• 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]

Henrin said:
It's a government contract that was crafted by the state that permits those that have it to have access to government benefits. A private contract is crafted by those parties involved and the state doesn't grant those involved anything except the enforcement of the contract.
Click to expand...

Which is even more reason it must comply with equal protection. Gender is a protected classification.
 
roguenuke said:
ALL federal court rulings, particularly those made on Constitutional matters are a matter of public record. There is no excuse with the internet to not know about a ruling made on an issue you care about. Especially if it is made by the SCOTUS, since you can simply check their website for rulings they have made over the years. Sure it takes time, but if it is an important issue to you, you will check it out.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I will be sure to tell people that.


And if the people have a major issue with these things, they can get together and work to pass an Amendment that ensures that these are protected. All rights are subject to some restrictions based on being able to show a legitimate state interest is protected by doing so or someone else's rights are being protected, even freedoms of religion, speech, press, gun ownership, etc.
Click to expand...

Oh for god sakes, not this state interest bull**** again. That is just a concept made up by the courts to expand government power. We're done talking after that.
 
Henrin said:
Yeah, I will be sure to tell people that.




Oh for god sakes, not this state interest bull**** again. That is just a concept made up by the courts. We're done talking after that.
Click to expand...

It's how equal protection works in this country. Feel free to move to a different one.
 
Deuce said:
It's how equal protection works in this country. Feel free to move to a different one.
Click to expand...

Where does it stay anything about restricting the rights of people because of a state interest? Have fun with that.
 
Deuce said:
Which is even more reason it must comply with equal protection. Gender is a protected classification.
Click to expand...

?? What now?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...

Where does it say anything about gender?
 
Henrin said:
Where does it stay anything about restricting the rights of people because of a state interest? Have fun with that.
Click to expand...

Where does the constitution say one person can vote to restrict the rights of another?
 
Deuce said:
Where does the constitution say one person can vote to restrict the rights of another?
Click to expand...

Who is doing that? How does your random comment answer my question?
 
Henrin said:
Who is doing that? How does your random comment answer my question?
Click to expand...

Every single person who ever voted against same sex marriage.
 
Deuce said:
A century's worth of case law that you choose to ignore.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so how do you defend this case law when the amendment in question clearly doesn't mention gender?
 
Deuce said:
Every single person who ever voted against same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

They voted against government marriage, so that isn't exactly voting against peoples rights. To do that they would have to vote against marriage, not government marriage.
 
tecoyah said:
I see...so we can extrapolate the short term current effects from the long term historical culture of slavery.

I will easily agree current law will change over time, as it always does. I will also point out however, that dramatic cultural change is an entirely different animal in both timeframe and scope. The only correlation I can see here would be the shift in our culture to increased personal freedom, which points also to my point being correct.
Click to expand...
Being forced to accept deviance as being normal is not my idea of increased personal freedom.

I also do not agree that a judge's dictates correlate to more personal freedom by more individuals, by sheer numbers or percentage wise. I see that as being what it is, a tyranny of the minority over the majority.
 
Henrin said:
When have I even hinted at caring about gays, let alone not liking them? There is very little about this issue that involves freedom, and no, the people actually don't desire freedom. Most people desire safety, which calls for the restriction of freedom.
Click to expand...

I suppose then....we have differing opinions.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
1.)Being forced to accept deviance as being normal is not my idea of increased personal freedom.
2.)I also do not agree that a judge's dictates correlate to more personal freedom by more individuals, by sheer numbers or percentage wise. I see that as being what it is, a tyranny of the minority over the majority.
Click to expand...

1.) good thing nobody is being forced to "accept" anything so your idea fails on many levels
2.) this also isnt happening, there is ZERO tyranny of the minority over the majority here LOL where do you come up with this stuff
 
Henrin said:
Yeah, so how do you defend this case law when the amendment in question clearly doesn't mention gender?
Click to expand...

The case law defends itself quite nicely. If you have a particular point of contention, post the judicial decision and tell me what your objection is.

Henrin said:
They voted against government marriage, so that isn't exactly voting against peoples rights. To do that they would have to vote against marriage, not government marriage.
Click to expand...

Well it's equal protection under the law, so "government marriage" is what we're talking about here, yes. Your church can refuse to call a same-sex union "marriage," nobody really cares. But voting against someone's right to have the government recognize that union is different.
 
Deuce said:
Slippery slope fallacy. Pathetic.
Click to expand...
So why are you even arguing then, its never gonna slip back to being normal is it? I mean, where normal people acted in normal ways... so quit fighting man, follow your own preaching. You push the idea that slopes never get slippery, ever... do they?

I mean, nobody ever gradually gets into drug addiction, right? That would just be using a fallacious slippery slope argument. So drug addiction, alcohol addiction, cigarette addiction...everybody goes in full tilt, you either take a lot/drink/smoke a lot...or don't do anything at all, ever...right?

Just plain silliness from a side that cannot answer the question, so why not use a meme in place of thought, eh?

What is pathetic is being controlled by such a silly idea. So, now that you have in-artfully attempted the dodge, answer the question, please. Where and how will we draw any lines in the future as regards marriage? Feel free to use the 14th Amendment to assist in your endeavors.

Dunno? Of course not, there is little, if any, logic to that perspective.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
1.)So why are you even arguing then, its never gonna slip back to being normal is it? I mean, where normal people acted in normal ways... so quit fighting man, follow your own preaching. You push the idea that slopes never get slippery, ever... do they?

2.)I mean, nobody ever gradually gets into drug addiction, right? That would just be using a fallacious slippery slope argument. So drug addiction, alcohol addiction, cigarette addiction...everybody goes in full tilt, you either take a lot/drink/smoke a lot...or don't do anything at all, ever...right?

3.)Just plain silliness from a side that cannot answer the question, so why not use a meme in place of thought, eh?

4.)What is pathetic is being controlled by such a silly idea. So, now that you have in-artfully attempted the dodge, answer the question, please.
5.) Where and how will we draw any lines in the future as regards marriage?
6.) Feel free to use the 14th Amendment to assist in your endeavors.

7.) Dunno? Of course not, there is little, if any, logic to that perspective.
Click to expand...

1.) what nomal are you talkgin about
equality is normality and it will be there soon

2.) drug addition =/= to equality for gays this is one of the most asinine failed analogy ever

3.) yes your example was plain silly and you are the only one that hasnt answered yet

4.) thats what YOU did in post 108, total dodge of the question, and it majorly failed now you are trying to spin it and that is failing also

5.) what ines are you talking about this is what you havent answered, the lines are RIGHTS, those lines are already drawn

6.) people are this is why equality is winning

7.) correct theres no logic in your failed slippery slope argument
 
shrubnose said:
Some people do find tolerance scary.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
Click to expand...
Could one imagine being forced to tolerate allowing a convicted child molester to baby sit one's children? But, under the indistinct banner of tolerance you are waving, one could easily make the case that they should tolerate such nonsense.

Would be hoist on their own petard, wouldn't they? Its like wanting wind energy, but not wanting those big wind turbines in their own backyard...you know, messing up the view and killing all the birds.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
So why are you even arguing then, its never gonna slip back to being normal is it? I mean, where normal people acted in normal ways... so quit fighting man, follow your own preaching. You push the idea that slopes never get slippery, ever... do they?

I mean, nobody ever gradually gets into drug addiction, right? That would just be using a fallacious slippery slope argument. So drug addiction, alcohol addiction, cigarette addiction...everybody goes in full tilt, you either take a lot/drink/smoke a lot...or don't do anything at all, ever...right?

Just plain silliness from a side that cannot answer the question, so why not use a meme in place of thought, eh?

What is pathetic is being controlled by such a silly idea. So, now that you have in-artfully attempted the dodge, answer the question, please. Where and how will we draw any lines in the future as regards marriage? Feel free to use the 14th Amendment to assist in your endeavors.

Dunno? Of course not, there is little, if any, logic to that perspective.
Click to expand...

If we have to allow heterosexual marriage, we have to allow heterosexual child marriage, right? Where does your tradition end?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Could one imagine being forced to tolerate allowing a convicted child molester to baby sit one's children? But, under the indistinct banner of tolerance you are waving, one could easily make the case that they should tolerate such nonsense.

Would be hoist on their own petard, wouldn't they? Its like wanting wind energy, but not wanting those big wind turbines in their own backyard...you know, messing up the view and killing all the birds.
Click to expand...

Discrimination is allowed if you can show a legitimate purpose for doing so. There is a legitimate purpose in denying people who are convicted child molestors from being around children. There is no legitimate purpose to denying marriage to same sex couples. One if to protect children the other is merely for beliefs about sin or abnormality or maintaining tradition.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
1.)Could one imagine being forced to tolerate allowing a convicted child molester to baby sit one's children? But, under the indistinct banner of tolerance you are waving, one could easily make the case that they should tolerate such nonsense.

2.)Would be hoist on their own petard, wouldn't they? Its like wanting wind energy, but not wanting those big wind turbines in their own backyard...you know, messing up the view and killing all the birds.
Click to expand...

1.) LMAO now you are just making stuff up, allowing gays equal rights has nothing to do with FORCE or makign you leav your kids with those you do not wish. That post is just plain dishonety or topical ignorance, pick one.
2.) since 1 was factually false this analogy fails too
 
Deuce said:
The case law defends itself quite nicely. If you have a particular point of contention, post the judicial decision and tell me what your objection is.
Click to expand...

Then use it to defend your case. I have already shown that gender is not mentioned in the amendment.

Well it's equal protection under the law, so "government marriage" is what we're talking about here, yes. Your church can refuse to call a same-sex union "marriage," nobody really cares. But voting against someone's right to have the government recognize that union is different.
Click to expand...

The government recognizing a marriage is a very different matter than the providing its own government contract towards that marriage. Your little play with words has been noted. I'm not here to argue against the rest of your post, so I will leave it as stands.
 
Henrin said:
Then use it to defend your case. I have already shown that gender is not mentioned in the amendment.

The government recognizing a marriage is a very different matter than the providing its own government contract towards that marriage. Your little play with words has been noted. I'm not here to argue against the rest of your post, so I will leave it as stands.
Click to expand...

The government recognizing a marriage is a lot like the government recognizing an adoption or a birth certificate. All set up legal relationships for people. Legal kinship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom