• 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!

Cuba gay pride calls for same-sex marriage to become legal

Why does that matter?

Just responding to someone who said that gays were a significant part of the population. I've heard as low as 3% and as high as 10, depending on whose spinning the bull. So I don't know how significant they are numerically.
 
Just responding to someone who said that gays were a significant part of the population. I've heard as low as 3% and as high as 10, depending on whose spinning the bull. So I don't know how significant they are numerically.

Split the difference, let's say 6.5% of the population.

Asian-Americans = 4.8%
Jewish-Americans = 2.6%
Southern Baptists = 5.5%

Are none of those significant parts of the population either?
 
There seems to be great headway being made in Cuba by LGBT rights activists in promoting equal treatment for the country's long-oppressed sexual minorities. The indefatigable activism of some very brave people, plus a welcome softening and modernising approach from the régime seems to be allowing a lot of progress to happen in a very short time. I wonder whether the great Satan of human rights abusers will pass SSM into nationwide law before the home of the free does.
[h=1]
Cuba gay pride calls for same-sex marriage to become legal
[/h]
How embarrassed would you be if Cuba beat your own home country in its much improved treatment of a significant demographic minority?

I wouldn't be embarrassed at all.

If the Supreme Court deemed that marriage was not a right and was a state issue for states to figure out themselves then that would be in line with the constitution, which is the legal God of America.

The world's view on our domestic issue in regards to the constitution and the rights of the people are meaningless.
 
Decisions that rectify injustice and discrimination should be welcomed wherever they occur. If your May 22nd referendum rejects gay marriage, am I to congratulate Ireland on its democratic process? What comfort is it to oppressed minorities to learn that at least the discrimination being heaped on them is democratically arrived at?

Interpretation of the constitution has nothing to do with democracy.

Oh I love it when Europeans think they know America better than Americans!
 
Interpretation of the constitution has nothing to do with democracy.

Oh I love it when Europeans think they know America better than Americans!

Yes it does, unless you consider the Supreme Court un democratic.
 
Yes it does, unless you consider the Supreme Court un democratic.

The justices review it. Not the people nor their representatives, only the justices.

The people can make arguments through a lawyer perhaps, but that's very loose democracy. Hella it ain't democracy at all now that I think about it. The ultimate interpreter is SCOTUS and no one else, not necessarily democratic in and of itself. I'll be happy to reword myself should I need to.
 
The justices review it. Not the people nor their representatives, only the justices.

The people can make arguments through a lawyer perhaps, but that's very loose democracy.

They "interpret" it!!!!!!

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx
 
They "interpret" it!!!!!!

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

What does that have to do with democracy?

The court interprets the constitution as is. Many times in the past the court has ruled against what people would call "democratic" such as in the case regarding segregation or even the toleration of slavery since nothing in the constitution forbade it back then.

What would you do if the court rules that SSM is not a right and is a state issue?
 
Phew! Thank goodness Che isnt still there and Fidel is an old old man. In their prime, those guys would have all been made to go bye bye.
 
Just responding to someone who said that gays were a significant part of the population. I've heard as low as 3% and as high as 10, depending on whose spinning the bull. So I don't know how significant they are numerically.

I don't care if they're 0.0001% of the population.
 
What does that have to do with democracy?

The court interprets the constitution as is. Many times in the past the court has ruled against what people would call "democratic" such as in the case regarding segregation or even the toleration of slavery since nothing in the constitution forbade it back then.

What would you do if the court rules that SSM is not a right and is a state issue?

Well, non democracies tend not to even have constitutions or supreme courts to interpret them.
 
Which constitutional rights has the progress of LGBT rights taken away from anyone?

What nation are you referring to? Britain? Spain? USA?

What payments are these? I must be owed a fortune!

No one has ever been forced to participate in homosexuality, as far as I'm aware. Apart from those who attend SM parties, of course.

I see, so LGBT activists are the equivalent of Nazi Maoists, are they? :roll:

Are you being funny, or do you mean that you really haven't been following the developments?
 
Split the difference, let's say 6.5% of the population.

Asian-Americans = 4.8%
Jewish-Americans = 2.6%
Southern Baptists = 5.5%

Are none of those significant parts of the population either?

Depends on what your definition if significant is.
 
There seems to be great headway being made in Cuba by LGBT rights activists in promoting equal treatment for the country's long-oppressed sexual minorities. The indefatigable activism of some very brave people, plus a welcome softening and modernising approach from the régime seems to be allowing a lot of progress to happen in a very short time. I wonder whether the great Satan of human rights abusers will pass SSM into nationwide law before the home of the free does.
[h=1]
Cuba gay pride calls for same-sex marriage to become legal
[/h]
How embarrassed would you be if Cuba beat your own home country in its much improved treatment of a significant demographic minority?



Not embarrassed at all, fascist dictatorships often can act much faster and whimsical due to the fact they are.... wait for it.... fascist dictatorships.
 
Meh, did you note who organized it?

Now you're making me go back and find where I said that and figure out why, lol. I'm back, not sure of your point though.
 
Now you're making me go back and find where I said that and figure out why, lol. I'm back, not sure of your point though.

First sentence, or just about, in article:

"The event was organised by President Raul Castro's daughter, Mariela Castro."
 
I'm asking for something more concrete from the government, "opinions of the public" in Cuba means little to those in charge.

What have you heard concrete from the US govt re: federally accepted SSM?

Besides that SCOTUS is finally going to examine it, period.
 
Gay Pride is a concept that transcends its lexical components. It's about rejecting marginalisation, rejecting the shame that heterosexist society has placed upon LGBT peoples through the ages, and it's about promoting solidarity amongst people's of diversity, whatever their orientation.

You're an old lady who hasn't lived any of these things. I doubt you'd get it even with the aid of PowerPoint.

Very well said. ALL of it, lol. You'll note there was nothing of substance in either post, just little 'drive bys'.
 
I don't really have much respect for dictatorships who get something right once in a while. The USA has strong democratic principles based on a respected constitution and is a federation of hundreds of million of people. I am not at all surprised the process is longer, and I'm thankful decisions like this don't come down by decree from the "elite".

I like the fact that the protesters were not abused and were allowed to protest.

If the Castro regime is gradually loosening its hold, as seems the intent here, I would encourage it in the little time it has left.
 
That is what Middleground seemed to be implying. For it is immaterial that you be gay or not to the objective argument. But what his information said is that your judgment of the facts is dominated by your having had such a hard time as a homosexual. That would have fit and explained why your opinion is so biased on this point, where otherwise you seem to have quite balanced views.

What about all the people that agree with him that are not gay? And have not experienced it 'personally?' The thread has many, and so do the other threads on SSM. Loads.
 
Back
Top Bottom