• 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!

Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

More mock legal scholars claiming that marriage and civil unions are the same.

Here, educated yourselves:

Civil unions create “second-class status” and are not equal to marriage a study out of New Jersey says. A commission was established to study civil unions and it has concluded that even though the intention of civil unions is to give gay and lesbian couples the same rights of marriage, in fact they do not.

The biggest area of inequality was in regards to employment benefits for spouses. Many employers refused to offer same-sex couples the same health insurance benefits as married couples.

Massachusetts is the only state in the United States to allow gay marriage and a study there found that gay couples did not have the same kinds of problems with employers and health insurance.


The New Jersey commission found that people in civil unions were not treated the same way as married couples by government agencies, employers and others. One of the big issues is that people do not understand what civil unions are and how they differ from marriage.

(source Associated Press)​

Civil Unions are Not Equal to Marriage - A Study Finds Civil Unions and Marriage are not Equal

Consider, too, that if a homosexual falls in love with another homosexual from another country, having a civil union with that individual is not going to be the necessary sponsorship that individual needs to become a citizen. There's a whole host of reasons why civil unions and marriages are NOT the same, regardless of what the "legal scholars" on here have to say. I advise actually taking a few law classes and/or studying a few law books before yammering on about legal philosophy which has no place in this argument. We deal with facts, not philosophy.
 
You are incorrect. You can love your dog if you want to, and in your house you can even have sex with him, but you can't make the rest to recognize you both -you and your dog*- officially married.

The same applies to homosexuals and lesbians trying to marry members of their same sex. They can "love" between themselves any way they want, but to try to be accepted legally by the rest...that is different.

(*Amanzingly the god of the bible calls "dogs" to homosexuals in the first covenant of the bible, and the same title also appears in the last chapter of the book of Revelation, Outside are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the muderers, and the idolaters, and everyone that loves and makes a lie. Rev.22:15)

So how am I "incorrect"?
 
Last edited:
but to try to be accepted legally by the rest...that is different.

But see...that is where your entire premise is wrong. Those of us in favor of gay marriage couldn't care less whether the "rest" accepts it or not. People are free to have their own opinions and beliefs. I do not believe anyone should be forced to "accept" gay marriage if they are not comfortable with it. However, the state should not discriminate.
 
This is Anthony Kennedy's record as regards homosexuality - anybody want to weigh in on how he might rule on this? I've bolded what I think may give a clue:



Anthony Kennedy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think he would rule that DOMA is unconstitutional...as would most of the justices. The liberal bloc would probably be joined by Roberts and Scalia on this. Clarence Thomas would probably be the only vote that the homophobes can count on...I'm not sure about Alito.
 
It's sad that we still have people arguing that it's acceptable to discriminate for any reason. "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Someday this will apply for gays as well. Less than a generation in fact.

Look at the exit polls. Once again , proof that the children are just a little better than their parents. Morality is not immune to evolution. This battle is lost , but slowly and steadily the war is being won, and dogma is losing.
 
Untangled

"Untangled"
Circular reasoning. You can put whatever label you want on them. People can say the same thing about black rights in the civil rights movement. The rights lacked existence.....hence.....positive rights....apples and oranges.
You do not understand positive and negative rights (ln).

Civil rights violations were prohibitive actions of the government, contrary to its negative obligations, against fundamental rights of free association - liberty.

The right to marry exists as a negative right to form a civil contract -- a civil union, the government does not prohibit those actions, and the range of diversity in marriages is as broad as the entities engaging in the civil union contracts (corporations, monogomous, polygamous, heterosexual, homosexual, polyandry, commune, etc.)

The right to register a particular marriage, a particular civil union, which is a petition for benefit entitlement, a positive obligation of government, is not equally endowed.
I'm sure the racists of the past didn't consider themselves bigots either. Afterall...they were in the right. Blacks were an inferior race and not entitled to the same rights that the rest of society was. They thought...and many probably still do....that they are in the right mindset.
Discrimination is justifiable because those people are different than us. Apples and oranges.
Affirmative action is a positive right that is not equally endowed and its discriminant is based on race and gender.

And those actions are government policies and not that of private entities.

Private entities have differing responsibility rule sets than the government.
 
Last edited:
The law is applied equally. They state that NO ONE can marry someone of the same sex. Since this law applies to EVERYONE it is applied EQUALLY.

Yep.

The entire Right argument has never been based on anything but its usefulness as rhetoric.



I'm glad this passed.
Its some good news out of the worst election in US history.
 
Specificity Matters

"Specificity Matters"
More mock legal scholars claiming that marriage and civil unions are the same.
Here, educated yourselves:
Civil unions create “second-class status” and are not equal to marriage a study out of New Jersey says. A commission was established to study civil unions and it has concluded that even though the intention of civil unions is to give gay and lesbian couples the same rights of marriage, in fact they do not.
The biggest area of inequality was in regards to employment benefits for spouses. Many employers refused to offer same-sex couples the same health insurance benefits as married couples.

Employers need not offer health insurance at all.
Private insurance policies are negotiated between private entities and their insurance providers.
Employers are private entities that act separately from government under differing rules (unless petitioning for government contracts).
If an insurance company does not offer health insurance for same sex marriages, the employer may select another health insurance provider which does.

Civil Unions are Not Equal to Marriage - A Study Finds Civil Unions and Marriage are not Equal
Consider, too, that if a homosexual falls in love with another homosexual from another country, having a civil union with that individual is not going to be the necessary sponsorship that individual needs to become a citizen. There's a whole host of reasons why civil unions and marriages are NOT the same, regardless of what the "legal scholars" on here have to say. I advise actually taking a few law classes and/or studying a few law books before yammering on about legal philosophy which has no place in this argument. We deal with facts, not philosophy.
The petition to make distinctions between rights has been rendered several times, without response.
Rather than debating whether a civil union contract is a marriage (the two are synonymous with differing discriminants), credit is due for providing examples of disparity between homosexual civil unions (marriages) and heterosexual civil unions (marriages).
That is, credit is due for stating particular positive or negative rights sought, rather than alleging that civil union contracts (marriages) between homosexuals, heterosexuals, corporations, communes, polygamists, polyandrists, etc. are equal.

The last example of seeks to establish citizenship for a foreign national based on a civil union contract.
First, would it be a positive right or a negative right?​
 
Last edited:
Disney, pay no attention to Monk. He has a penchant for parroting legal philosophy without actually understanding how any given philosophy is applied in American society. He attempts to woo the crowd by putting very simple propositions in a complex manner, failing to realize that some of us, i.e. me, have a legal background and understand how full of **** he really is. Ask him to provide you a link reaffirming the undeniable "truth" he speaks and he won't. He'll simply provide you a link to the philosophy itself, or he'll provide you a link which he thinks reaffirms what he says, but really all it does is show another commonality of his: blatantly misinterpreting his own sources.

Freedom from discrimination is a negative right, which the government, via the Fourteenth Amendment, has an obligation to prevent. Being similarly situated and being denied something under the law while another group of similarly situated individuals is being granted the same thing under the law, is, of course, discrimination based on something. In the case of same-sex marriage, it is obvious.

Pay no attention to Monk. Debating anything with him is a waste of time. Ask him if an illegal immigrant can legally be murdered - then weep at his answer.
 
Last edited:
So how am I "incorrect"?

Because I didn't call homosexuals as dogs but I used an analogy between a person loving his dog beyond of a pet. You said that I am calling dogs to homosexuals while I have pointed that such nomination as dogs is found in the bible.
 
But see...that is where your entire premise is wrong. Those of us in favor of gay marriage couldn't care less whether the "rest" accepts it or not. People are free to have their own opinions and beliefs. I do not believe anyone should be forced to "accept" gay marriage if they are not comfortable with it. However, the state should not discriminate.

You are out of touch. Did you really see what happened? this is not about "the state", this is about the majority of people rejecting such a marriage.

I am one of many suggesting long ago to put such issue to vote in the states and to let the people to decide if gay marriage was ok for them.

The answer is simply: no.
 
Jokes In Pin Stripes

"Jokes In Pin Stripes"
Disney, pay no attention to Monk.
....
Pay no attention to Monk. Debating anything with him is a waste of time. Ask him if an illegal immigrant can legally be murdered - then weep at his answer.
Debate the issues, your paltry legal background seems to have entitled you only to being a smart ass rather than a legal scholar.

I beat your simpleton reason on every issue and that is why you reply with snot nosed posts.
 
It is no doubt that nothing good comes from homosexuality.

I strongly think in my humble opinion, that the fuss about homosexuality as something "normal" in sexual behaviour must be erradicated and that homosexuals must be encouraged to seek psychological help.

Otherwise, show here what good comes from homosexuality to humans as society or as species.

Knowledge is more important than imagination.
Conquer
 
Last edited:
Freedom Of Choice

"Freedom Of Choice"
Freedom from discrimination is a negative right, which the government, via the Fourteenth Amendment, has an obligation to prevent. Being similarly situated and being denied something under the law while another group of similarly situated individuals is being granted the same thing under the law, is, of course, discrimination based on something. In the case of same-sex marriage, it is obvious.
Nonsense, the government may not discriminate, private institutions may discriminate as they wish.
 
Re: Jokes In Pin Stripes

I beat your simpleton reason on every issue and that is why you reply with snot nosed posts.

No, you haven't. I'm still waiting for you to reference your yammer in the abortion thread. I've been waiting for a week now. You know, the yammer I proved wrong with 15 different sources.
 
It is no doubt that nothing good comes from homosexuality.

I strongly think in my humble opinion, that the fuss about homosexuality as something "normal" in sexual behaviour must be erradicated and that homosexuals must be encouraged to seek psychological help.

Otherwise, show here what good comes from homosexuality to humans as society or as species.

Knowledge is more important than imagination.
Conquer

Since knowledge is more important than imagination...

You'll be happy to learn that homosexuality was removed from the American Psychiatric Association's DSM in 1973.
 
Since knowledge is more important than imagination...

You'll be happy to learn that homosexuality was removed from the American Psychiatric Association's DSM in 1973.

No, I'm not happy about it, and if you read my message, I am requesting to put it back in it.

Knowledge is more important than imagination
Conquer
 
Last edited:
No, I'm not happy about it, and if you read my message, I am requesting to put it back in it.

Knowledge is more important than imagination
Conquer

Could you actually give us a few reasons why homosexuality should be reclassified as a mental illness?
 
Clown Shoes

"Clown Shoes"
No, you haven't. I'm still waiting for you to reference your yammer in the abortion thread. I've been waiting for a week now. You know, the yammer I proved wrong with 15 different sources.
15? :lol::lol::lol:
You cited three articles none of which were significant.
You are obsessive compulsive, delusional regarding self worth and regarding the actual significance and validity of your propositions.
 
Re: Clown Shoes

"Clown Shoes"
15? :lol::lol::lol:
You cited three articles none of which were significant.
You are obsessive compulsive, delusional regarding self worth and regarding the actual significance and validity of your propositions.

I cited four Supreme Court cases which directly contradict your idiotic statement that Equal Protection is afforded to citizens only. I also cited a U.N. Resolution delineating those natural rights you say do not exist, drafted and presented to the U.N. by an AMERICAN AMBASSADOR! I cited the Missouri School of Law, and an article written by attorney Richard New. Importantly, I quoted the author of the Fourteenth Amendment. All of my sources refuted your sophomoric assertions, and you aren't man enough to admit it. I asked you for one source backing up your assertions and you've failed to present one.

You're a troll. You attempt to stupefy people with complex legal terms and philosophy, contorting actual law to fit your own conclusions. You just didn't expect someone with bona fide legal experience to call bull ****. Once someone did, you resorted to childish attacks. Why don't you get off the computer and go get a real education instead of sifting through Wikipedia blatantly misinterpreting everything you read, molding it into what you want it to mean. People like you disgust me.
 
Last edited:
Institution Of Liars By Trade

"Institution Of Liars By Trade"
I cited four Supreme Court cases which directly contradict your idiotic statement that Equal Protection is afforded to citizens only.
That is blatantly false and absolutely stupid.
Anyone understands that equal protection is extended to non-citizens (persons) within jurisdiction.
Do you see that your dishonesty and or mental limitations mean that you cannot be taken seriously?
I also cited a U.N. Resolution delineating those natural rights you say do not exist, drafted and presented to the U.N. by an AMERICAN AMBASSADOR!
If you are applying the term Natural Rights with a reference to inalienable rights, an appeal to authority will not justify inalienable rights.

It is pathetic that you promote yourself as a legal expert and lack any background, evident by an apparant void of discerning ability, to understand the myriad of WELL KNOWN AND OBVIOUS CONSIDERATIONS which distinguish between positive law and natural law.
I cited the Missouri School of Law, and an article written by attorney Richard New. Importantly, I quoted the author of the Fourteenth Amendment. All of my sources refuted your sophomoric assertions, and you aren't man enough to admit it. I asked you for one source backing up your assertions and you've failed to present one.
You present general arguments of conventional opinion.
And, as with your initial retort, you blatantly lie that contrary arguments simply do not exist.
You do not accept the precepts of positive law and formation of the collective institution; and, you hide when challenged to defend inalienable rights; you debate cowardly, without providing a defense of obvious requirements, prefering to adhere to nebulous positions.
To you, opinion trumps reason.

You're a troll. You attempt to stupefy people with complex legal terms and philosophy, contorting actual law to fit your own conclusions. You just didn't expect someone with bona fide legal experience to call bull ****. Once someone did, you resorted to childish attacks. Why don't you get off the computer and go get a real education instead of sifting through Wikipedia blatantly misinterpreting everything you read, molding it into what you want it to mean. People like you disgust me.
I gave you fair warning not to engage in ad hominem with me; the portfolio of childish attacks is your game but, I am not a pacifist.
Your drivel stems from a sad self righteous dimentia, which makes you believe you are beyond question; it leads you to comically assert that bafoonery is exceptional brilliance.
 
Last edited:
Re: Institution Of Liars By Trade

"Institution Of Liars By Trade"
That is blatantly false and absolutely stupid.
Anyone understands that equal protection is extended to non-citizens (persons) within jurisdiction.
Do you see that your dishonesty and or mental limitations mean that you cannot be taken seriously?
If you are applying the term Natural Rights with a reference to inalienable rights, an appeal to authority will not justify inalienable rights.

Really? So, you didn't write a nice, long, lame bit about how I could legally murder an illegal immigrant because they are not, in your view, granted Equal Protection? You didn't say to my question, "So, yes, be very ware"? Would you like me to post the link to the post in which you said this, or, will you admit that you're now trying to save face?

It is pathetic that you promote yourself as a legal expert and lack any background, evident by an apparant void of discerning ability, to understand the myriad of WELL KNOWN AND OBVIOUS CONSIDERATIONS which distinguish between positive law and natural law.

It's "apparent," not "apparant". And I have - several times now - referenced all of my assertions; you have not. In fact, I believe your last post in the abortion forum was something along the lines of your reasoning has not yet found its way into "mainstream consideration..." Talk about a pathetic excuse for not being able to backup anything you say...

You present general arguments of conventional opinion.
And, as with your initial retort, you blatantly lie that contrary arguments simply do not exist.

I never said contrary arguments do not exist. They're just, well, the minority and have no constitutional foundation whatsoever. That is apparent to anyone with even a slight understanding of Constitutional Law, of which you have none.

You do not accept the precepts of positive law and formation of the collective institution; and, you hide when challenged to defend inalienable rights; you debate in cowardly in nebulous terms.

Who the hell was arguing inalienable rights? Equal Protection is what I was arguing, and you damn well know it. You just can't refute my arguments because, well, your logic has not found its way into "mainstream consideration."

I gave you fair warning not to engage in ad hominem with me; the portfolio of childish attacks is your game but, I am not a pacifist.
Your drivel stems from a sad self righteous dimentia, which makes you believe you are beyond question; it leads you to comically assert that bafoonery is exceptional brilliance.

It's "buffoonery," not "bafoonery." It's "dementia," not "dimentia." So, about your brilliance...
 
Last edited:
I have to thank our African American Christian brothers and sisters. I see the same sex marriage discrimination argument as a twisted rationalization without correlation thus invalid. And the continuous homophobe and bigot name calling as a shame ploy to make the lower end of the intelligence bell curve feel guilty.

Black voters helped Prop. 8 passage - Sacramento Politics - California Politics | Sacramento Bee

Snippets from above news link:

Weston, 44, is one of an overwhelming number – 70 percent – of black voters in California who voted for Proposition 8 and helped secure its passage, according to exit polling conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International. African Americans, energized by Barack Obama's presidential bid, boosted their numbers at the polls this year to 10 percent of the state's electorate, up from 6 percent in 2004. "The Obama people were thrilled to turn out high percentages of African Americans, but (Proposition 8) literally wouldn't have passed without those voters," said Gary Dietrich, president of Citizen Voice, a nonpartisan voter awareness organization.

Opponents of Proposition 8 appealed to voters to reject the measure as discriminatory and unconstitutional. But messages that opponents hoped would strike a chord with minority voters – and remind them that interracial marriage once was banned – collided with traditional religious views.

"You listen to the African American pastors, they do not buy that argument," Dietrich said. "They do not believe at all that there is a correlation between civil rights vis-à-vis blacks and rights for gays."

Proposition 8, she said, was something talked about "in all the churches."...Mormons, Catholics, Evangelicals, all of them," she said. "We all came together, and we had one common belief in this."
 
Last edited:
I am going to personally commit myself to making sure that any church that opposes gay marriage has its tax free status revoked. I also am going to organize protests against any hate filled church.

Just because a lot of blacks voted on the side of ignorance on the issue of gay rights doesn't in any way justify it, the 80% who voted that way are wrong and should be ashamed of themselves, being used as tools by the same white devils who enslaved them and groups like the Mormons who until the 70's still preached they where inferior.

Same goes to the Hispanics and Latino's who have longed been been under the thumb of the Catholic church, the church whose very same people murdered their ancestors in attempted genocide, they should be ashamed of themselves, why should we care about immigrant rights if they turn around and use their vote to oppress another group?

Prop H8te is wrong, anyone who supports it is wrong and the fight for gay rights is far from over!
 
Back
Top Bottom