• 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!

Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

Huh? Explain.

What changed? The whole idea of marriage that we have had since prior to the founding of this nation.

Of course it changed. It changed in a HUGE way....a woman is now an equal partner in a marriage, not chattel, not a servant to her husband, unable to own property, unable to leave if she chooses, no longer forced to endure his beatings, unable to refuse him sex, unable to retain custody of children, unable to refuse to be committed to a home for the insane, etc..

A woman's status in this country was examined by SCOTUS and determined that women are not 2nd class citizens, but are instead eligible for exactly the same rights as men, including in a marriage.

Did marriage and America collapse when that happened? No.

Well, SCOTUS is now examining issues regarding gays....and several states have already designated homosexuals as a protected class. Several states have already legalized SSM. Better pull on your big girl panties.....SSM will become the law of the land.
 
Only if they were of the same sex.

Why? You seemed to think procreation was integral to marriage. If that's the case, the infertile shouldn't marry because they cannot procreate.
 
And no matter how many times you wish otherwise, equal protection works a certain way. SCOTUS created the system, and SCOTUS applies it. You think that's not how it should work, but your opinion on what should be isn't exactly relevant to those nine people.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding about the constitutional issues here. You're starting with the 51% vote, and you think that is definitive. It isn't. The states and the people are both bound by the constitution. The 9th and 10th amendments give the states a lot of leeway, but in every case the people and the states are still bound by the 14th amendment in the same way they are bound by the 2nd or the 13th. No number of votes, no state constitutional amendment, and no amount of votes of a legislative body can reinstate slavery because the US constitution prevents it with the 13th amendment.

The 14th works the same way. States have all sorts of power to implement laws, as do the people via ballot measure if their state allows it. But in every case this is bound by the 14th, so the only relevant question here is whether or not same-sex marriage bans violate the 14th amendment. You keep saying the 14th doesn't specifically mention state interests and whatnot. That's entirely true, but it doesn't matter, because the Supreme Court of the United States says that this is how it works.

And that's why you are about to lose this battle before the Supreme Court, and same-sex marriage will be legal nationwide. I predict middle of 2015, based on how SCOTUS' schedule works. Could theoretically be later this year, but I doubt it.


-Property inheritance problems
-Child custody problems
-Medical power of attorney
-Compelled testimony against spouse in civil or criminal cases
-Confiscated social security/other death benefits

These are measures of harm.
Maybe, maybe not. If the SC invents something that doesn't work, if they piss enough of us off, enough people who think as I do, then I am sure they will become a bit more concerned about it. You see, they don't get to forge some silly rule then try to force it fit all cases, no matter what, thus upsetting the system... we do not have to stand for that. The society is ours, not the nine justices'.

You keep on bringing up apples and oranges arguments... of course the apple ones are winners, no denying them, but your 14th arguments are just plain stinkers and are not relevant like the 13th would be. The 14th doesn't just allow everybody everything, can't you get that through, how many times must this be said before you understand that?

If the SC missteps on this like they did in the Obamacare and the Kelo rulings, if they misstep on the current one on religious freedom... well, I think you will have enough disenchanted folks out here who will think the system is bankrupt and completely broken... at minimum civil disobedience will be the order of the day and we are gonna have a battle royale over the direction of this country that may go beyond just debate...

Lot of us out here are getting pretty damn fed up with all this beyond silly crap that you folks on the left keep shoveling...just expect us to somehow keep taking it all? I am telling you, keep heaping this malodorous excrement on the camels back, sometime soon its just gonna break.

Easy resolutions and such:

Make a will
SS Shouldn't have children in the first place
Medical power of atty, work out between the two beforehand
Don't get yourself into criminal civil problems... or don't involve your partner
Sorry about that... life ain't always fair... to anybody
 
Maybe, maybe not. If the SC invents something that doesn't work, if they piss enough of us off, enough people who think as I do, then I am sure they will become a bit more concerned about it. You see, they don't get to forge some silly rule then try to force it fit all cases, no matter what, thus upsetting the system... we do not have to stand for that. The society is ours, not the nine justices'.

You keep on bringing up apples and oranges arguments... of course the apple ones are winners, no denying them, but your 14th arguments are just plain stinkers and are not relevant like the 13th would be. The 14th doesn't just allow everybody everything, can't you get that through, how many times must this be said before you understand that?

If the SC missteps on this like they did in the Obamacare and the Kelo rulings, if they misstep on the current one on religious freedom... well, I think you will have enough disenchanted folks out here who will think the system is bankrupt and completely broken... at minimum civil disobedience will be the order of the day and we are gonna have a battle royale over the direction of this country that may go beyond just debate...

Lot of us out here are getting pretty damn fed up with all this beyond silly crap that you folks on the left keep shoveling...just expect us to somehow keep taking it all? I am telling you, keep heaping this malodorous excrement on the camels back, sometime soon its just gonna break.

Easy resolutions and such:

Make a will
SS Shouldn't have children in the first place
Medical power of atty, work out between the two beforehand
Don't get yourself into criminal civil problems... or don't involve your partner
Sorry about that... life ain't always fair... to anybody

translation you have no solutions

you understand that there is no substitute for marriage right? marriage grants about 1200 rights and protections at the federal level alone and some cant be duplicated any other way
your post fails again
 
To endorse the people to act like Nero seems ill fated to me. Taxpayers should be furious about their will being countermanded by a tyranny of the few.

We had a revolution about that.

No, the minority should be protected from the tyranny of the majority. You have it wrong.
 
SS Shouldn't have children in the first place

So you are just going to take away the children who are being raised by same sex couples and prohibit same sex couples from raising kids? I consider that evil. You not only lost any credibility in my eyes but have shown your true character.
 
Not when they are not allowed to do the same things other can do.

Why is not allowing to marry a person of the same gender part of it? Why should it remain so?

Apparently you do not understand how our society and Constitution work.

But they are denied what you take for granted and neither are you hurt in any way and you too will live.
They can do exactly what others can, just have to do it the way others do it as well.

Myriad reasons, most of all we just don't want that as being a part of our culture, our society. Second its unnatural, third its unnecessary, fourth allowing this deviance will open the floodgates to others, fifth...well, you get the point.

Oh I understand alright. The 50 plus% is not for all occasions as has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread earlier...but the fact of the matter is if you folks on that side have less than that percentage, well, we would not even consider changing our whole idea of marriage. Period.

Sorry, not good enough. We'll keep it that way it is, not broken so no need to fix it. Lots of people are denied lots of things. I want someone to just give me a yacht... lots of folks have them, why don't I get one too? And how about why do all the movie stars and rap artists get all the hotties, they just take if for granted, give me my share equal to theirs... I also want to play on an NBA team...
 
Why? You seemed to think procreation was integral to marriage. If that's the case, the infertile shouldn't marry because they cannot procreate.

It is hypocrisy. Pure and simple and nothing more.
 
Maybe, maybe not. If the SC invents something that doesn't work, if they piss enough of us off, enough people who think as I do, then I am sure they will become a bit more concerned about it. You see, they don't get to forge some silly rule then try to force it fit all cases, no matter what, thus upsetting the system... we do not have to stand for that. The society is ours, not the nine justices'.
They are the highest court in the land. If they say same-sex marriage is a constitutional right and must be legal nation-wide, that's the law. Precisely zero people are going to do anything about it. Nobody is going to war over this, and that's what it would take to reject a Supreme Court decision: toppling the US government.

You keep on bringing up apples and oranges arguments... of course the apple ones are winners, no denying them, but your 14th arguments are just plain stinkers and are not relevant like the 13th would be. The 14th doesn't just allow everybody everything, can't you get that through, how many times must this be said before you understand that?
You have been told numerous times that nobody is suggesting that everything goes under the 14th. Maybe this will help you realize it finally, because either you are missing these posts or you're literally not smart enough to understand them. Nobody says equal protection fits everything. You've been told what the test is. Not everything passes that test.
If the SC missteps on this like they did in the Obamacare and the Kelo rulings, if they misstep on the current one on religious freedom... well, I think you will have enough disenchanted folks out here who will think the system is bankrupt and completely broken... at minimum civil disobedience will be the order of the day and we are gonna have a battle royale over the direction of this country that may go beyond just debate...
Nobody is going to war over same-sex marriage. That's just fantasy.

Lot of us out here are getting pretty damn fed up with all this beyond silly crap that you folks on the left keep shoveling...just expect us to somehow keep taking it all? I am telling you, keep heaping this malodorous excrement on the camels back, sometime soon its just gonna break.
So do it already and quit talking about it. I am so tired of all these whiny right-wingers ranting for years about tyranny, socialism, communism, "2nd amendment remedies," and all that internet tough guy bull****. It's all talk, you are never going to do a thing. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. So step up or quit embarrassing yourselves. If you really thought this was tyranny, you'd have been fighting already.
 
Last edited:
Just making fun of your ridiculous implications about historical "same sex cultures."

You didn't respond to my legitimate questions about that point, so I figured you'd given up on it. So what's the harm in a little lampooning?
Funny, I have seen no legitimate questions, is there a hidden place here on the board is there? What is it of yours that I haven't already answered? Not complaining, but been a little swamped here with all the fuss budgets on your side getting their shorts and panties in a wad...so if I missed your post that actually had something worthwhile, I do apologize. I don't think I have missed anything of any import, though.
 
Would you care to explain that offensive idiotic remark?

I will lay it out for you in simple language.

There is no historical basis in the United States for prohibiting marriages that are incapable of creating biological offspring.

No state in the country has ever required a couple to possess the capacity or inclination to procreate as a prerequisite to marriage.

Sterility or infertility have never constituted legal grounds for the annulment of a marriage in any state in the United States.

No state has ever prohibited post-menopausal women or sterile men from marrying.

Inability to have a child has never been a ground of divorce in any state in the United States.

Your standard that same sex couples are excluded from marriage because of an inability to naturally procreate is based on nothing but ignorance because that is standard that has never been required of opposite sex couples by law in the United States and it is bigoted because you are intolerant of same sex couples even having children regardless of their ability to parent.

Does that clear it up for you?
 
Last edited:
Funny, I have seen no legitimate questions, is there a hidden place here on the board is there? What is it of yours that I haven't already answered? Not complaining, but been a little swamped here with all the fuss budgets on your side getting their shorts and panties in a wad...so if I missed your post that actually had something worthwhile, I do apologize. I don't think I have missed anything of any import, though.

Define "legitimate" Because I asked you a question you have yet to answer.
 
Oh hey it's the straw man again!

You support interracial marriage, therefore you support complete chaos, everything/anything goes, no matter how deviant, or gross, or pathetic, or sad.

"Be less than you can be." What, you're saying gay people are less than you?
Just responding to the inanity of your post, so sorry if it was off topic.

So you think support of interracial marriage means I am for chaos, well, I am sure that should be offensive to some out there.

Your powers of extrapolation appear to be a bit lacking there, old boy. Sorry to disappoint but no, that was not directed specifically at gay people. Had you somehow guessed the liberal philosophy followers, you would have gotten it right. Though most SSM advocates, many of whom I would assume to be gay, but could be straight, would generally fall into that category as well, one suspects.

Why? Does the shoe fit?
 
Just responding to the inanity of your post, so sorry if it was off topic.

So you think support of interracial marriage means I am for chaos, well, I am sure that should be offensive to some out there.

Your powers of extrapolation appear to be a bit lacking there, old boy. Sorry to disappoint but no, that was not directed specifically at gay people. Had you somehow guessed the liberal philosophy followers, you would have gotten it right. Though most SSM advocates, many of whom I would assume to be gay, but could be straight, would generally fall into that category as well, one suspects.

Why? Does the shoe fit?

Why does supporting same-sex marriage lead to chaos but supporting interracial marriage does not?

I only ask because exactly the same thing was said 50 years ago: "If you allow interracial marriage it will lead to people marrying children or dogs!"

Since you and those people use the same argument, I'm hoping you can clarify why your position is different from theirs.

Are you asking me if I'm gay?
 
Your idea of "keeping America strong" is no different then those that wanted interracial marriage banned.

Here's the facts in case you are not keeping score.

It is not illegal for gays to be a couple.
It is not illegal for gays to have sex.
It is not illegal for gays to raise children.
In some states, gays can now marry.

Now since NEITHER of those things are illegal, please tell me again why SSM should be?
Wow, what an frightfully poor analysis.

Why should I tell you again, I have written pages and pages and pages of why it should be... illegal.

You think because we are a tolerant nation, that because we have been flexible with this group, a group whose lifestyle includes things that many cannot even bear to take more than a few seconds to shutter thinking about what... see, I need to shove those thoughts away...so the fact that we have been so tolerant of allowing for gay coupling, allowed gay forms of sex to become legal, did not stop gays from going around the system to have children, the fact that some states now allow for gay marriage, that we have allowed all this and now there is a demand for more... that just, in your mind, should be a reason to just say YES...

How absurdly hilarious.
 
1.)They can do exactly what others can, just have to do it the way others do it as well.

2.)Myriad reasons, most of all we just don't want that as being a part of our culture, our society.
3.) Second its unnatural
4.), third its unnecessary
5.) fourth allowing this deviance will open the floodgates to others
6.) fifth...well, you get the point.
7.)Oh I understand alright. The 50 plus% is not for all occasions as has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread earlier...but the fact of the matter is if you folks on that side have less than that percentage, well, we would not even consider changing our whole idea of marriage. Period.
8.)Sorry, not good enough. We'll keep it that way it is, not broken so no need to fix it. Lots of people are denied lots of things. I want someone to just give me a yacht... lots of folks have them, why don't I get one too? 9.)And how about why do all the movie stars and rap artists get all the hotties, they just take if for granted, give me my share equal to theirs... I also want to play on an NBA team...

1.) false
2.) yes you have made it clear you dont want equal rights that meaningless
3.) as a blanket statement factually false
4.) equal rights is no necessary
5.) your opinion of deviance is meaningless to legal marriage and equal rights, not to mention PLEASE PLEASE explain what "floodgates" will be opened so we can all laugh at this fallacy
6.) yes the point is you have nothing
7.) another falsehood. While its a nice bonus that the majority of america supports equal rights its meanignless. Opinions dont matter to equal rights
8.) no need to be sorry because bigotry and discrimination (your sides) is losing to equality and rights, hence your frustration and anger.
9.) another thing that has nothing to do with rights. thank you for further proving how extremely uneducated you are on this topic and making analogies that are silly and pure entertainment.

this is hilarious i could do this all night

your post fails again
 
Wow, what an frightfully poor analysis.

Why should I tell you again, I have written pages and pages and pages of why it should be... illegal.

You think because we are a tolerant nation, that because we have been flexible with this group, a group whose lifestyle includes things that many cannot even bear to take more than a few seconds to shutter thinking about what... see, I need to shove those thoughts away...so the fact that we have been so tolerant of allowing for gay coupling, allowed gay forms of sex to become legal, did not stop gays from going around the system to have children, the fact that some states now allow for gay marriage, that we have allowed all this and now there is a demand for more... that just, in your mind, should be a reason to just say YES...

How absurdly hilarious.

no, you havent, you havent provide one accurate and logical reason lol not one
yes your posts are absurdly hilarious indeed. Poster after poster continue to destroy them all.
 
Wow, what an frightfully poor analysis.

Why should I tell you again, I have written pages and pages and pages of why it should be... illegal.

You think because we are a tolerant nation, that because we have been flexible with this group, a group whose lifestyle includes things that many cannot even bear to take more than a few seconds to shutter thinking about what... see, I need to shove those thoughts away...so the fact that we have been so tolerant of allowing for gay coupling, allowed gay forms of sex to become legal, did not stop gays from going around the system to have children, the fact that some states now allow for gay marriage, that we have allowed all this and now there is a demand for more... that just, in your mind, should be a reason to just say YES...

How absurdly hilarious.

In other words, you have NOTHING. You cannot show LEGALLY why it should be illegal here in America. Hey I hear Iran is more to your liking, maybe you should move there. They even put Gays to death there which is more to your liking. You have more in common with Iranian governmen than Americans. I'm sure you even blame 9/11 on gays.
 
So then procreation has nothing to do with marriage, you are admitting that finally?
Finally? I have discussed previously what marriage is for and one of the main reasons is for protecting children that are, yes, created through the act of procreation that can only, besides in-vitro or cloning, be accomplished by opposite sex couplings. Marriage does not specifically require procreation, just the general likelihood of the ability to procreate.

That was a shocker I am sure.
 
1.)Finally? I have discussed previously what marriage is for and one of the main reasons is for protecting children that are, yes, created through the act of procreation that can only, besides in-vitro or cloning, be accomplished by opposite sex couplings. Marriage does not specifically require procreation, just the general likelihood of the ability to procreate.

That was a shocker I am sure.

yes you have given your meaningless opinion but havent tied it to facts, rights or law. Think you can do that? without doing so your posts will continue to fail.
We have been waiting for pages for you to provide one legitimate,logical and factually based reason to fight against it, your posts have failed everytime.

Let us know when this changes.
 
Finally? I have discussed previously what marriage is for and one of the main reasons is for protecting children that are, yes, created through the act of procreation that can only, besides in-vitro or cloning, be accomplished by opposite sex couplings. Marriage does not specifically require procreation, just the general likelihood of the ability to procreate.

That was a shocker I am sure.

Move to Iran, they are more to your liking. They have the same values in Freedom as YOU do.
 
Finally? I have discussed previously what marriage is for and one of the main reasons is for protecting children that are, yes, created through the act of procreation that can only, besides in-vitro or cloning, be accomplished by opposite sex couplings. Marriage does not specifically require procreation, just the general likelihood of the ability to procreate.

That was a shocker I am sure.

And then are the children of gay couples less worthy of protection? They exist, thru natural reproduction, thru surrogacy, thru IV, thru adoption....do they not deserve the protection that marriage affords straight families?

Because gay couples do desire families just as much as straight couples...and have them. Legalizing SSM wont change that...it will only provide more protections for families, kids. Gays arent going to stop having families......
 
Finally? I have discussed previously what marriage is for and one of the main reasons is for protecting children that are, yes, created through the act of procreation that can only, besides in-vitro or cloning, be accomplished by opposite sex couplings. Marriage does not specifically require procreation, just the general likelihood of the ability to procreate.

That was a shocker I am sure.

Infertile couples have a zero percent chance of procreating. So infertile couples can't get married under your views, right?
 
Of course it changed. It changed in a HUGE way....a woman is now an equal partner in a marriage, not chattel, not a servant to her husband, unable to own property, unable to leave if she chooses, no longer forced to endure his beatings, unable to refuse him sex, unable to retain custody of children, unable to refuse to be committed to a home for the insane, etc..

A woman's status in this country was examined by SCOTUS and determined that women are not 2nd class citizens, but are instead eligible for exactly the same rights as men, including in a marriage.

Did marriage and America collapse when that happened? No.

Well, SCOTUS is now examining issues regarding gays....and several states have already designated homosexuals as a protected class. Several states have already legalized SSM. Better pull on your big girl panties.....SSM will become the law of the land.
Did all that you quote about women change them into something other than the gender they were? They were still marrying the opposite gender, men... so, marriage didn't change, women changed a bit, but they were sill women marrying men... no biggie.

Yes, well, truthfully I have seen some of your astute analyses prior. I think I'll just comfortably wait for the real decision, thank you very much.
 
Back
Top Bottom