• 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

roguenuke said:
See, again, you know so little about genetics, and yet you continue to spout off information as if it is fact.
Click to expand...

Since you know so much about genetics, please show me the gay gene??
 
chromium said:
Oh, what a mind reader we have here! You can stop putting words in my mouth anytime, cause i've said nothing about pursuit of happiness or attention. Especially on some anonymous forum, attention whoring is quite an absurd accusation.

It's about equality only. Similar to employment discrimination, some take the stance we should not have such laws period, but that so long as we do, sexuality needs to be covered as well. You know, because that's equality. Although i disagree in that i think we do need anti discrimination laws, at least they take a rational, consistent approach. This "everyone can get married or protected from discrimination *except* those homos" is simply coming from hatred. At least admit to that
Click to expand...

It is frustrating dealing with people who have absolutely no civics or history education. Marriage is a common law and not in the Constitution. You don't support states' rights, got it. Have a good one.
 
Conservative said:
Since you know so much about genetics, please show me the gay gene??
Click to expand...

Whether there is a "gay gene" or not is really irrevelevant.....how about its none of your friggin business who two consenting adults want to marry.
 
Conservative said:
Since you know so much about genetics, please show me the gay gene??
Click to expand...

The fact that you continue to ask for a gay gene is what shows that you know so little about genetics. That isn't how genetics works when it comes to personality traits.
 
Conservative said:
It is frustrating dealing with people who have absolutely no civics or history education. Marriage is a common law and not in the Constitution. You don't support states' rights, got it. Have a good one.
Click to expand...

Its even more frustrating dealing with people who have zero concept of what the Constitution is about. Got it.....have a good one Con....
 
disneydude said:
Whether there is a "gay gene" or not is really irrevelevant.....how about its none of your friggin business who two consenting adults want to marry.
Click to expand...


No question about it states have no rights in the liberal world
 
Conservative said:
The fact that it isn't in the Constitution and that makes it a state issue.
Click to expand...
No the rights of the people have never been nor will they ever be a states issue.

Anyone that doesn't agree with you is a bigot?
Click to expand...
No just those who want to discriminate or deny rights to others, much like you advocate.

fortunately you constitution less than 5% of the population
Click to expand...
Care to try that in coherent English or that is also a challenge for you?

so I couldn't care less what you think.
Click to expand...
I am sure, but that does not alter the facts.
 
disneydude said:
Not if they try to trump the US Constitution. I'm sorry....but I thought even you would be able to recognize that.
Click to expand...

When you can show me marriage in the Constitution then you will have a point, until then this is nothing more that malcontents seeking attention and their effort to eliminate all laws so they can do whatever they want to do.
 
prometeus said:
No the rights of the people have never been nor will they ever be a states issue.

No just those who want to discriminate or deny rights to others, much like you advocate.

Care to try that in coherent English or that is also a challenge for you?

I am sure, but that does not alter the facts.
Click to expand...

So what is the end game for you, no laws? You can apply equal protection to just about any issue as it relates to you. Marriage isn't in the Constitution, you aren't born gay therefore there is no equal protection for personal choice issues. you can get a number of activist liberal justices to rule your way but that doesn't change the fact. Race and gender are indeed uncontrollable by the people thus are protected rights, choosing to be gay for your own personal satisfaction isn't protected by anything
 
Conservative said:
When you can show me marriage in the Constitution then you will have a point, until then this is nothing more that malcontents seeking attention and their effort to eliminate all laws so they can do whatever they want to do.
Click to expand...

Take a course on Conlaw...educate yourself a little....then get back to me and we'll talk. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time trying to talk sense with someone who doesn't have a clue what they are attempting to talk about.
 
prometeus said:
No the rights of the people have never been nor will they ever be a states issue.

No just those who want to discriminate or deny rights to others, much like you advocate.

Care to try that in coherent English or that is also a challenge for you?

I am sure, but that does not alter the facts.
Click to expand...

What Conservative fails to recognize is that equal protection is not contingent upon "genes". Somewhere he heard that talking point and refuses to come off it.
 
disneydude said:
Take a course on Conlaw...educate yourself a little....then get back to me and we'll talk. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time trying to talk sense with someone who doesn't have a clue what they are attempting to talk about.
Click to expand...

You ought to worry more about your own credibility than mine. As one of the declining numbers of Obama supporters and as a big govt. liberal who cannot admit that liberalism is a failure, it is your credibility that is the issue, not mine. Civics, economics, and now history aren't your strong suits
 
disneydude said:
What Conservative fails to recognize is that equal protection is not contingent upon "genes". Somewhere he heard that talking point and refuses to come off it.
Click to expand...

Two different subjects but yes genes do indeed play a role as race and gender are gene related and thus are protected. Hard for anyone to understand people like you who for some reason believe that marriage is a right and not a privilege, that whether or not someone is married is a personal choice issue not a civil rights issue. People like you really are part of the problem not part of the solution. Let the states do their own thing with regard to their own common law. Personal choice issues are allowed but not guaranteed in the Constitution. You can choose to be with whoever you want but don't expect the Constitution to protect you for something that isn't there.
 
Conservative said:
When you can show me marriage in the Constitution then you will have a point, until then this is nothing more that malcontents seeking attention and their effort to eliminate all laws so they can do whatever they want to do.
Click to expand...
Show me race in the 14th amendment.
 
Conservative said:
Two different subjects but yes genes do indeed play a role as race and gender are gene related and thus are protected. Hard for anyone to understand people like you who for some reason believe that marriage is a right and not a privilege, that whether or not someone is married is a personal choice issue not a civil rights issue. People like you really are part of the problem not part of the solution. Let the states do their own thing with regard to their own common law. Personal choice issues are allowed but not guaranteed in the Constitution. You can choose to be with whoever you want but don't expect the Constitution to protect you for something that isn't there.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Gender is protected.

So we can't define marriage as between a man and a woman.

While you're at it, show me gender in the 14th amendment.
 
Deuce said:
Show me race in the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I see race, gender which are gene related but not personal choice like being gay? Is there any limits to the equal protection clause in your world? People have no choice on their race or gender thus a civil rights issue. Show me marriage and gay personal choice in the Constitution?
 
Deuce said:
Bingo. Gender is protected.

So we can't define marriage as between a man and a woman.

While you're at it, show me gender in the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

Because marriage is a personal choice, a privilege, and common law
 
Conservative said:
Interesting, I see race, gender which are gene related but not personal choice like being gay? Is there any limits to the equal protection clause in your world? People have no choice on their race or gender thus a civil rights issue. Show me marriage and gay personal choice in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

I will answer this question if you admit "is not in the constitution" is no longer your basis for objection to applying equal protection to marriage issues. Because now you have jumped ship over to "is a personal choice" or "is genetic."
 
Conservative said:
Interesting, I see race, gender which are gene related but not personal choice like being gay? Is there any limits to the equal protection clause in your world? People have no choice on their race or gender thus a civil rights issue. Show me marriage and gay personal choice in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

Can you show us where scientifically it is agreed upon by the entire scientific community that being gay is a choice? Did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual?
 
Deuce said:
I will answer this question if you admit "is not in the constitution" is no longer your basis for objection to applying equal protection to marriage issues. Because now you have jumped ship over to "is a personal choice" or "is genetic."
Click to expand...

the reality is pro SSM people cannot prove that being gay is at birth as there is no such thing as a gay gene but there are genes for race and gender and that coupled with the states' rights issue makes it irrelevant to the Constitution IMO.
 
TheNextEra said:
Can you show us where scientifically it is agreed upon by the entire scientific community that being gay is a choice? Did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual?
Click to expand...

In the absence of a gay gene, there is no scientific evidence that being gay happens at birth. That is why liberals never talk about that issue
 
Conservative said:
In the absence of a gay gene, there is no scientific evidence that being gay happens at birth. That is why liberals never talk about that issue
Click to expand...

Yes, but science has not ruled out the possibility of a gay gene or combination thereof. That's why cons such as yourself can never discuss science intelligently.

Let me guess, Gravity was NEVER there until someone wrote the science on it huh? Typical Cons, like to bible thump and act like their intelligent, how cute.

You still upset over you losing the gay marriage argument huh? It is happening in SPITE of what you "think". Deal with that Con.
 
Conservative said:
the reality is pro SSM people cannot prove that being gay is at birth as there is no such thing as a gay gene but there are genes for race and gender and that coupled with the states' rights issue makes it irrelevant to the Constitution IMO.
Click to expand...

And science has not ruled out that it could be biological and not a choice either. Too bad the right and you keep losing the SSM argument and more and more places are making SSM legal. You are on the wrong side of history as always.
 
Conservative said:
I was married for over 40 years and marriage has been on the books for centuries. Don't you find it a bit disturbing that all this SSM lawsuit bs just surfaced in the 70's? Why is that? What makes this an issue now and one that by all estimates involves less than 5% of the American population? I contend it has nothing to do with pursuit of happiness but rather malcontents who are looking for and seeing attention. I have no use for these people nor for their cause especially if it isn't passed by the state electorate
Click to expand...

Because up until the mid-80s, gays *had* to hide to have *normal* lives. They even married in attempts to fit in. They tried, but they still were gay, staying in the 'closet' didnt make them less gay.

So finally, they were able to, slowly, come out of the closet. And it cost them....they were beaten, killed, lost their jobs, were refused jobs, lost custody of their kids, called perverts and pedophiles and removed for a time from entire professions. It still happens.

Gay people were always within our society....contributing with good jobs, raising kids, being doctors, firemen, teachers, everything. Why should they have to hide who they are and who they love? How would you like to have to live like that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom