• 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]

Gaugingcatenate said:
You mean by having to state the obvious to activist judges to make sure they actually understand the point? Then learning that they still don't understand? Pretty sad, one is forced to agree.
Click to expand...

If you walk into court unable to understand the difference between murderers and gay people getting married, you have to be prepared for the fact that you may be unable to state your case in a way that will result in success. Besides, I'm not convinced you know what your point is.
 
j-mac said:
These are your reactions to news of such. I think at this point there are bigger issues than if Steve and Joe want to get married.
Click to expand...
nope not my news, guess you didnt read the post and are ignoring the facts

you can think what you wish but as already proven, your statement was factually wrong, :shrug:
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
And speaking of muddled, mixed up, you sure you don't want to be a bit more precise about what "does violate equal protection"? Many, many, many things specifically do not have equal protections and are not considered in violation. As well they should not. I am sure you might, if you put your thinking cap on, even think of a few examples yourself.
Click to expand...

Yep, and that's why the court weighs state interest against the measure in question. Blind application is as stupid as no application.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Exactly, the 14th simply cannot, its impossible.

Besides which, the drafters of the 14th had no way of knowing at that point in time, even after the stark raving madness of the Civil War, just how crazy some folk would become today. I think the Kinks said it well with the lyrics, "Girls will be boys, and boys will be girls. It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world..."

Not all of us advocate the world being near that muddled up... those that do, well, sorry, we cannot all just be forced to go along your aberrant paths. You see, we don't want what would then come next, and next after that...

And speaking of muddled, mixed up, you sure you don't want to be a bit more precise about what "does violate equal protection"? Many, many, many things specifically do not have equal protections and are not considered in violation. As well they should not. I am sure you might, if you put your thinking cap on, even think of a few examples yourself.
Click to expand...

Put simply, in 1967 there was a ruling called Loving v. Virginia in which the remaining interracial marriage bans in various states were ruled unconstitutional. That decision expressed that states are free to regulate marriage as they see fit, but it is not an unlimited power. States cannot regulate marriage in a way that would infringe upon the Constitutional rights of citizens unless it advanced a "legitimate state interest." Since Loving v. Virginia decided that marriage is a Constitutionally protected right, the question in the current same sex marriage debate is what "legitimate state interest" is advanced by denying same sex couples and the children they raise, the family stabilizing benefits of marriage.
 
iacardsfan said:
Seeing as by getting married gays are not oppressing anybody, there is not reason they should not be allowed to.
Click to expand...
Let them have at it, who is stopping them?

Just do not expect to be state sanctioned, receive state blessings, acknowledgement, accorded any special status, special protections... just continued tolerance and the protections afforded every other individual.

Nobody being forced to recognize, condone, encourage/discourage, promote, etc... then we're cool.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Exactly, the 14th simply cannot, its impossible.

Besides which, the drafters of the 14th had no way of knowing at that point in time, even after the stark raving madness of the Civil War, just how crazy some folk would become today. I think the Kinks said it well with the lyrics, "Girls will be boys, and boys will be girls. It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world..."
Click to expand...

this passage alone show the ridiculousness of your constitutional contentions. Plain and simple.

Anyone attepting to argue this type of muddled mess before the High Court would be laughed out of the building.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Let them have at it, who is stopping them?

Just do not expect to be state sanctioned, receive state blessings, acknowledgement, accorded any special status, special protections... just continued tolerance and the protections afforded every other individual.
Click to expand...
These two statements contradict each other.


Nobody being forced to recognize, condone, encourage/discourage, promote, etc... then we're cool.
Click to expand...

Legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't force you to do any of these things.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Let them have at it, who is stopping them?

Just do not expect to be state sanctioned, receive state blessings, acknowledgement, accorded any special status, special protections... just continued tolerance and the protections afforded every other individual.

Nobody being forced to recognize, condone, encourage/discourage, promote, etc... then we're cool.
Click to expand...

awesome, then you support equal rights for gays, good job!

it will be state sanctioned everywhere eventually you are just going to have to get over it or more to a country that doesn't care about rights

have yo presented ONE sound argument against it yet? . . . . .ONE?
 
Deuce said:
These two statements contradict each other.




Legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't force you to do any of these things.
Click to expand...

100% correct, its a failed strawman that nobody buys.
 
CriticalThought said:
It sounds like you have an issue with the US Constitution. The United States is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. The will of the people is the US Constitution, not a majority vote in any particular state. If you do not like it, you should probably find a different country.
Click to expand...
No issues, I like it just fine... act responsibly and we are cool. Try forcing things down our throats is uncool, will result in the requisite response.

The guys that drafted the thing were intimately aware, having just broken such bonds, of the problems of an intrusive government... ultimately you cannot force the people to bow to the will of the government, we are the owners here. We can argue this back and forth all day... but if you say the people we hire/elect are our masters, you are just flat out wrong.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
No issues, I like it just fine... act responsibly and we are cool. Try forcing things down our throats is uncool, will result in the requisite response.

The guys that drafted the thing were intimately aware, having just broken such bonds, of the problems of an intrusive government... ultimately you cannot force the people to bow to the will of the government, we are the owners here. We can argue this back and forth all day... but if you say the people we hire/elect are our masters, you are just flat out wrong.
Click to expand...

Which part of legal same sex marriage intrudes upon your life? Are you seriously under the impression that the law will require you to personally approve of same-sex marriage? Do you personally approve of every heterosexual marriage?
 
CriticalThought said:
Put simply, in 1967 there was a ruling called Loving v. Virginia in which the remaining interracial marriage bans in various states were ruled unconstitutional. That decision expressed that states are free to regulate marriage as they see fit, but it is not an unlimited power. States cannot regulate marriage in a way that would infringe upon the Constitutional rights of citizens unless it advanced a "legitimate state interest." Since Loving v. Virginia decided that marriage is a Constitutionally protected right, the question in the current same sex marriage debate is what "legitimate state interest" is advanced by denying same sex couples and the children they raise, the family stabilizing benefits of marriage.
Click to expand...
See previous posts and posters re:Loving and passing the legitimate "state interest test"...thanks very much.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
1.)No issues, I like it just fine... act responsibly and we are cool.
2.)Try forcing things down our throats is uncool, will result in the requisite response.
3.)The guys that drafted the thing were intimately aware, having just broken such bonds, of the problems of an intrusive government... ultimately you cannot force the people to bow to the will of the government, we are the owners here.
4.)We can argue this back and forth all day... but if you say the people we hire/elect are our masters, you are just flat out wrong.
Click to expand...

1.) so you are against all those against equal rights, good job!
2.) well there is no force happening so again your concern is empty
3.) again no force see 2
4.) you havent provided on sound argument yet, they have all been destroyed by multiple posters.

Let us know when you have one please
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
See previous posts and posters re:Loving and passing the legitimate "state interest test"...thanks very much.
Click to expand...

we all saw them, just like when you posted them they all fail. DO you have something new that hasnt been proven wrong?
 
1750Texan said:
Anyone attepting to argue this type of muddled mess before the High Court would be laughed out of the building.
Click to expand...
Well... now maybe, perhaps among the enlightened/educated but very dumbed down crowd... I suppose it just might be 8th gradish enough, to elicit such twitters.

Besides which, I was merely expressing myself so as to be clearly understood here, hardly arguing before the Supreme Court. Should I be blushing that you found it worthy of even mentioning me arguing before the SC? Wow, thanks. :lamo:peace
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Well... now maybe, perhaps among the enlightened/educated but very dumbed down crowd... I suppose it just might be 8th gradish enough, to elicit such twitters.

Besides which, I was merely expressing myself so as to be clearly understood here, hardly arguing before the Supreme Court. Should I be blushing that you found it worthy of even mentioning me arguing before the SC? Wow, thanks. :lamo:peace
Click to expand...

Translation: you have no counter
 
Deuce said:
These two statements contradict each other.




Legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't force you to do any of these things.
Click to expand...
One could hold one's own wedding ceremony and marry a light pole if one so desires... what do I care, that's between him/her and the light pole. No state sanctioning there, no blessings, no acknowledgements, etc, etc... also NO contradictions.

And as to your second statement, I have heard those kind of promises before. Ever hear the one about, "...we just want to be left alone, we just want your toleration"... do you remember how long that lasted, do you?

Fool me once, shame on you...
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
1.)One could hold one's own wedding ceremony and marry a light pole if one so desires... what do I care, that's between him/her and the light pole. No state sanctioning there, no blessings, no acknowledgements, etc, etc... also NO contradictions.

2.)And as to your second statement, I have heard those kind of promises before.

3.)Ever hear the one about, "...we just want to be left alone, we just want your toleration"... do you remember how long that lasted, do you?

4.)Fool me once, shame on you...
Click to expand...

1.) all meaningless to legal marriage and rights
also your subjective opinion of "contradictions" is also meaningless to legal marriage and rights

2.) not a promise its reality

3.) then you should leave americans alone and stop trying to deny they equality and rights, you are learning

4.) yes you fooled yourself in to thinking it was ok to ignore peoples rights
 
Deuce said:
Which part of legal same sex marriage intrudes upon your life? Are you seriously under the impression that the law will require you to personally approve of same-sex marriage? Do you personally approve of every heterosexual marriage?
Click to expand...
Sorry, those are not real questions that anybody can readily answer. Which part of there NOT being SSM intrudes on your life?

If we were to utilize that approach to everything we were considering making laws upon, what would we end up with? A really messed up system. Which may be precisely where you are trying to point us, but similar to a knowing animal being dragged to slaughter, we will not go willingly.

Quit tinkering with a mechanism that you have no real sense of, which one only takes for granted, rarely appreciating what one does have.
 
Ikari said:
Or expanding our government aggressively against the rights and liberties of the People, growing imperial wars, pandering to corporate interest, etc.

Conserving the union. That's rich. When was the last time any Republocrat was interested in that?
Click to expand...
So then, agree with me to limit government by which we limit the power of cronyism by which we limit the power of big business. Kill two awful birds with one stone.

Heck, we could even join hands and sing Kumbaya together, if you truly wanted... I can sing, can even dance, ha ha ha...
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
1.)Sorry, those are not real questions that anybody can readily answer.
2.) Which part of there NOT being SSM intrudes on your life?
3.)If we were to utilize that approach to everything we were considering making laws upon, what would we end up with? A really messed up system. Which may be precisely where you are trying to point us, but similar to a knowing animal being dragged to slaughter, we will not go willingly.
4.)Quit tinkering with a mechanism that you have no real sense of, which one only takes for granted, rarely appreciating what one does have.
Click to expand...

1.) translation you have NO answer
2.) this infringes on rights has many court cases have pointed out
3.) he isnt using the approach you made up he was simply using rights, something you keep ignoring hence your posts failing
4.) yes you should stop doing this, if you stop trying to make up failed reason to denied others rights your problem will go away
 
Jetboogieman said:
Folks.

This is the Religious Right Wing at it's most potent.

Best summed up by Jon Stewart in his description of Fox News which completely describes the above post.

"Expressing anger and victimization over the loss of absolute power and reframing it as persecution of Real America by minorities, freeloaders, socialists and homosexuals".
Click to expand...
Whoa, that the nasty odor of rotting fish I smell... or was that you, jetboogie? Whew, stanky...and get over yourself. Dang, that sure was a whole loada :smileyfart nothing much right there.

Room deodorizer, anyone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom