• 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!

Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

Conservative said:
Great, then no need for more of these useless threads. The very small percentage of gay people in America vs the total population must be extremely ecstatic
Click to expand...

The majority of those who support same sex marriage are straight. In fact, more straight people support same sex marriage than oppose it.
 
Conservative said:
Seems the will of the people
Click to expand...

People don't get to vote other peoples rights away.

End of.

You don't think it's a right and that's very cute but in the end, it will be the law of the land.

Just a few formalities to take care of.

You and your discriminatory pals have already lost this fight.
 
Conservative said:
Since polls matter so much to you then why did 19 states have to have their bans overturned by un-elected justices? Seems the will of the people in those states wouldn't require a judge to overturn the ban which of course was created by the people
Click to expand...

What part of the voting process confuses you? At one point in time, a group of people vote on something. Later, the people who can vote change, they change their minds, and they simply don't care or care more about voting. Old people (more likely to oppose same sex marriage) die (just a fact of life). Younger people (more likely to support same sex marriage) become old enough to vote. Many more people change their minds to supporting same sex marriage than opposing it or at the least grow to not care enough to vote against ssm or for a ban. However, many states have a process for either voting for such things or putting them on the ballot to begin with that doesn't allow this change to be reflected within this swift timeframe that we are seeing this change of support.
 
Conservative said:
What part of marriage not being a civil right don't you understand? Your state voted over 60% so you just have a problem being in a true minority. I suggest moving.
Click to expand...
And what about "majority allowed to vote away the freedom of the minority" do you find to be fundamentally aligned with the principles of this country, or the supposed principles of conservatism and their alleged beliefs on individual freedom?
 
roguenuke said:
Actually, I can find a lot.

But at the very least, it is unfair treatment, which is something that the Constitution protects us from when it comes to the laws, which marriage is.
Click to expand...

What unfair treatment is there in this issue that a civil union will not solve? This is incredible and typical leftwing bs
 
Deuce said:
And what about "majority allowed to vote away the freedom of the minority" do you find to be fundamentally aligned with the principles of this country, or the supposed principles of conservatism and their alleged beliefs on individual freedom?
Click to expand...

There are amendments to the Constitution that had to be passed by the "majority" so tell me how that happened? You have so little faith in the American people. let them decide, not justices
 
Conservative said:
What unfair treatment is there in this issue that a civil union will not solve? This is incredible and typical leftwing bs
Click to expand...

What unfair treatment is there calling it marriage? The right, nor religion own the definition of marriage.
 
roguenuke said:
What part of the voting process confuses you? At one point in time, a group of people vote on something. Later, the people who can vote change, they change their minds, and they simply don't care or care more about voting. Old people (more likely to oppose same sex marriage) die (just a fact of life). Younger people (more likely to support same sex marriage) become old enough to vote. Many more people change their minds to supporting same sex marriage than opposing it or at the least grow to not care enough to vote against ssm or for a ban. However, many states have a process for either voting for such things or putting them on the ballot to begin with that doesn't allow this change to be reflected within this swift timeframe that we are seeing this change of support.
Click to expand...

Good, put it on the ballot instead of having laws overturned by an non elected judge. Apparently it doesn't bother you that 19 states had their will changed by a justice. Wonder how you would feel if a judge changed your will on an issue that you supported? You don't seem to understand the will of the people at all or how laws are made and changed, not by judges. Like far too many you don't like a law you go to a judge to change it. One of these days that position is going to bite you in the ass.
 
Jetboogieman said:
People don't get to vote other peoples rights away.

End of.

You don't think it's a right and that's very cute but in the end, it will be the law of the land.

Just a few formalities to take care of.

You and your discriminatory pals have already lost this fight.
Click to expand...

People have the right to move if they don't like the laws in a particular state. All your arguments are typical of the leftwingers in this country whose arrogance is on full display. Yep, let's let an non elected judge overturn the laws of the people. Brilliant strategy
 
Conservative said:
What unfair treatment is there in this issue that a civil union will not solve? This is incredible and typical leftwing bs
Click to expand...

I told you. You can marry a woman and I can't, and it is only because I am a woman. That is unfair because it is the laws that are preventing a legal marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, but allow for someone of the other sex to marry them. Sex discrimination.
 
Conservative said:
Good, put it on the ballot instead of having laws overturned by an non elected judge. Apparently it doesn't bother you that 19 states had their will changed by a justice. Wonder how you would feel if a judge changed your will on an issue that you supported? You don't seem to understand the will of the people at all or how laws are made and changed, not by judges. Like far too many you don't like a law you go to a judge to change it. One of these days that position is going to bite you in the ass.
Click to expand...

Like I said, no. It is done. The courts get the results faster, establish fair treatment of the laws more quickly.

It would depend on the issue. Name one, and I'll tell you whether it is covered or not according to precedent and our Constitution.
 
Conservative said:
There are amendments to the Constitution that had to be passed by the "majority" so tell me how that happened? You have so little faith in the American people. let them decide, not justices
Click to expand...

No. All Amendments in our US Constitution were passed by a supermajority, not a "majority".
 
roguenuke said:
I told you. You can marry a woman and I can't, and it is only because I am a woman. That is unfair because it is the laws that are preventing a legal marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, but allow for someone of the other sex to marry them. Sex discrimination.
Click to expand...

I am prevented from doing a lot of things that I WANT to do but such is life. It is full of disappointments, apparently yours is not being able to marry a same sex partner. Move to a state that allows it and stop forcing your opinion and beliefs on me
 
Conservative said:
I am prevented from doing a lot of things that I WANT to do but such is life. It is full of disappointments, apparently yours is not being able to marry a same sex partner. Move to a state that allows it and stop forcing your opinion and beliefs on me
Click to expand...

Are you legally prevented from doing something based on your gender/sex? If so, fight it.
 
roguenuke said:
No. All Amendments in our US Constitution were passed by a supermajority, not a "majority".
Click to expand...

Exactly, but in order to have a super majority you have to have a majority first, don't you? How did those Amendments get passed with such an evil population that won't allow you to marry a person of your own sex. A civil union will suffice but you don't want that but aren't willing to move to a state that allows it. How selfish of you expecting your morals to be thrust on the rest of us.
 
roguenuke said:
Are you legally prevented from doing something based on your gender/sex? If so, fight it.
Click to expand...

No interest in fighting it. life is full of disappointments so I just live with it. You obviously have lived with it for a long time, get over it and move on
 
Conservative said:
For everyone you post who makes that claim I can post the same number who don't agree. There are opinions that you want to believe as fact whereas there are other opinions I prefer. Your opinion noted.
Click to expand...

LMAO. The opinions I want to believe as fact are based on the evidence and reality. The opinions you "prefer" are rooted in ignorance. They aren't equivalent....
 
roguenuke said:
Like I said, no. It is done. The courts get the results faster, establish fair treatment of the laws more quickly.

It would depend on the issue. Name one, and I'll tell you whether it is covered or not according to precedent and our Constitution.
Click to expand...

You lived under the laws of your state for decades and I assume you are old enough to have lived under those laws while of legal age. Now all of a sudden you want the courts to overrule the laws you lived under. Why is that? I call it liberal arrogance and attempts to force your beliefs on others. How typical of liberals
 
Conservative said:
There are amendments to the Constitution that had to be passed by the "majority" so tell me how that happened? You have so little faith in the American people. let them decide, not justices
Click to expand...

So, you admit then that individual freedom is less important than a vote of 51% of the population. Ok.

I disagree. It doesn't matter if I can get 51% of the population to vote that Christianity doesn't count as a religion. First amendment still applies.
 
JasperL said:
LMAO. The opinions I want to believe as fact are based on the evidence and reality. The opinions you "prefer" are rooted in ignorance. They aren't equivalent....
Click to expand...

Show me the gay gene, the we can talk about ignorance. You pass off the opinions of others as fact when they really are nothing other than opinions
 
Conservative said:
You lived under the laws of your state for decades and I assume you are old enough to have lived under those laws while of legal age. Now all of a sudden you want the courts to overrule the laws you lived under. Why is that? I call it liberal arrogance and attempts to force your beliefs on others. How typical of liberals
Click to expand...

:lamo

You're the one arguing for forcing your moral disapproval of someone else's marriage decision. You are the one arguing against individual liberty. You are the one arguing for bigger government. And why? Because 51% of the population want it that way? Funny how collectivism is a bad word, except when you want to use it to further your agenda. 51% of the population votes for bigger social safety nets, that's it right? You drop your objection? Let the people decide, right?

The founding fathers would weep at your authoritarianism.
 
Deuce said:
So, you admit then that individual freedom is less important than a vote of 51% of the population. Ok.

I disagree. It doesn't matter if I can get 51% of the population to vote that Christianity doesn't count as a religion. First amendment still applies.
Click to expand...

Attacks on religion continue and will always continue. The Constitution protects freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion. There is a reason, which you are part of, that democracies don't survive centuries. The rule of law is a moving target for liberals and anything you don't like or agree with is fair game. Thanks for helping destroy this once great country, you must be so proud. Without laws there is chaos
 
Deuce said:
:lamo

You're the one arguing for forcing your moral disapproval of someone else's marriage decision. You are the one arguing against individual liberty. You are the one arguing for bigger government. And why? Because 51% of the population want it that way? Funny how collectivism is a bad word, except when you want to use it to further your agenda. 51% of the population votes for bigger social safety nets, that's it right? You drop your objection? Let the people decide, right?

The founding fathers would weep at your authoritarianism.
Click to expand...

What part of states' rights don't you understand? When have I spoken out against the state making the decision not the courts?
 
Conservative said:
Attacks on religion continue and will always continue. The Constitution protects freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion. There is a reason, which you are part of, that democracies don't survive centuries. The rule of law is a moving target for liberals and anything you don't like or agree with is fair game. Thanks for helping destroy this once great country, you must be so proud. Without laws there is chaos
Click to expand...

:lamo

Listen to yourself. Without laws there is chaos. We're talking about two adult males signing a legal contract with absolutely no impact on your life. Chaos. Chaos. Our democracy isn't going to survive! We have to enforce my moral disapproval onto people, to save this country of freedom! :lamo
 
Deuce said:
:lamo

Listen to yourself. Without laws there is chaos. We're talking about two adult males signing a legal contract with absolutely no impact on your life. Chaos. Chaos. Our democracy isn't going to survive! We have to enforce my moral disapproval onto people, to save this country of freedom! :lamo
Click to expand...

No, what we are talking about is overturning the will of the people on some bogus argument that marriage is a civil right. This is an issue for the people to decide not the courts and until marriage is in the Constitution my position stands.

it is a much bigger issue than two consenting adults signing a legal document, it is about the roles and responsibilities of govt. and about promoting a limited federal govt. that is responsible solely for our defense not our personal responsibility issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom