longest it will take till 2017.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

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.

Um, I get that from our marriage laws.

Marriage laws currently allow a man to enter into a legal contract with a woman and become married to her.

This is something, legally, a woman is unable to do. She can't enter into a legal contract with a woman and become married to her.

This is a contractual, under the law, that a man is able to do that a women is prohibited from doing.

At best, it's "seperate but equal", which has been established to be an unconstitutional method of attepmting to circumvent equal protection.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Now run along.

still nothing huh?
please let us know when you have ANY facts that support your failed claims, heck let us know when you have ONE fact that supports your failed claim. We'd love to tread it, thank you.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Then why do states still have these laws?

Because states routinely have laws that are counter to the constitution. That is, in part, why we have the Federal Court System established.

It would not be as necessary if states or the federal government just never had unconstitutional laws passed. But that's not the case.

Is your argument seriously that because a law is on the books it's constitutional? Despite the mountain of evidence highlighting SCOTUS cases documenting where a state had a law, sometimes even a long standing law, and it was over turned becuase it was unconstitutional?
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

a poll also asked:

"Do you think businesses should or should not be allowed to refuse service to gays and lesbians?"

Should 16%

Should not 81%

Unsure 3%

Civil Rights
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

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?

There's simply no integrity in the debate to begin with. We've just heaped a new definition on a word that already had a definition. It's like deciding that English is the same language as Russian. You can say it, or pass a law declaring it, but that doesn't make it so. That's where our system has lost any sense of integrity.

This whole thing is simply about votes and political power. Nothing more. Otherwise this would have been changed sometime in the past 3,000 years or so.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Yes there is. Equal protection clause.


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.


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?




No, you are blocking peoples' rights based on emotions.


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

They have the same rights under the current laws as everyone else.
Can I leave my property to my dog? Sure i can. I dont need a legal contract to get married and neither do gays unless i want something from the state
The definition of having to be the same race was not universal in fact it was the exception

I dont want to block anyones rights. Im a Libertarian. What part of get government out of the marriage business escapes you? Let anyone marry anyone and anything they like. It wont effect me. If your going to do it go all the way. Of course marriage wont mean much anymore but then again its been all down hill since progressives introduced no fault divorce
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

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.

That's why I mentioned activists.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

There's simply no integrity in the debate to begin with. We've just heaped a new definition on a word that already had a definition. It's like deciding that English is the same language as Russian. You can say it, or pass a law declaring it, but that doesn't make it so. That's where our system has lost any sense of integrity.

This whole thing is simply about votes and political power. Nothing more. Otherwise this would have been changed sometime in the past 3,000 years or so.

Back to the argument of semantics.

A gender-based distinction is subject to an equal protection challenge. I'm sorry you hate the 14th amendment so much, but it exists and there's nothing you can do about it.

Next you'll repeat the nonsense about equal protection being expandable to any situation. Which is wrong, and you know it's wrong, but you'll say it anyway. Why not just move along.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

The goal of gay people is to have you pay for their marriage? :confused:

That target hasn't been defined yet, we'll see.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Let anyone marry anyone and anything they like. It wont effect me. If your going to do it go all the way.

2005 is calling. It wants its anti-ssm arguments back. I've already addressed this silly slippery slope argument.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Thank you for your opinion. As it's not an actual argument, however, you've given me nothing to respond to.

Perfectly fine.

Know this. No one, ever, in the history of this forum or any other, has ever changed their opinion based on these meaningless exchanges on the internet anyway. And my side of this has few that care to even bother, while your side pretty much lives on these sites 24/7. I'm in unfriendly territory every time I peak into this digitally socialist baby shower of a chat room.

We're all just practicing our typing skills and refining our grammatical prowess. Nothing more.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

still nothing huh?
please let us know when you have ANY facts that support your failed claims, heck let us know when you have ONE fact that supports your failed claim. We'd love to tread it, thank you.

Yawn.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

That target hasn't been defined yet, we'll see.

And it hasn't been defined yet if gay people are all secretly lizard people.

We'll see...
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Um, I get that from our marriage laws.

Marriage laws currently allow a man to enter into a legal contract with a woman and become married to her.

This is something, legally, a woman is unable to do. She can't enter into a legal contract with a woman and become married to her.

This is a contractual, under the law, that a man is able to do that a women is prohibited from doing.

At best, it's "seperate but equal", which has been established to be an unconstitutional method of attepmting to circumvent equal protection.


A man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man . Both have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex

Men and women are inherently separate but equal
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Perfectly fine.

Know this. No one, ever, in the history of this forum or any other, has ever changed their opinion based on these meaningless exchanges on the internet anyway.

I have, when it's been demonstrated to me that my opinions couldn't be supported by a good argument. So that's one, at least.

And my side of this has few that care to even bother, while your side pretty much lives on these sites 24/7. I'm in unfriendly territory every time I peak into this digitally socialist baby shower of a chat room.

We're all just practicing our typing skills and refining our grammatical prowess. Nothing more.

Persecution complex, nothing more.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

They have the same rights under the current laws as everyone else.
Ridiculous. Every McDonald's customer is not a murderer.
Can I leave my property to my dog? Sure i can.
No, you can't. You can leave your property to a human being in a trust to be used to take care of the dog. The dog does not actually own the property.

I dont need a legal contract to get married and neither do gays unless i want something from the state
True, but not relevant to this discussion. The state is barring gays from getting some of those benefits, in violation of the 14th amendment.

The definition of having to be the same race was not universal in fact it was the exception
Between a man and a woman isn't universal either.
I dont want to block anyones rights. Im a Libertarian. What part of get government out of the marriage business escapes you?
You're full of it. You absolutely do want to block someones' rights. You're hiding it behind this libertarian nonsense because you know the other arguments failed. You never, ever, even once expressed the idea that the government should "get out of marriage" until it became obvious that same-sex marriage was definitely going to happen.

Let anyone marry anyone and anything they like. It wont effect me.
Correct. Same-sex marriage does not affect you, and therefore should be legal. While the government can constitutionally eliminate all marriages, you know as well as everyone else that this isn't going to happen. As long as the government recognizes marriage, it must do so in accordance with the 14th amendment, which precludes a gender-based distinction in absence of an important state interest.

If your going to do it go all the way. Of course marriage wont mean much anymore but then again its been all down hill since progressives introduced no fault divorce
See? This is how I know your libertarianism is bull****. An actual libertarian wouldn't be spitting out the social conservative rhetoric like this. An actual libertarian would recognize that the people have the right to dissolve a contract they created.

You aren't a libertarian. Stop lying to yourself, and stop lying to me.
 
Last edited:
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Even if it's "changing" the definition of a man made social construct...so? That's fine if you want to whine, bitch, and complain about that...but that's not a constitutional argument against the notion that our current laws are unconstitutional. Nor is it the first time we've changed the definition of a man made social construct in the law. Being of "voting age" at one time meant you were over 21, later the definition was changed to mean someone over 18, as an example.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage


another deflection and facts are still wining
do you have anything new to post that hasn't been destroyed yet?
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

An oldie but a goodie:

It's time to play: "Is this argument against interracial marriage or same sex marriage?" (Applause)

"They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage."

This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."

State legislators spoke out against such an "abominable" type of relationship, warning that it will eventually "pollute" America.

“It not only is a complete undermining of ... the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down ... It literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”

This type of marriage is not allowed "because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

This type of marriage is "regarded as unnatural and immoral."

This type of relationship is "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce." Such marriages would lead to "a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

"Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says [this marriage should not occur], the whole plan of God as He has dealt with [humanity] down through the ages indicates that [this] marriage is not best for man."

"A little-reported fact is that [these types of relationships] are far more violent than are [insert single-race or heterosexual] households."

"I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist submitted to the court. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."

We'll return with the answers...after these messages!
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Because states routinely have laws that are counter to the constitution. That is, in part, why we have the Federal Court System established.

It would not be as necessary if states or the federal government just never had unconstitutional laws passed. But that's not the case.

Is your argument seriously that because a law is on the books it's constitutional? Despite the mountain of evidence highlighting SCOTUS cases documenting where a state had a law, sometimes even a long standing law, and it was over turned becuase it was unconstitutional?


If SCOTUS has declared it unconstitutional how do most states still have these laws?


Also the civil war was fought over nullification. The idea that the states had the right to nullify what they saw as unconstitutional federal laws. Marriage is the province of the individual states not the federal government.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

A man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man . Both have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex

So basically, seperate but equal.

Which case law shows is unconstitutional.

Thank you for making my own argument for me.

Under the law a Man can do something a woman can not do...marry a woman. This is gender discrimination. To be constitutional, one must demonstrate an important state interest that said discrimination is substantively related to serving.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

another deflection and facts are still wining
do you have anything new to post that hasn't been destroyed yet?

No, continue on with your little forum circle jerk. That's the MO around here.

I don't need distorted semantics to tell me what marriage is, and has been, for 5,000 years.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

A man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man . Both have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex

Men and women are inherently separate but equal

"A black can marry a black and a white can marry a white

Blacks and whites are inherently separate but equal."
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Persecution complex, nothing more.

No, my side is just at work.

Now, I've got to get on a plane. Have fun.
 
Back
Top Bottom