• 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!

Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win[W:48]

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

vesper said:
I am well aware of what the law states. That is why legislation or possibly a Supreme Court case will bring protection to anyone who finds themselves in a position of being forced to violate their own conscience whether it be the baker, the health care provider, the attorney, the social welfare worker etc. That they will be protected without fear of the loss of their livelihood or faced with legal battles and economic ruin.
Click to expand...

Will you ever answer my question about recurrent aircraft training for pilots? That violates my conscience and my religion. Should I be exempt?
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Ceist said:
Like the 'devoutly Christian' Colorado baker who refused to sell a cake to a gay couple because of his 'deeply sincere' religious beliefs about marriage but accepted an order for a wedding cake for a DOG wedding?

Yeah... right.
Click to expand...

Also: Pagan solstice party, divorce party.

Antonin Scalia said:
'preserving the traditional institution of marriage’ is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

clownboy said:
No one cares for your sicko fantasies, keep them to yourself. And btw, we DID participate - we voted to not allow homosexual marriage.
Click to expand...

And you should be sued by gay couples there and disenfranchised for violating Equal Protection
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

vesper said:
Sorry you find it unacceptable for a person to dare have a moral conscience and act on it and/ or be forced to violate it in order to make a living.
Well thanks for the info on the case of the photographer. I noticed the Supremes refused to comment on why it was denied. Guess it is up to states to pass protection laws to give businesses the right to refuse to deal with customers based on religious or moral conscience objections wherever they can. And then again there is Congress.
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
why did society find it ok to disregard people who felt it was morally unconscionable to treat blacks equally, serve them, etc...but not gays? Both have had their roots in religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

I think this is a valid question considering your stated position on this subject.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Glen Contrarian said:
So...here's a question. If someone has the right to not allow people into their business because they don't like those peoples' lifestyle or color or religion or whatever, do business owners then have the right to refuse to allow people legally carrying firearms into their business? I mean, I understand that we have 2A rights...but are 2A rights somehow more 'special' than the color one is at birth? Do we have freedom of religion? Of course. Does the Constitution have the equal protection clause? Of course.

So if the business owner cannot refuse someone carrying firearms because carrying those firearms is their constitutional right, then that business owner cannot refuse to serve others who have a constitutional right to be the color they're born, to worship as they will, to love whom they will.
Click to expand...

Actually, even in Texas, if a business posts a sign saying "No guns", you can't bring your gun in. Even with a conceal carry permit.

The equal protection clause applies to the states, not to businesses.

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...
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Boo Radley said:
The key NOT, sure.

But your comparison is apples and oranges. Bigotry is not protected under equal rights or any other law I know of.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. You can believe any way you like. That is the point of the first amendment.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Lursa said:
It's interesting....the Bible discusses fornicators, adulterers, and 'men who lay with other men' all the same as far as sin is concerned.

I havent seen many (any) businesses refusing to serve prostitutes, cheaters, couples that live together, etc. Have you? I wonder why?

Could it be because there's a giant hypocritical bias against gays? One certainly not displayed in the Bible?
Click to expand...

Again, nothing in the Constitution requires you to justify your religious beliefs. If you don't think a wedding is legitimate unless a gerbil dressed as my little pony was present and then sacrificed and eaten by the bride and groom's parents to appease mother Earth's aunt, then you have every right to believe that and no one should be able to force you to otherwise.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

ksu_aviator said:
Sure it is. You can believe any way you like. That is the point of the first amendment.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the other point of the first amendment is that other peoples' religious beliefs are not pushed upon you with the force of law.

ksu_aviator said:
Again, nothing in the Constitution requires you to justify your religious beliefs. If you don't think a wedding is legitimate unless a gerbil dressed as my little pony was present and then sacrificed and eaten by the bride and groom's parents to appease mother Earth's aunt, then you have every right to believe that and no one should be able to force you to otherwise.
Click to expand...


Unless, of course, you believe marriage should be between two adults who love each other and want to solidify that commitment, even if both are of the same gender. Then you can piss off, because the evangelicals say it's wrong.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Deuce said:
Yes, and the other point of the first amendment is that other peoples' religious beliefs are not pushed upon you with the force of law.
Click to expand...

Which is why I am against the government endorsing any marriages as they are a creation of God in most religions.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

ksu_aviator said:
Which is why I am against the government endorsing any marriages as they are a creation of God in most religions.
Click to expand...

It's not an "endorsement." It's a necessary legal recognition for any number of civil issues.

Unless you want social services taking children from families because the other person in the relationship is just a roommate as far as they are concerned.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

ksu_aviator said:
Sure it is. You can believe any way you like. That is the point of the first amendment.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. No law protects equal access for bigots. You may believe what you want. Say what you want. But equality under the law says you cannot discriminate for reasons of race, religion, or gender. Not bigotry. I can't stop you from eating in my burger joint. But I don't have to ask you to speak. Apples and oranges.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

ksu_aviator said:
The 10th amendment does not give anyone the right to force another individual/group, participating in commerce or not, to suspend their religious beliefs and violate their religious views.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that, historically, bigots have used the 10th Amendment to violate the rights of others. Mississippi Burning is an excellent example of that. Mississippi used Christianity to deny the vote to African Americans, and to murder them when they protested. The 10th Amendment does not trump the rest of the Constitution. It only states that rights not addressed specifically in the Constitution belong to the states. The 10th Amendment does not give all rights to the states, only those which are not expressed in other parts of the Constitution. Of course, bigots like to cherry pick the 10th Amendment without paying heed to the rest of the Constitution, WHICH TRUMPS THE 10TH AMENDMENT.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

ksu_aviator said:
Which is why I am against the government endorsing any marriages as they are a creation of God in most religions.
Click to expand...

1.) government isnt endorsing marriages so you have nothing to be against, they are protecting rights and a personal contract though
2.) religious marriage has no impact to this discussio,n they are 100% meaningless to the topic of equal rights/SSM
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

ksu_aviator said:
Again, nothing in the Constitution requires you to justify your religious beliefs. If you don't think a wedding is legitimate unless a gerbil dressed as my little pony was present and then sacrificed and eaten by the bride and groom's parents to appease mother Earth's aunt, then you have every right to believe that and no one should be able to force you to otherwise.
Click to expand...

Agreed. No one is trying to force you to believe anything. The hypocrisy is all yours/theirs.

And religious people shouldnt try to force their belief that 2 people of the same gender shouldnt be allowed to marry either.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Deuce said:
It's not an "endorsement." It's a necessary legal recognition for any number of civil issues.

Unless you want social services taking children from families because the other person in the relationship is just a roommate as far as they are concerned.
Click to expand...

In this case recognition is a form of endorsement.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Boo Radley said:
No it isn't. No law protects equal access for bigots. You may believe what you want. Say what you want. But equality under the law says you cannot discriminate for reasons of race, religion, or gender. Not bigotry. I can't stop you from eating in my burger joint. But I don't have to ask you to speak. Apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

"Bigots" aren't what I am talking about. But, since we are on the subject, aren't you exhibiting your own bigotry by not tolerating that type of thought and speech? That is exactly what the first amendment seeks to prevent witg respect to the government. The government cannot tell people what to say or believe. That is absolutely essential for the voting process to remain fair.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

danarhea said:
The problem here is that, historically, bigots have used the 10th Amendment to violate the rights of others. Mississippi Burning is an excellent example of that. Mississippi used Christianity to deny the vote to African Americans, and to murder them when they protested. The 10th Amendment does not trump the rest of the Constitution. It only states that rights not addressed specifically in the Constitution belong to the states. The 10th Amendment does not give all rights to the states, only those which are not expressed in other parts of the Constitution. Of course, bigots like to cherry pick the 10th Amendment without paying heed to the rest of the Constitution, WHICH TRUMPS THE 10TH AMENDMENT.
Click to expand...

That was murder. The first lets you believe and say what you want but your right ends when you harm someone else. In Mississippi that was murder. In SSM, that is forcing business owners to participate in ceremonies that violate their religious beliefs.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

AGENT J said:
1.) government isnt endorsing marriages so you have nothing to be against, they are protecting rights and a personal contract though
Click to expand...

Yes, they are. That is why you are issued a marriage license.

2.) religious marriage has no impact to this discussio,n they are 100% meaningless to the topic of equal rights/SSM
Click to expand...

To people of the big 3 religions, there is no such thing as a nonreligious marriage.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Lursa said:
Agreed. No one is trying to force you to believe anything. The hypocrisy is all yours/theirs.

And religious people shouldnt try to force their belief that 2 people of the same gender shouldnt be allowed to marry either.
Click to expand...

Oh don't fool yourself into thinking the SSM push is purely about civil rights. This is primarily a push by liberal democrats to distract from the President's failed economic, health care and foreign policies. If this was about civil rights, they would have done it decades ago. They are only pushing it now because they think the issue will get them some votes.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

National, legalized ss marriage is inevitable.

Me?

I think marriage is silly. Being legally pressured to stay with one person for the rest of your life, imo, causes more misery then joy.

A relationship is not stronger because you are married...it's just more difficult to get out of.

And people should be free (and, in fact, encouraged) to leave any romantic relationship the second they want to.

I don't want to be with the wrong person AND the last thing I want is my partner staying with me mostly because it's too much work to leave.


Having said that...any two sane, consenting adults should be able to legally marry.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

ksu_aviator said:
Oh don't fool yourself into thinking the SSM push is purely about civil rights. This is primarily a push by liberal democrats to distract from the President's failed economic, health care and foreign policies. If this was about civil rights, they would have done it decades ago. They are only pushing it now because they think the issue will get them some votes.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Funny how Obama didn't support SSM until he won his second term.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Deuce said:
Yes, and the other point of the first amendment is that other peoples' religious beliefs are not pushed upon you with the force of law.




Unless, of course, you believe marriage should be between two adults who love each other and want to solidify that commitment, even if both are of the same gender. Then you can piss off, because the evangelicals say it's wrong.
Click to expand...

And you keep ignoring the fact that I don't want the government to recognize/regulate marriage. Even among Christians there are differences on who can get married and divorced. Up until Henry VIII marriage was regulated by social groups (i.e. families, churches, etc.) That's what it should return to.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

ksu_aviator said:
In this case recognition is a form of endorsement.
Click to expand...

Call it what you want, the underlying point stands.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

ksu_aviator said:
And you keep ignoring the fact that I don't want the government to recognize/regulate marriage. Even among Christians there are differences on who can get married and divorced. Up until Henry VIII marriage was regulated by social groups (i.e. families, churches, etc.) That's what it should return to.
Click to expand...

And you keep ignoring that in 2014 there are various legal proceedings that require recognition of a family unit.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

ksu_aviator said:
Oh don't fool yourself into thinking the SSM push is purely about civil rights. This is primarily a push by liberal democrats to distract from the President's failed economic, health care and foreign policies. If this was about civil rights, they would have done it decades ago. They are only pushing it now because they think the issue will get them some votes.
Click to expand...

The ultimate cop out, just declare the other side has sinister intentions and ignore any actual good they're doing.

Politician actions change to reflect changing opinions of their constituents? Well, I never!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom