• 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:
None that I know of, so they mix, if allowed, with the dominant culture under their rules. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out.

There is no necessity nor requirement to allow the non norm, deviance, to be equated with the norm. It would be untrue to begin with. All those you mention, they don't get to have everything changed to accomodate them. There are standard car sizes and door sizes that the tall must adjust to, we don't make everybody right-handed write with their left, or start on the opposite side of the page so its easier to write. All those outside the norm adjust to the norm, not vice versa.

Yes indeed, these totalitarian stage liberals probably would kill homosexuals, another reason for homosexuals not to bite the hand of all that treat them so well.

Show me the votes, actual votes, where the majority of the country is on your side. Not polls conducted by who knows who, what the actual questions were, who they were choosing to poll, etc... How about we vote on it by state, that's reasonable. If a state wants SSM, thats up to them [ you seem to be ok with that ]. If a state doesn't want it, thats up to them [ you don't seem to be okay with that, don't states get equal protection under the law?].
Click to expand...

states are not free to impose unequal protection under the law on citizens within them banning gay marriage dose that deal with it
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
You have no values as established by OUR common Constitution. They get equal protection under the existing laws, they don't get special privileges [marrying another gender was not a part of our laws ] under the laws as that would not be equal [ and please don't start with the state's legitimate interest stuff again, its a false equivalence...saying it three more times does not erase that. I have my vote and my opinion and that along with a minimum of 50 plus % and we maintain the status quo.

Same sex couples aren't hurt, they will live no doubt. If they were happy type people before, they will be after. If not a happy person, they will probably remain unhappy.

Go back and reread the posts. The majority assertion was in number of states with same sex bans/definitions of marriage being traditional, 34-16, and with the pew poll coming in at 46% opposed to SSM and 45% agreeing---with an article from pew itself indicating that polling understates opposition to SSM by about 5 to 7% I think the article says. Talk about faulty, you really should be able to read, comprehend and remember a bit better than that for your age.
Click to expand...

back to the old mixed race couples have equal protection because their free to marry some 1 of the same race like the racists can and the racist are not free to marry some 1 of another race

same rules for every one not actually = protection under the law
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Yeah, damn us guys who want some semblance of order, are against complete chaos, who allow for personal liberty but not anything/everything goes, no matter how deviant, how gross, how pathetic, how sad. Damn those guys who want to keep America strong, preserve it for coming generations... why can't they just go along with the me me me... be hip and turn on, drop out... why can't they just promote the be less than you can be and expect the same from everybody else policies like the rest of us...

...blah blah blah...
Click to expand...

ssm dose not = anarchy silly

we wont just go along with you because your rants do = ...blah blah blah

no one trying to be trendy or cool you are just appealing to tradition some times though

but every one is mostly concerned about what's right and wrong in this case even you its just you seem to be terribly misguided and not thinking clearly and yes I know you feel the same way about me
 
Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...

we have more age restrictions now to
 
TheNextEra said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sounds like an attention deficit symptom being expressed. Don't feel so bad, many, too many, have trouble focusing over long periods.

But do try looking over the the thread, have shown what is required time and time again, all legal...read read read my man...sure am not gonna invest more time than this to such a vacuously offensive post... But I would suggest that better advantage of the trip you suggest might be achieved, why don't you go to Iran, ha ha ha, maybe then you may gain a proper understanding and an appreciation of what tolerance is actually worth. Take a few of your buddies over, maybe one out of three of you can come back [ if they let you keep your head ] and start a movement in appreciation to just how well we all have it here...yano? :lamo

Best one might say in general reply to insipid/vapidly agressive posts such as this, just shut up. Please don't reply to my future posts if you don't have anything even minimally worthwhile and only the banal and loud-mouthedly confrontational to say. ;):mrgreen::2wave::peace
 
Deuce said:
Why? You seemed to think procreation was integral to marriage. If that's the case, the infertile shouldn't marry because they cannot procreate.
Click to expand...
Well then, maybe you can make it your mission to work on making that happen? Procreation isn't the whole deal though, man...yano?
 
CriticalThought said:
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?
Click to expand...
Oh it is a great explanation to nothing I actually espoused. A more careful reading of that and the post it was a response to, my mere recapping of a position taken by the other poster, only to make a point. I don't have a desire to stop the random couples who, unfortunately, are unable to create children with their opposite sex spouse... they, surely less we, often don't even know until later. We do know immediately with SS couples... but it was only a supplementary point in a discussion of reasons to have marriage, the ideas under-girding marriage in the first place...

ummm, get it?
 
Lursa said:
Of course not...we are still women...but with equal rights in marriage.

SSM doesnt change gay men or gay women....it just gives them equal rights in marriage.

And I can only gloat over your waiting...and eventual realization, lolololol.
Click to expand...
Gloat and keep waiting and waiting...then gloat some more, then waiting waiting...
 
CriticalThought said:
WTF? Can someone explain that one to me?
Click to expand...
It easy, you have freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to petition your government for redress of grievances, freedom to assemble...

You can make your case freely, nobody is stopping you from doing so. Doesn't mean you get your way, but with those inalienable rights, and a few others, you may potentially achieve the majority and then you get to rule in the area of concern.

Study your history, our government ... this should have all been Civics class, what, in middle school, perhaps American Government in high school? Public school did ya dirty did they?
 
Deuce said:
We also don't have to have a discussion on gun control every time someone makes a justified or unjustified use of a firearm in self-defense, but people fall all over themselves to post those stories. We don't have to have comments every time someone gets stabbed about "SOUNDS LIKE TIME FOR KNIFE CONTROL RIGHT LIBRULS HURR HURR"

But we have those discussions.

We don't have to a have a discussion about the IRS every time any scandal comes up.

But we have those discussions.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that it has never happened with conservative issues. See, this is where you make your fallacy. We aren't talking about equivalency. Unless you live your life by a standard that as long as someone else does something then it's ok for you to do too. I don't know of many adults that live their lives like that, or if I do, I don't hold them in any regard.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
We have to be on guard for both Boo. The minority have minority inalienable rights as protections... that does not give you a free pass to all.
Click to expand...

No one said a free pass to all. But as I'm allowed to pursue happiness, and a mate certainly qualifies as to what may make me happy, you need more than just being a majority to override my right.
 
CriticalThought said:
Meh. If you are the fruit of your ideology, then I think you do us all a service by making posts like these so we know how to judge it.

I have worked in social services long enough to understand the realities of this world. I have seen opposite sex couples who neglect and abuse children. Just being an opposite sex couple does not imbue people with the natural ability to parent or act responsibly in the best interest of children. There are same sex couples who are responsible and very capable parents. Even in this case, the state of Michigan argued that these two women are excellent parents. Somehow your ideology blinds you so deftly that you ignore reality and choose to believe that same sex couples who could be excellent parents should be denied that opportunity based on nothing more than because they are same sex couples, and even if that puts children in less qualified homes or as continued wards of the state. Truly, you represent your ideology well, where you care so little for children as to put your own selfish interest ahead of what is in the best interest of kids who need good and stable homes.
Click to expand...
Hey, we work on the problems, we don't compound them nationally, regionally or by state just to accommodate some rarity. I am sure a few, maybe a Dale Earnhardt, Jr., could drive the highways at 120mph, doesn't mean we let him do it... I don't think that is what laws are made for, just to accommodate the exceptions.

Never said same sex couples could not have children or that they may not in some cases be better than some opposite sex couples... just saying that the state does not have to sanction this kind of marriage or adoption, does not have to condone it, accept nor promote it in any shape, form or manner.

You have your views and you try to put me in a box, the bad box... sorry... no bad box for me. I take into consideration that some, obviously very few as a percentage, children in this situation... as well as overall health of our society... there are many opposite sex folk clamoring for babies to adopt... and it is just commonsensical for them to be allowed to do so.

Your ideology wants the fast, surface only fix to a problem... an ideology for those who care not much at all, most not even giving a cursory examination as to whether all the wheels are set to fly off somewhere down the road...not as long as we have a nice warm fuzzy microwave-fast fix right now... so you can quickly realize that feel-good-about-yourself glow for a moment or two, then forget about the whole thing as you whistle speedily off down the road.

You folks on that side want to concentrate your real determined efforts on making my side the bad guys. Makes you feel better to point at us and say we are the meanies. Well, your side keeps getting us into these deep holes with only the application of a band-aid to fix/cover up the problem...hidden, growing deeper and deeper as we ignore what is behind the band-aid, go on to open other wounds to which we affix another fast band-aid... you folks are all about feeling good for the moment, laying blame elsewhere and creating new problems for the future, like you advocate on this issue... and will later take absolutely no blame[pawn it off on my side] for what mayhem you create, will take no measure of what havoc you will sentence us all to in the future.
 
CriticalThought said:
60% of Republicans under the age of 30 support same sex marriage. Revolution starts with the young, not with the old.
Click to expand...
More and more people on both sides are beginning to realize what a load of crap they have been sold by your side... folks like Obama have created the American Awakening on that point. We should all have to grow up sometime... well, I guess if one thinks liberally one actually may live in never never land...at least until it collapses around you.
 
j-mac said:
I'm not saying that it has never happened with conservative issues. See, this is where you make your fallacy. We aren't talking about equivalency. Unless you live your life by a standard that as long as someone else does something then it's ok for you to do too. I don't know of many adults that live their lives like that, or if I do, I don't hold them in any regard.
Click to expand...

No, but it's fair to point out inconsistencies in what people get upset about. You know, when democrat does it, wild outrage. When republican does it, silence.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Huh? Explain.
Click to expand...
Equal status in the eyes of the law is not a true equivalency.

What changed? The whole idea of marriage that we have had since prior to the founding of this nation.
Click to expand...
Who established that to be an absolute and why?

Precluded? They did nothing of the sort in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Of course they did.

What they did do is give us all a bill of inalienable rights which include our protections of the minority, freedom of speech, press, relgion, to petition our govt for grievances and freedom to assemble with like minded people [ or whoever we want ]. That is what the founders provided... they did not want a tyranny of the minority again, either, having just fought against and rid themselves from the tyranny of George III.
Click to expand...
And they made sure that a tyranny of the majority would not be possible either.

States have the power, reserved in the Constitution, to make such decisions about marriage, education, state taxes, blah blah blah... they are not taking away people's rights, they never had those rights in the first place to be taken away. Marriage is not a Constitutional right... if you think so, point out to me in the Constitution where you find it.
Click to expand...
It is not that marriage is a right, but rather that the state does not have the authority to prevent a person from marrying someone that person wants.
 
Lonely Eternity said:
As a hard working, tax paying, 2nd class citizen of the United States born and raised... I don't think I should have to pay taxes to a government, state or federal, that is willingly going to deny me the rights and priviledges of full citizenship just because some douchebags think it is icky or deviant. These people can't even come up with a valid reason for the denial of these rights. People don't like it. We get it. Don't get married to someone of the same gender. It is really that easy. Oh, we have to protect traditional marriage. You know what, it's too late for that ****. Y'all let Kim and Brittany do it for you. Gays are gross! Take your binoculars off and mind your own damn business. We don't want to bake a cake for those damn homos. Fine. Just pray you don't live in an area with an anti-discrimination policy that includes orientation. My religion doesn't agree with it! Well that's too damn bad. We don't live in a theocracy. This is a country with blended cultures. Get over it.

I will fight for my right to be treated equally and fairly under the law. There is no reason to deny me the right to marry a man of my choice and there never has been. People not liking it isn't reason enough. It's protection from the tyranny of the majority, not the tyranny of minority.
Click to expand...
Nice incoherent rant... not much to pick from the muddled mess to discuss.

Perhaps these two.

You are free to love and to marry whomever you care to [ as long as they want as well ], nobody is stopping you. Just do not expect the marriage to be sanctioned by the state... or by the rest of us. Oh, and if your penchant is love and marriage to children, I would wait on the whole consummation of marriage thing. Prison may or may not be your bag.

And we are at least somewhat in agreement on the whole taxes thing... I agree, lets pay less taxes to this overbearing government, limit its size...yeah man...kumbaya my lord, kumbaya...
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
They can do exactly what others can, just have to do it the way others do it as well.
Click to expand...
And that is exactly what they are prevented fro doing in some places, getting married.

Myriad reasons, most of all we just don't want that as being a part of our culture, our society.
Click to expand...
Who is the "we" because last I looked it was only a minority.

Second its unnatural, third its unnecessary, fourth allowing this deviance will open the floodgates to others, fifth...well, you get the point.
Click to expand...
No, because you have no point.
 
Boo Radley said:
No one said a free pass to all. But as I'm allowed to pursue happiness, and a mate certainly qualifies as to what may make me happy, you need more than just being a majority to override my right.
Click to expand...
You are free to do as you please... just don't expect me or the state to give our blessings. Pursue away at your own pleasure and at your own expense. If you had been keeping up with the thread, you would already know that.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Would you care to explain that offensive idiotic remark?
Click to expand...
There is nothing to explain, stating that only couples who can procreate need to get married is ignorant bigotry. Which part did you have difficulty understanding?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Nice try.
Click to expand...

Judge: "And now the court will hear the defense for the ban against same sex marriage."
Defense: "Your honor, same sex couples cannot have children, and so they should not be able to be married."
Judge: And what of infertile or old couples, or those who simply have no desire to have children?"
Defense: "Nice try, your honor."

Again, there's a good reason why your side is doing poorly in court.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
You are free to love and to marry whomever you care to [ as long as they want as well ], nobody is stopping you. Just do not expect the marriage to be sanctioned by the state... or by the rest of us.
Click to expand...

You assessment is ALMOST correct. The State will sanction SSM, you are free to do as you please.
 
prometeus said:
Equal status in the eyes of the law is not a true equivalency.

Who established that to be an absolute and why?

Of course they did.

And they made sure that a tyranny of the majority would not be possible either.

It is not that marriage is a right, but rather that the state does not have the authority to prevent a person from marrying someone that person wants.
Click to expand...
Okay... and so? See, I know I am too wordy in most of my posts, but now, since you said the obtuse without doing the work of fleshing it out, we have lost the original point... and I am just too busy to go back and look right now...so...next...

It is not necessarily an absolute, but if we the people want it that way, we damn well can keep it that way. It is a proven method that has worked wonderfully for us for generation after generation...along with other attributes within the system, its helped take us to supremacy in world power, a good world power on the whole, and mightily impressive domestic economics...why fix something that isn't broken, as they say. That help you out any?

You are just flat out wrong on preclusion.

Well, because of the system we have, though not precluded, we do have less chance for tyranny here, agreed. Not allowing same sex marriage is in no way to be associated with a tyranny in any event. Would only mean that we the people have spoken about what is and is not allowed in our society... as an exaggerated example, we don't have a tyranny over murderers just because we don't allow murder... the majority believe that we either execute or put in prison for a long time most who would break rules set by a society, the majority of society. In the exaggerated case here, nearly everybody, so nearly a unanimous majority. That is not tyranny.

And you are free, in your own way, to marry whomever you want, nobody will/can stop you if the other is able and willing to give consent... just don't expect state sanction and recognition is all. No biggie for people truly in love... I mean if love and partnership is really what you are after, anyhow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom