• 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]

Yes, proving that there is always a way to justify silliness and silliness, once becoming popular, can lead all astray... the Pied Pipers of new liberalism doing their destructive best here as they have done elsewhere.

Lord help us all [ and I am not even a religious being ] overcome this infectious idiocy that afflicts entire peoples and brings so much misery and destruction.

You appear to have a problem with liberals and separating your personal ideology with the individual issues and who stands where on those issues. We do not all fit into perfect little labels. Most people don't in fact. Most people have at least one issue they would easily fit on the other side with when it comes to politics and their personal political view overall. Many conservatives/Republicans are in fact supporting same sex marriage.
 
Look at the 9th and 10th amendments, savor them as they delineate the proper lineage of just who has ownership of those rights/powers not listed in the Constitution and who gets to make those decisions.

YOU, on the contrary, have absolutely no idea of the history nor the foundation of thought underlying OUR Constitution. Don't try to tell me you are an authority on what it is and what should be... you are solely using the Constitution as a bludgeoning tool against us... and sorry, WE do not have to take it.

You have actual what? You have "actual law experts"? Are they on a retainer... or are you just paying them on a piecemeal basis as you answer each of my posts? What a CHUCKLE you have brought me.

Sorry again, you do not get to issue the terms of the debate in some side-tracked issue of child support. You specifically said there were protected classes in the Constitution, I have asked you name those classes and to support that erroneous statement with evidence... you have failed to provide such. So we must assume that you were WRONG. I will go beyond the assumption and FLAT OUT STATE YOU WERE/ARE WRONG.

If you are THAT WRONG on this simple Constitutional question requiring minimal knowledge of this fairly short document... how are we to be confident in ANYTHING further you have to say on the matter?

The 9th and 10th support me. The rights belong to the individual citizens and the states and the states have been limited by the 14th in favor of the individual's rights.

I provided you the information needed. You refuse to accept it. You refuse to learn how the laws of the US and the Constitution, or even the SCOTUS works.
 
No I individually don't, but our society can make such judgements if we so please.

You haven't answered much of anything on the matter. You cannot show how we would stop anything based on this foolish premise, this one size fits all device, this artless and rudimentary tool upon which you and selfish others are using to accomplish something simply unnecessary and potentially extremely harmful to the rest of society.

There is no legitimate interest in having to prove legitimate interest in silly, yet consequential and potentially very detrimental, cases.

PERIOD.

Sorry, nobody is stopping you from marrying who/what you want in your own mind. Just do not expect state sanction.

The state sanctions my current marriage and if me or my husband were to change our sex, legally, any state that recognized that new sex would also in fact still sanction that new same sex marriage (which is another major thing that proves that sex/gender matters not for any marriage).

It isn't the same sex marriage supporters that have to show legitimate interest in wanting same sex couples to be allowed to marry, it is the state that must show legitimate state interest in not allowing them to. Again, go study a little more about our laws and specifically how constitutional law works.
 
Yeah yeah yeah... same thing can be said in return. Who said anything about undermining the 14 and equal protection... equal protection does not necessarily grant equality of all, and of everything, by the way. Nor should it.

Again, look into how constitutional law works. This is an equal protection issue. The way that it works is that when a law is challenged, and a group/individual is recognized as not being treated equally by the law (as is the case here), then the state must show that the law furthers a legitimate state interest.
 
Logic would assist you... may want to try that if desiring to solve problems... we know that screen doors do not work on submarines prior to sending folks down in them with screen doors... see the logic there, by any chance?

No.

A screen door on a submarine is harm you can specifically identify before implementation.
You have not identified any harm caused by same-sex marriage before "implementation," nor have you identified any harm in the ten years of data you have so far.

I have ten years of data on my side. You have zero. What arbitrary amount of data do you need before you concede that same-sex marriage causes no harm? 20? 30? 50? 10,000?
 
Show me where the concept of strict scrutiny is in the Constitution...or say, where in the Constitution is there the concept of interstate migration? Or gender, except maybe with the 19 amendment? I will await, perhaps eternity, for you to answer this question with examples from our Constitution.

This is silliness amplified.

You are once again showing your inability to understand how the Constitution and constitutional law works. Learn that, then get back to us.
 
Yeah yeah yeah... same thing can be said in return. Who said anything about undermining the 14 and equal protection... equal protection does not necessarily grant equality of all, and of everything, by the way. Nor should it.

It's a good thing nobody has suggested it means equality of everything. Is there a reason you attack this same straw man over and over? Do you think it's any more convincing now?

Constitutional scrutiny and levels of state interest are not specifically mentioned in the constitution. Doesn't matter. SCOTUS makes decisions on how these things work, and that's what they've decided.
 
Are you following what was being stated? We are talking about those who have been exposed to idea and new reality of SSM actually existing [ not the theory but the practice ] and how it fares with those now being shielded and propagandized from its purposes and effects, in the future and in real time.

Are you following at all? You have been attempting to claim that people change their minds as they age. That is true on some issues. But until you can show that it is true with every single issue, then you have nothing. If it were true at all, then those like me, who started as teens, or like my mother who started supporting in her early 30s, or any of my many siblings or other relatives who supported for at least 20 years now, would have changed their view already, being "older and wiser", not still have the same view or even have it stronger than then. At least one of them should have changed their view. The same would have also been true for those who changed their view on interracial marriages. They would have supported it for a short time then switched back. There would be no reason not to, right, according to your logic.
 
Wrong, but hey, everyone is entitled to an opinion, no matter its merits or lack thereof... the rest of us do not have to be stupid enough to believe them, however.

You are outnumbered now. I don't know why you continue to believe yourself in some majority. And I have proven that there is an obvious trend that favors support of same sex marriage that is not only not showing signs of diminishing, but is in fact speeding up, even within older populations and amongst conservatives.
 
Yes, just another way that liberal ideas have placed another straw on the cultural camels back... so hey, got another load of manure covered straws you want to heap up there, dontcha, just dontcha...

One is forced to wonder just how puerile a statement can one make before it devolves to simply... goo goo, goo goo?

Who is blaming solely the gays? I am blaming the ideology which supports this and any other method to eat away at the stability of marriage and American traditional values.

Really? Because my uncle is as in-your-face born again homophobe as it gets and yet has failed 4 marriages. I guess then you should instead blame homophobia and born-again zealots for the end of traditional values.

Although if you want to convince me of anything, first identify those values and why they are worth preserving at all costs before i can give a hoot that they are possibly lost forever.
 
every one knows race and gender are not the same but your argument that people are not being discriminated against because they have to only go with certain gender combinations is the same the exact same kind of argument

their is no misundesnting nether race nor gender have any bearing on marriage

there is no requirement for a marriage that cant be meat by any combination of races or genders

as saying no one is discrmininated against by a ban on interracial marriage because they can marry some one of the same race
Hardly the same... if a majority race or minority race person inseminates a majority or minority person of the opposite sex, there might result a pregnancy, a continuance of the race of humanity... if the same were to occur in that situation with the same sex couple, it will never result in a pregnancy... so perhaps you may see how different the situation is actually is? One is within the laws of nature, the other is outside, deviant and therefore the same rules do not apply in the unnatural situation. You can try to fit the outsized square peg into the appropriate round hole, but it neither fits nor works.

Society is not mandated, required to force the square peg through the round hole just to momentarily coincide with your current sensibilities.

By the way, what makes it okay for you to discriminate against my viewpoint, have it excluded? If my side becomes the minority, we then get our way, right?
 
Hardly the same... if a majority race or minority race person inseminates a majority or minority person of the opposite sex, there might result a pregnancy, a continuance of the race of humanity... if the same were to occur in that situation with the same sex couple, it will never result in a pregnancy... so perhaps you may see how different the situation is actually is? One is within the laws of nature, the other is outside, deviant and therefore the same rules do not apply in the unnatural situation. You can try to fit the outsized square peg into the appropriate round hole, but it neither fits nor works.

Society is not mandated, required to force the square peg through the round hole just to momentarily coincide with your current sensibilities.

By the way, what makes it okay for you to discriminate against my viewpoint, have it excluded? If my side becomes the minority, we then get our way, right?

still desperately trying to sell your failed claim that there is harm in equal rights huh?
looks like nobody is buying it.


DO you ave any examples that havent been destroyed yet?

57 pages and the the only argument you have is "nu-huh" and "because i said so"

well let us know when you can factually prove this harm that you claim to exist.
 
how come the lack of any sane reason to ban gay marriage means you have to let any one marry any thing no matter how insane or harmful that would be its silly
Well, does not take an Einstein to figure out that you will not be able to stop it, especially if you keep lowering the standards until there are none.
 
Well, does not take an Einstein to figure out that you will not be able to stop it, especially if you keep lowering the standards until there are none.

so you have no real answer?

can you at least try?
what "standards" do you speak of?
how are the "standards" "lowering" and how will they keep lowering

i cant wait to read this.
 
so how letting people marry harm the stability of marriage?

its traditional and hopefully American values that lend support to same sex marriage fairness, justice, equality, the pursuit of happiness, freedom
When marriage becomes a farce nobody will marry any longer... who would want to be part of a joke? Without marriage among heterosexuals you have rising poverty rates among single parents and children, besides which they do not get the benefit of training, parenting and a critical understanding of both sexes growing up. Kinda like learning math with only addition and no subtraction.
 
Hardly the same... if a majority race or minority race person inseminates a majority or minority person of the opposite sex, there might result a pregnancy, a continuance of the race of humanity... if the same were to occur in that situation with the same sex couple, it will never result in a pregnancy... so perhaps you may see how different the situation is actually is? One is within the laws of nature, the other is outside, deviant and therefore the same rules do not apply in the unnatural situation. You can try to fit the outsized square peg into the appropriate round hole, but it neither fits nor works.

Society is not mandated, required to force the square peg through the round hole just to momentarily coincide with your current sensibilities.

By the way, what makes it okay for you to discriminate against my viewpoint, have it excluded? If my side becomes the minority, we then get our way, right?

So now you are trying to use the extremely flawed logic that procreation is connected to marriage or the right to marriage. It isn't. Procreative ability has nothing to do with a couple's right to marry. In fact, there are 5 states that limit a person's ability to marry based on their inability to procreate in a way that is completely opposite of your assertion. If first cousins want to marry in states like Utah or Arizona, then they must be above a certain age or prove that they cannot procreate with each other. There goes that assertion. We won't even get into the fact that inability to procreate is never considered when it comes to two people of the opposite sex trying to marry even when one of them knows that they cannot procreate. (And a woman who does not have a uterus and/or ovaries cannot get pregnant, no matter how much she tries.)

And this has nothing to do with majority/minority status, but rather everything to do with whether someone is being treated differently under a law and whether or not the state can show that this difference in treatment is necessary to further a state interest. You would have no standing since there is no way that you could show that a law treated you differently once everyone is allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
 
its purpose is to let people marry some 1 of the same gender if they choose to

how is that purpose being shielded from any one?
YOu know really, if you are an adult, some of this stuff you can figure out on your own. Just sit and think about it outside of your preconditioned, public school propagandized, media influenced box... there, answered and instructed at the same time, killing two birds with the one stone.
 
1.)When marriage becomes a farce nobody will marry any longer... who would want to be part of a joke?
2.) Without marriage among heterosexuals you have rising poverty rates among single parents and children, besides which they do not get the benefit of training, parenting and a critical understanding of both sexes growing up.
3.) Kinda like learning math with only addition and no subtraction.

1.) and who decides that? by what standards. Better yet how does equal rights impact that
2.) false, please educate yourself on this topic start with the APA and AAP
3.) your analogy even fails, its a perfect example of how uneducated on this topic you are. Are you implying that math is only addition and subtraction?
your post fails again

do you have ONE solid argument against equal rights? ONE
 
YOu know really, if you are an adult, some of this stuff you can figure out on your own. Just sit and think about it outside of your preconditioned, public school propagandized, media influenced box... there, answered and instructed at the same time, killing two birds with the one stone.

another failed deflection
let us know when you can answer the question
 
OMG, read the damn thread... its not like I have not answered this more than a couple of times.

translation: another question you cant and have never answered
lol no need to get upset that you cant defend you failed claim

can you give an answer that is accurate and factual or not?
 
trees cant agree to it its been mentioned all ready stop playing ( hope its playing ) dumb
Your posts are becoming increasingly annoyingly vapid. What is the state's legitimate interest in stopping a person's marriage to a tree if nobody [ a tree isn't somebody ] is injured/harmed? You folks want to use this one size fits all tool, so we can use it legitimately back against you.
 
When marriage becomes a farce nobody will marry any longer... who would want to be part of a joke? Without marriage among heterosexuals you have rising poverty rates among single parents and children, besides which they do not get the benefit of training, parenting and a critical understanding of both sexes growing up. Kinda like learning math with only addition and no subtraction.

What dream world are you living in?

Most of the states that have legalized same sex marriage have the lowest divorce rates in the country. And they have a higher median age for first marriage, meaning people are marrying more responsibly (at older ages when they are actually able to maintain responsible relationships).

Divorce Rates Lower in States with Same-Sex Marriage - US News

Now, marriage rates have been steadily declining since long before the issue of same sex marriage came up, even before Mass. legalized it. But there is no significant difference in that drop between states that have legalized same sex marriage, including even Mass. and states that still have bans in place.

And same sex couples have been raising children for generations and no parents raise children in a vacuum. Raising children also has very little to do with marriage but rather with stability of the relationship. Marriage helps the parents be more stable, despite their relative genders, and this in turn aids the children. But marriage itself is for the adults, not the children.
 
Your posts are becoming increasingly annoyingly vapid. What is the state's legitimate interest in stopping a person's marriage to a tree if nobody [ a tree isn't somebody ] is injured/harmed? You folks want to use this one size fits all tool, so we can use it legitimately back against you.

Wow
lets just ignore facts and laws and peoples rights

your argument fails again since PERSONS enter into contracts.

Your post Fails again
 
The culture of the South was still a culture of the US. Denying that means that you do not even recognize that the same thing is happening today, acceptance of same sex marriage is pretty much a done-deal in much of the Northeast and on the West coast and even within most major cities throughout the country. Opposition to same sex marriage is only a cultural majority right now in the South, Midwest, Rocky-Mountain areas, and in general rural areas.

As for the interracial marriage thing, here you go.

Gay Marriage Has Twice the Support Today That Interracial Marriage Had When It Was Legalized in the 1960s *Pensito Review

"In 1968, the year after the “activist” Supremes legalized interracial marriage in its decision on Loving vs. Virginia, a Gallup poll found that the vast majority of Americans still opposed the idea that blacks and whites could marry — 72 percent to 20 percent. Just 10 20 years earlier, in the wake of a California Supreme Court decision that overturned newly minted anti-interracial marriage laws in the state, Gallup found that 94 percent of Americans opposed mixed-race marriages."

You cannot show harm done or even potential harm from same sex marriages. Until you can, you have nothing legally speaking.
The south was not THE culture of the United States, and to try to squirm your point in there based on your premise, thanks but no thanks. States, regions and the country have a right to establish their own cultures. When we agreed to Federal Union, the states agreed to that based on a contract [ see the Constitution and the Federalist Papers ] that stipulated that the Federal government was limited to what was enumerated in the Constitution as well as a minimal application of those implied powers, only to carry out those powers enumerated. The Federal government have far overstepped, is in breach of this agreement, and is continuing to heap insult upon injury.

Well, thanks for supplying a liberal source with which to "substantiate" your views. I didn't ask for that, but thanks anyhow. I said that segregation was not a majority view in any event. Yet I would still maintain that if we the people did not want interracial marriage as a part of our culture, the sovereigns will, whether you or I agree or not, should be the rule. That is up to the states individually to decide, and if you don't like how a state does it, move to a state where things are more to your liking.

You can try to force it and forcing it sometimes works, perhaps in this case. Or you can try to force it and forcing it doesn't work until the people come around, are ready and have been persuaded [ i.e., the Civil War force and the people not coming around and segregation ending until almost 100 years later ]. If the people truly are not ready or truly do not want what you are trying to force it down our throats, its not gonna happen

You have yet to show the harm that a man or woman marrying a tree would inflict... so you don't have a legitimate leg to stand on, legally speaking.

Trees cannot sign contracts, they are not US citizens, they cannot communicate with humans. Laws apply to humans, not animals, plants, or inanimate objects. When a tree itself can legally sue someone, claim property rights, or be protected by the US Constitution, then we can talk.
Who cares about all that, you cannot show harm, can you? What is the legitimate state interest in excluding these forms of marriage? Hoist on your own petard.

Besides which laws apply to all sorts of inanimate things... cars, guns, water, energy, light bulbs, animals, air...and of course to trees. I mean how silly is that notion that laws only apply to humans?

How about I make the same sort of "silly" stipulation, when same sex couples can procreate among just the two, then we can talk.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom