• 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:
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...
Click to expand...

another deflection has your post fails again
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
No doubt a similar refrain to that heard from those passionate about the Equal Rights Amendment who were working their failing magic on the path to its ultimate defeat.

Go get 'em.
Click to expand...

Odd analogy since efforts to repeal laws against same sex marriage are only accelerating. I don't participate in these debates a fraction as much as I used to because all the same, failed arguments by the anti-ssm crowd are still being used, still being torn apart, and frankly the effort has already been won. What you're seeing now in the resistance by the remaining states is nothing more than death throes. This bird is done cooked. You're well aware of this which is why you're just acting silly now.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
No, completely off the rails on both.
Click to expand...

another empty post that many court ruling prove wrong.

by all means PLEASE tell us why your unsupportable opinion trumps the facts, laws, rights and court cases that say otherwise


oh thats right, conspiracy, rogue, liberal, tyrant judges lol

besides that failed reason do you have any others?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
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...
Click to expand...

Why does a state sanction of someone else's marriage affect you? If you can't answer that question, there's nothing left to discuss.

When did you hear such promises? Was it interracial marriage?
 
Cardinal said:
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.
Click to expand...
Its those who cannot even comprehend simple analogies, even the much exaggerated ones, who really make it hard for a cogent and rational person to make a clear case. Somewhat analogous to attempting to explain flight to a frog, one supposes. Oh sorry, there I go again.

Yeah, and about that convincing anybody of anything thing, well I have taken the pledge to try not to dumb down my response posts anymore, whether the other side can fathom them or not ... so...

Hey, was that a "ribbit ribbit" I just heard?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Its those who cannot even comprehend simple analogies, even the much exaggerated ones, who really make it hard for a cogent and rational person to make a clear case. Somewhat analogous to attempting to explain flight to a frog, one supposes. Oh sorry, there I go again.

Yeah, and about that convincing anybody of anything thing, well I have taken the pledge to try not to dumb down my response posts anymore, whether the other side can fathom them or not ... so...

Hey, was that a "ribbit ribbit" I just heard?
Click to expand...

Translation: when your analogies fail and get destroyed try to blame others


nobody is buying it, they just laugh at the failed anaolgy

i ask again, is there ONE sound argument you have to to deny gay rights? one
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Its those who cannot even comprehend simple analogies, even the much exaggerated ones, who really make it hard for a cogent and rational person to make a clear case. Somewhat analogous to attempting to explain flight to a frog, one supposes. Oh sorry, there I go again.

Yeah, and about that convincing anybody of anything thing, well I have taken the pledge to try not to dumb down my response posts anymore, whether the other side can fathom them or not ... so...

Hey, was that a "ribbit ribbit" I just heard?
Click to expand...

You resort to petty, passive aggressive personal attacks when confronted with a question you cannot answer:

How does the state's sanction of someone else's marriage affect you?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Go back and read what was said. And not just my own pearls of sapience, there were others. Thats one of the reasons why we post on the site.
Click to expand...

another dodge and deflection, why dont you simply answer the question?

the obvious answer is because you cant and theres no argument that you can provide that supports your failed claims.
 
Cardinal said:
Odd analogy since efforts to repeal laws against same sex marriage are only accelerating. I don't participate in these debates a fraction as much as I used to because all the same, failed arguments by the anti-ssm crowd are still being used, still being torn apart, and frankly the effort has already been won. What you're seeing now in the resistance by the remaining states is nothing more than death throes. This bird is done cooked. You're well aware of this which is why you're just acting silly now.
Click to expand...
Well that summary was as unenlightening as it was a pitiable analysis of whose arguments are failures. Shades of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, aka Baghdad Bob, screaming that the Americans "are going to surrender or be burned in their tanks. They will surrender, it is they who will surrender"...with the tape rolling as American troops storm into Baghdad...

Ummm...We don't have the huge turkey, your folks do... I'd recommend a bigger oven...oh, and spice it as you might crow. ;)
 
Deuce said:
Why does a state sanction of someone else's marriage affect you? If you can't answer that question, there's nothing left to discuss.

When did you hear such promises? Was it interracial marriage?
Click to expand...
How does the state not sanctioning someone else's marriage affect you? Yeah, you got nothing.
 
Deuce said:
You resort to petty, passive aggressive personal attacks when confronted with a question you cannot answer:

How does the state's sanction of someone else's marriage affect you?
Click to expand...
I generally play down to the level of my opponent yes... well, maybe a little above, one just cannot help being naturally witty, can one...ha ha ha? If ya got it, flaunt it they say... and...

Don't get mad, get glad.;)

Sorry, but I just answered that, question with a question. You see, we can ask questions, too. Ain't life sweet?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
How does the state not sanctioning someone else's marriage affect you? Yeah, you got nothing.
Click to expand...
this as already been answered and has been asnwered IN COURT by RULLINGS

but again you are deflecting and dodging and body honest, educated, and objective buys it

its hilarious watching the deflections but let us know when you can answer the question
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
I generally play down to the level of my opponent yes... well, maybe a little above, one just cannot help being naturally witty, can one...ha ha ha? If ya got it, flaunt it they say... and...

Don't get mad, get glad.;)

Sorry, but I just answered that, question with a question. You see, we can ask questions, too. Ain't life sweet?
Click to expand...

Translation: your posts are losing and getting destroyed so you keep dodging
 
Deuce said:
Why does a state sanction of someone else's marriage affect you? If you can't answer that question, there's nothing left to discuss.

When did you hear such promises? Was it interracial marriage?
Click to expand...
Again, I just answered that, sorry, slow typer and a lot of posts to reply to today....


NooooOOOOooooo... I am not the one erroneously trying to couple majority hetros civil rights with majority gay SSM topics.

As regards the promises...That was what was asked of all of us out here, the straight community 20-30 years ago... just leave us alone, we are not hurting anyone, we are just asking for your tolerance. Which we, overall, gave. Now we see that it was not just tolerance that was the end game... or at least the end of that segment of over the top unpalatable new liberalism... you see what we are now arguing.

Now you can argue that those were different times, those might have been the promises then... well, thats as far as it goes, no matter who the promises were made by.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
1.)Again, I just answered that, sorry, slow typer and a lot of posts to reply to today....


2.)NooooOOOOooooo... I am not the one erroneously trying to couple majority hetros civil rights with majority gay SSM topics.

3.)As regards the promises...That was what was asked of all of us out here, the straight community 20-30 years ago... just leave us alone, we are not hurting anyone, we are just asking for your tolerance. Which we, overall, gave. Now we see that it was not just tolerance that was the end game... or at least the end of that segment of over the top unpalatable new liberalism...
4.)you see what we are now arguing.
5.)Now you can argue that those were different times, those might have been the promises then... well, thats as far as it goes, no matter who the promises were made by.
Click to expand...

1.) nope you NEVER answered it now you are just posting lies
2.) sorry rights apply to all of us so the only error is you trying to deny others lol
3.) this is also a lie because denying people rights and discrimination g against them is no tolerance lol its hilarious that you think anything so factually incorrect could be sold to anyone.
4.) yes you are arguing lies and fantasy which nobody buys
5.) nope the only fact that needs mentioned is gays are being discriminated against

once again you have provided NOTHING that supports your failed claims
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
How does the state not sanctioning someone else's marriage affect you? Yeah, you got nothing.
Click to expand...

It affects them. It affects individual liberty. And the burden is on you, not me. Tie goes to personal freedom.

It wasn't a fair question. There isn't an answer, and I knew that when I asked it. It doesn't affect you. When asked this question straight-up, even the lawyers hired to defend Prop 8 couldn't identify any harm caused by same-sex marriage. They couldn't explain how marriage or society was being eroded or harmed. They had nothing. And their job was to have that answer. Why should I expect you to have one?

I apologize for asking. I knew you couldn't answer, it wasn't fair.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Again, I just answered that, sorry, slow typer and a lot of posts to reply to today....


NooooOOOOooooo... I am not the one erroneously trying to couple majority hetros civil rights with majority gay SSM topics.

As regards the promises...That was what was asked of all of us out here, the straight community 20-30 years ago... just leave us alone, we are not hurting anyone, we are just asking for your tolerance. Which we, overall, gave. Now we see that it was not just tolerance that was the end game... or at least the end of that segment of over the top unpalatable new liberalism... you see what we are now arguing.

Now you can argue that those were different times, those might have been the promises then... well, thats as far as it goes, no matter who the promises were made by.
Click to expand...

Yes, that horrible, horrible end-game of wanting to be treated equally under the law. How dare they stand up for such a thing, those blacks.

Oops. I mean gays. We're talking about gays.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
We, the people, do not have to be locked into what your side feels we the people have, for all time, "decided".

Your side on this argument certainly didn't accept it, don't depend on my side accepting what they don't agree with, either. The idea that we "cannot take treat groups unfairly under the law without showing that this treatment furthers some legitimate state interest" is a bit disingenuous, don't you think?

First: Define "fair". Does "fair" mean equal? No, so "fair" is a basically unmeasurable concept generally; can be placed on a continuum wherever we so choose. Next, what is "the law"...? And we know that the law is always subject to change. A "legitimate state interest" ? So, who defines that? Again, the minority does not get to rule the majority... except by our consent.

We, the people, are the sovereigns here...not your rickety courts and corrupt statists... sorry to see so many that have been misled on that.
Click to expand...

We, the people, include people like me, whether you like that fact or not. People who support legalizing same sex marriages because you nor people like you have any real state interest being served by restricting people of the same sex from getting married. And it includes those "rickety courts" ensuring that the rights of the minority (especially a minority that is only a "minority" due to a vote from years ago and the slow way that politics works in general) are upheld over the whims and moral judgements of a majority at any given time.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well you can blame the Constitution for that. Gender discrimination is a no-no. And that is what the courts are determining that denying SSM is.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Sure you can. As long as you don't try to suppress other peoples Rights. Just like its always been.

Gaugingcatenate said:
We are square on that then.
Click to expand...

Good. Just let us know when your rights are being suppressed and we will fight for that too.
Click to expand...
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Thanks for the useful information.

Another area in which polling counts is in relation to constitutional amendments where SSM [and yes, in some cases Civil Unions, as well ]are banned or where the state defines marriage as one man one woman. I think the current count is 34 states [ plus could well be added other states within the 16 that currently allow for SSM/CU had similar amendments wrongly overturned by the courts ] and that is a 2/3s + majority of the states.
Click to expand...

You do not have a majority of states, no matter what you may believe, not for a US Constitutional Amendment.

First of all, you would need not just the states but also Congress unless you can get a Constitutional Convention setup (which is highly unlikely just for same sex marriage/FMA). And Bush tried in 2004/2006 and failed to get two through Congress then. Do you really think there are more in support of a Federal Marriage Amendment now?

Federal Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Second, most of the votes for those state amendments banning same sex marriage were taken more than 6 years ago. Since that time, marriage for same sex couples has been voted in by popular vote of three states and could easily pass in more (especially most of those that already have it legal through other means). But, the people don't vote directly for Constitutional Amendments, but rather the state legislatures do. That means it would come down to their makeup. They are about evenly spread, but they certainly do not have enough for 75% (the number really needed to pass a Constitutional Amendment). This means that you would need 38 (possibly 37, not sure if they round up or not) to pass.

Laurence Watts: Could a Constitutional Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage Be Passed?

https://www.statescape.com/resources/partysplits/partysplits.aspx

You don't have the votes and with most Democrats and Independents and even some Republicans supporting same sex marriage, a Federal Marriage Amendment is not likely to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom