• 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 throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

Kal'Stang said:
Can you prove that judge had a horse in the race? Just because he's a homosexual doesn't mean that he wants to get married.
Click to expand...

Nope, and I didn't say he did. However, if he does, he should be recused.
 
clownboy said:
Actually, no on that last. It took less than four years. Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the constitution and federal law was silent on the issue of interracial marriage. The Loving decision came in 1967.
Click to expand...

The 14th Amendment was made long before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Try again. ;)
 
Grand Mal said:
Maybe, in theory, but not in specifics. Conservatives generally favour the war on drugs, mandatory sentences, anti-abortion laws, anti-gay laws, stronger police powers (if anyone ever said to you, "What are you afraid of if you have nothing to hide?", it was a conservative).
I'd venture to say that nearly every advance in personal liberties was pushed forward by liberals and resisted by conservatives.
Click to expand...

We may know very different conservatives, Mal. The ones I know (including myself and my husband and most of our friends and family) are in favor of legalizing most drugs, don't give a **** about abortion, don't give a **** about gay marriage (people's bedroom preferences are something I'd rather not know about), and don't want to be policed by anyone.
 
clownboy said:
Nope, and I didn't say he did. However, if he does, he should be recused.
Click to expand...

So you have no proof that he should have recused himself, you just think that he should because he's gay. No other reason.
 
clownboy said:
Should have just stopped with the bolded part.
Click to expand...

So when a town votes that saying certain things outloud in public they you will support them?
When a town votes that there can be no guns in public at all you will support them?
When a town votes you can't smoke in your car you will support them?
 
Grand Mal said:
Maybe, in theory, but not in specifics. Conservatives generally favour the war on drugs, mandatory sentences, anti-abortion laws, anti-gay laws, stronger police powers (if anyone ever said to you, "What are you afraid of if you have nothing to hide?", it was a conservative).
I'd venture to say that nearly every advance in personal liberties was pushed forward by liberals and resisted by conservatives.
Click to expand...

A lot of them have, and I'm sure you could come up with a lot of examples. Others have been supported by conservatives and resisted by liberals.

Sometimes the conservatives are on the right side, that is the side of personal liberty, and sometimes the liberals are on the right side.

Now, if more would take a close look at libertarian philosophy.... oh, that's just a pipe dream isn't it?
 
Grand Mal said:
Don't tell me what I believe. I've been liberal all my life and all I ask of the government is for it to stay as far out of my life as it can get. Some conservative politician is always trying to give the government more power to interfere where it doesn't belong.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that the actions of many of the left leaning politicians, including requiring people to buy healthcare insurance and trying to make it difficult to buy cigarettes, sweets & soda, etc. are demonstrating a desire to stay out of your life?
 
Grand Mal said:
Don't tell me what I believe. I've been liberal all my life and all I ask of the government is for it to stay as far out of my life as it can get. Some conservative politician is always trying to give the government more power to interfere where it doesn't belong.
Click to expand...

That's just the thing, if you believe what you say you do, you've not been liberal all your life. Wanting government to leave you alone is not a liberal position. Unless of course you're claiming to be one of selfish liberals that are fine with the government sticking their noses in everyone else's business, as long as YOU are left alone.
 
WCH said:
When a judge can legislate from the bench against the will of the people, the Constitution has been trashed regardless.
Click to expand...

Good thing that is not what is happening. The judge was doing his job.
 
tres borrachos said:
We may know very different conservatives, Mal. The ones I know (including myself and my husband and most of our friends and family) are in favor of legalizing most drugs, don't give a **** about abortion, don't give a **** about gay marriage (people's bedroom preferences are something I'd rather not know about), and don't want to be policed by anyone.
Click to expand...

You might be right. I'm Canadian. I've berated people here for what I see as a really false use of the term 'liberal' from my perspective, and I might be guilty of a similar mistake.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'd have no problem with allowing polygamy. Incest however, no thanks. For the simple fact that genetics don't like it and its too easy for the dominate sibling to "persuade" the non-dominate sibling into such things.
Click to expand...

I personally find the idea of incest repulsive, but isn't it hypocritical to support open marriage for all, and not incestuous marriage? It is.
 
Grand Mal said:
You might be right. I'm Canadian. I've berated people here for what I see as a really false use of the term 'liberal' from my perspective, and I might be guilty of a similar mistake.
Click to expand...

Canadians are good people.
 
Sababa said:
So when a town votes that saying certain things outloud in public they you will support them?
When a town votes that there can be no guns in public at all you will support them?
When a town votes you can't smoke in your car you will support them?
Click to expand...

Sure, wouldn't live there myself though.
 
tres borrachos said:
I'm pro-gay marriage but I am curious when the freedoms of polygamists are going to be taken up as a cause, and the cause for people who want to marry their siblings?

Marriage should be open to everyone who is of legal age.
Click to expand...

first is not a problem, the second has issues of consent.
 
Grand Mal said:
Don't tell me what I believe. I've been liberal all my life and all I ask of the government is for it to stay as far out of my life as it can get. Some conservative politician is always trying to give the government more power to interfere where it doesn't belong.
Click to expand...

Sounds more like a confused Libertarian. ;)
 
Sababa said:
first is not a problem, the second has issues of consent.
Click to expand...

Polygamy is illegal.

Incest can be consentual.

I support the right of both assuming the people in question are of age. No different than gay marriage.
 
WCH said:
He has a domestic partner and they have a son. I'd say he is married [at least common law]. Now due to the stroke of his own pen, he'll likely be able to marry.

Michael J. McShane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

your accusation is ridiculous based on the fact that when ever this has come up in a court recently other judges ruled the same way. I also think your slandering this man is disgusting.
 
clownboy said:
No you don't. You want to "win" on the gay rights issue and couldn't care less what gets you there. That much has been made obvious.
Click to expand...

nope I want equal rights to win but you can keep believing any falsehoods you want they dont matter to facts and reality lol
 
clownboy said:
Sure, wouldn't live there myself though.
Click to expand...

well then you assume we can vote against our Constitutional rights? Then I see you don't understand how the law works.
 
Luftwaffe said:
I think the correct phrase is the logical fallacy "argumentum ad populum" :D
Click to expand...

yep the failed and mentally inept argument of peoples votes on this issue has always been and will continue to be a failed strawman that people just laugh at and nobody honest and educated takes seriously
 
WCH said:
When a judge can legislate from the bench against the will of the people, the Constitution has been trashed regardless.
Click to expand...

will of the people is meaningless when it violates the constitution
sorry the fed protecting equal rights bothers you lol
 
Kal'Stang said:
The 14th Amendment was made long before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Try again. ;)
Click to expand...

That's nice, but when the 14th was written as a reconstruction amendment (1868) until Brown V the Board of Education (1954) the SCOTUS did not recognize segregation of the races as unconstitutional. Try again.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So you have no proof that he should have recused himself, you just think that he should because he's gay. No other reason.
Click to expand...

You're arguing with the wrong poster. Read back to see.
 
Deuce said:
Is amusing that you think the constitution grants you the right to vote against someone else's freedom.
Click to expand...

so amusing that nobody buys it.
Nobody can honestly believe somethign so stupid and mean it.
Its just s dishonest hyperbole argument in a desperate attempt to rally people against equal rights.

It fails like it always does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom