• 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!

Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
80,422
Reaction score
29,075
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/11/politics/ted-cruz-2016-gay-marriage-bill/

[h=2]Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage[/h]
"I support traditional marriage and we should reject attempts by the Obama administration to force same-sex marriage on all 50 states. The State Marriage Defense Act helps safeguard the ability of states to preserve traditional marriage for their citizens," he said.

wow what a waste of time and money, also nothing like making sure you wont be president either lol Equal rights is coming bigots . .. give it up

again im not saying this one topic SHOULD decide who could be president but any candidate that comes out against equal rights and they make it "PART OF THEIR CAMPAIGN AND RUNNING PLATFORM" is sure to lose lol

its just the way politics will be in 2016

lastly traditional marriage is in no danger by equal rights, its a made up subjective thing, it wont be impacted at all

next "the obama administration forcing it"? It doesnt get any dumber than that. :lamo

good lord
the war is over but its entertaining seeing the last desperate attempts of bigotry, it shows peoples true colors
 
Last edited:
I think Ted Cruz knows this kinda bill is a dud, but is well aware stunts like these will keep the Religious Right in Texas voting for him.
 
wow what a waste of time and money, also nothing like making sure you wont be president either lol Equal rights is coming bigots . .. give it up

again im not saying this one topic SHOULD decide who could be president but any candidate that comes out against equal rights and thy make it "PART OF THEIR CAMPAIGN AND RUNNING PLATFORM" are sure to lose lol its just the way politics will be in 2016

lastly traditional marriage is in no danger by equal rights, its a made up subjective thing, it wont be impacted at all, next "the obama administration forcing it"? It doesnt get any dumber than that. :lamo

good lord
the war is over but its entertaining seeing the last desperate attempts of bigotry, it shows peoples true colors

Add Jindal to the list
Jindal won't 'evolve' on same-sex marriage - CNN.com

he wants a constitutional amendment in favor of bans lol, does he also plan on removing the 14th? lol
 
wow what a waste of time and money, also nothing like making sure you wont be president either lol Equal rights is coming bigots . .. give it up

again im not saying this one topic SHOULD decide who could be president but any candidate that comes out against equal rights and thy make it "PART OF THEIR CAMPAIGN AND RUNNING PLATFORM" are sure to lose lol its just the way politics will be in 2016

lastly traditional marriage is in no danger by equal rights, its a made up subjective thing, it wont be impacted at all, next "the obama administration forcing it"? It doesnt get any dumber than that. :lamo

good lord
the war is over but its entertaining seeing the last desperate attempts of bigotry, it shows peoples true colors

Butchering of English grammar aside, I'm actually semi-okay with this and here's why: essentially what he is arguing for is to protect a state's ability choose if it wants to allow SSM in the state or not. Mainly because the way the electorate is going anyways, even if said bill was passed, eventually every state will legalize SSM anyways.
 
I think Ted Cruz knows this kinda bill is a dud, but is well aware stunts like these will keep the Religious Right in Texas voting for him.

I dont totally disagree but is that his end game? just making the religious extremist and right fringe happy?
Not that I think he ever had a shot but does he not care to be POTUS?
 
I dont totally disagree but is that his end game? just making the religious extremist and right fringe happy?
Not that I think he ever had a shot but does he not care to be POTUS?

I'm sure he's ambitious enough to one to be President one day, but he's not stupid enough to think it'll happen in the next 4-8 years.
 
Butchering of English grammar aside, I'm actually semi-okay with this and here's why: essentially what he is arguing for is to protect a state's ability choose if it wants to allow SSM in the state or not. Mainly because the way the electorate is going anyways, even if said bill was passed, eventually every state will legalize SSM anyways.

I know what he is going for but the problem is the state has no power to choose in this case. The states rights are already fully in tact. Bannings overreached thier power and thats why they are being corrected.

Saying that "eventually" states will probably stop infringin on and violating individual rights is not a good point at all, and its purely a guess. It was either alabama or mississippi that tried a bill to stop interracial marriage in the last past 2-3 years, of course it failed but Im just saying . . . . .
 
It amazes me that so many GOPers are willing to hitch their wagon to such a clear losing issue.

a totally losing issue . . .
why "some" people want to be the ones who fought for the racism and segregation of our time is beyond me . . . .why are people against equal rights simply because they dont want some of thier fellow americans to have them . . . .theres nothing more hypocritical as an american
 
I'm sure he's ambitious enough to one to be President one day, but he's not stupid enough to think it'll happen in the next 4-8 years.

hmmmmmm interesting . . . . . .
thats a good theory I like . . .
 
I know what he is going for but the problem is the state has no power to choose in this case. The states rights are already fully in tact. Bannings overreached thier power and thats why they are being corrected.

Saying that "eventually" states will probably stop infringin on and violating individual rights is not a good point at all, and its purely a guess. It was either alabama or mississippi that tried a bill to stop interracial marriage in the last past 2-3 years, of course it failed but Im just saying . . . . .

No, that's what I'm saying. SSM is an issue, must like drugs incidentally, that the nation has been softening on for about a decade. And there are serious legal issues raises when you try to extend the 14th amendment to protect legal agreements (which is really what SSM is all about). It opens up the doors for all sorts of other issues like incest and polygamy. I'm not saying that loving someone of the same sex is a choice, but to enter into a legal agreement that says such is. See the difference?
 
`
Cruz is an idiot, elected by idiots.
 
It amazes me that so many GOPers are willing to hitch their wagon to such a clear losing issue.

And 10 years ago this issue got Bush re-elected. It's crazy how much movement there's been on the issue in such a short period of time.
 
And 10 years ago this issue got Bush re-elected. It's crazy how much movement there's been on the issue in such a short period of time.

Absolutely true. The GOP's move to get gay marriage ballot initiatives in battleground states in 2004, when support was middling but the people against it would turn out in droves, was a masterstroke. It was cynical, dark politics, but it won an election.
 
I certainly don't think he's an idiot. I do think he's soulless, shameless and slimy.

Does that have more to do with a) not liking his politics and/or b) being cynical he buys into said politics?
 
It amazes me that so many GOPers are willing to hitch their wagon to such a clear losing issue.

It could be that they are standing up for their sincere belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.
 
1.)No, that's what I'm saying. SSM is an issue, must like drugs incidentally, that the nation has been softening on for about a decade. 2.) And there are serious legal issues raises when you try to extend the 14th amendment to protect legal agreements (which is really what SSM is all about). It opens up the doors for all sorts of other issues like incest and polygamy. I'm not saying that loving someone of the same sex is a choice, but to enter into a legal agreement that says such is. See the difference?


1.) as far as wanting it to be illegal or banned, its only an issue for bigots and people against equal rights. Those people "feelings" dont matter
2.) good grief sorry but no it doesnt extend (open the doors) to incest and polygamy
there is ZERO legal precedence that is based solely on equal rights for SSM that lends itself to polygamy and incest, not one

if your argument held true at all individual rights and equal rights is the problem itself in your scenario, not protecting the equal rights of gays

i could apply yourargument to any rights, women's minorities, religious etc etc theres no danger here
 
1.) as far as wanting it to be illegal or banned, its only an issue for bigots and people against equal rights. Those people "feelings" dont matter
2.) good grief sorry but no it doesnt extend (open the doors) to incest and polygamy
there is ZERO legal precedence that is based solely on equal rights for SSM that lends itself to polygamy and incest, not one

if your argument held true at all individual rights and equal rights is the problem itself in your scenario, not protecting the equal rights of gays

i could apply yourargument to any rights, women's minorities, religious etc etc theres no danger here

You're not listening to what I'm saying. The reason it wouldn't apply to women or race is because you are judging them based solely on who they, not what their doing. You feel, and I think many on our side erroneously think so as well, that many of those who oppose SSM do so because they simply hate gays. This isn't some backwater African government that wants to ban any expression or support for homosexuality. What they fear most is what will happen when you start assigning equal rights to legal arrangements and that's all that marriage (straight or gay) is. Once you start assigning those protections to legal arrangements, then you start to move into the territory where stuff like polygamy can be recognized under the law and offered the same treatment as other marriages.
 
It could be that they are standing up for their sincere belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Sure, it could be, if one was so naive as to think the vast majority of these guys aren't craven panderers to the extremes of their respective bases.

Being against SSM is one thing. Wanting it hard-wired into the Constitution, against the wishes of a growing portion of the American people, just seems ludicrous to me.
 
You're not listening to what I'm saying. The reason it wouldn't apply to women or race is because you are judging them based solely on who they, not what their doing. You feel, and I think many on our side erroneously think so as well, that many of those who oppose SSM do so because they simply hate gays. This isn't some backwater African government that wants to ban any expression or support for homosexuality. What they fear most is what will happen when you start assigning equal rights to legal arrangements and that's all that marriage (straight or gay) is. Once you start assigning those protections to legal arrangements, then you start to move into the territory where stuff like polygamy can be recognized under the law and offered the same treatment as other marriages.

If all parties consent, why shouldn't polygamy be legal? Marriage is a contractual agreement. Why should people be prevented from entering into such an agreement?

That said, claiming A inexorably leads to B is the textbook "slippery slope" logical fallacy.
 
I certainly don't think he's an idiot. I do think he's soulless, shameless and slimy.
`
True.....uncompassionate, insensitive, heartless...lacking any kind of nobility.
 
If all parties consent, why shouldn't polygamy be legal? Marriage is a contractual agreement. Why should people be prevented from entering into such an agreement?

That said, claiming A inexorably leads to B is the textbook "slippery slope" logical fallacy.

I'm not sure how it's a fallacy when you validate the point in the previous line...

`
True.....uncompassionate, insensitive, heartless...lacking any kind of nobility.

Haters gotta hate I suppose.
 
I'm not sure how it's a fallacy when you validate the point in the previous line...



Haters gotta hate I suppose.

I'm not claiming that SSM would invariably lead to polygamy. I'm just questioning why polygamy should be illegal. Although I will say that slippery slope argument isn't nearly as offensive as when people claim it will lead to legal bestiality, pedophilia, or people marrying their appliances.

Claiming that legal SSM will invariably lead to legal polygamy is like claiming legal marijuana will invariably lead to legal PCP.
 
Back
Top Bottom