• 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!

Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

winston53660 said:
But the discrimination applies equally to all religions where as the the discrimination regarding gay marriage does not apply equally to the sexes.
Click to expand...

Yes it does.

No sex is allowed to marry the same-sex. All sexes are under the same restriction. Not all races were under the same restriction. Blacks were only barred from marrying whites, but were still free to marry any other ethnic group. So to were whites allowed to marry any ethnic group other than Blacks.

Gays can marry gays as long as the gay they want to marry meets the criteria.

If a gay chooses a gay who is already married, the government will rightly discriminate against that gay couple.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
So what?

Because it is wrong and I don't have to support it, thank you very much.
Click to expand...

Despite numerous proddings, you still have failed to explain how allowing people to engage in a contract is supporting their lifestyle. Jesus didn't say to go out and forcibly prevent people from sinning, did he? If he was the son of god, he certainly had the power to force it. But he relied upon persuasion, not force.

Race and gender are not the same thing. Never have been and never will be do to biological limitations. :roll:
Click to expand...

Anti-miscegenation wasn't really about race. SSM isn't about gender. They are both about sexual preferences.

That was not a debate, this is, or was before you got here.
Click to expand...

Riiiight. So in debates analogies are invalid?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Can you prove that they would?
Click to expand...

Let's say I can prove it to your satisfaction: it wouldn't make any difference, since gays would still fail to meet all 3 requirements.

If you were going the "well we should create that right" argument, I'm right there with you. Maybe we should create it, but that doesn't mean the right exists now.
 
Last edited:
LiveUninhibited said:
Despite numerous proddings, you still have failed to explain how allowing people to engage in a contract is supporting their lifestyle.
Click to expand...

Because I am not against that. I have stated my position what? 3 times in this thread alone. Please read what I posted.

LiveUninhibited said:
Jesus didn't say to go out and forcibly prevent people from sinning, did he? If he was the son of god, he certainly had the power to force it. But he relied upon persuasion, not force.
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding?

Romans 1:18-27 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

Do I need to make it any clearer?
 
Blackdog said:
Because I am not against that. I have stated my position what? 3 times in this thread alone. Please read what I posted.



You have got to be kidding?

Romans 1:18-27 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

Do I need to make it any clearer?
Click to expand...

Remember what I said about poking holes in your own boat? While you're proving to yourself and other like-minded individuals that you have all the grounds in the world to believe what you believe, you're not going to convince anyone else because they don't have the same belief system as you. The point of these debates is to try and bridge that gap and bring about understanding betwixt the two opposing sides.
 
Jerry said:
Yes it does.

No sex is allowed to marry the same-sex. All sexes are under the same restriction. Not all races were under the same restriction. Blacks were only barred from marrying whites, but were still free to marry any other ethnic group. So to were whites allowed to marry any ethnic group other than Blacks.

Gays can marry gays as long as the gay they want to marry meets the criteria.

If a gay chooses a gay who is already married, the government will rightly discriminate against that gay couple.
Click to expand...

Ya understand very little about equal protection. Ill post more on this when I'm not posting from my phone.
 
Jerry said:
There has to be a fundamental right being infringed, you have to not be able to control the attribute, and the state must not have a compelling interest to infringe.

Gays meet 2/3 of those requirements if they can successfully argue that gay-marriage would not exacerbate the divorce rate.

Gays do not, however, have the right to marry the same-sex. No one does. Therefore it is not "Discrimination" under the law.



Mhmm, the Lemon Test, I know all about it, which is how I know I'm right.
Click to expand...


Jerry....you really should read the Equal Protection 101 that I posted. It would teach you that you are in fact incorrect.



You do understand that there are three tiers to equal protection right?
 
EpicDude86 said:
Remember what I said about poking holes in your own boat? While you're proving to yourself and other like-minded individuals that you have all the grounds in the world to believe what you believe, you're not going to convince anyone else because they don't have the same belief system as you. The point of these debates is to try and bridge that gap and bring about understanding betwixt the two opposing sides.
Click to expand...

Since when did the point of this thread become about bridging a gap? Your premise is false, which is leading you to a false conclusion. This thread asked for an opinion on the subject.

Other posters commented on others opinions as well and why they thought the way they do. Just because it is posted in a debate forum does not automatically make it a debate.

I am simply stating my point of view which was asked for by the original poster.

No holes in that.
 
disneydude said:
Jerry....you really should read the Equal Protection 101 that I posted. It would teach you that you are in fact incorrect.



You do understand that there are three tiers to equal protection right?
Click to expand...

You haven't presented any argument demonstrating equal protection, how it applies to gays, or how I'm wrong.
 
Jerry said:
You haven't presented any argument demonstrating equal protection, how it applies to gays, or how I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Jerry....I don't know what else to tell you. You are wrong because what you are not understanding is that there are three tiers of equal protection analysis. Different levels of scrutiny are applied depending upon the nature of the right infringed and the class of people involved.
Until you are willing to understand that....there is nothing more than I can say to you because you wouldn't understand.
 
disneydude said:
Jerry....I don't know what else to tell you. You are wrong because what you are not understanding is that there are three tiers of equal protection analysis. Different levels of scrutiny are applied depending upon the nature of the right infringed and the class of people involved.
Until you are willing to understand that....there is nothing more than I can say to you because you wouldn't understand.
Click to expand...

All you're doing is saying I'm wrong. You are not posting those tiers. You are not presenting an argument. You are not quoting information.

It's as though you think linking to a page = making an argument.

No, I'm not reading the whole page, I came to DP for that. Post it here, and not just a static quote, but your own original, fluid argument, in your words.

Links do not replace your posts. Links are for backing up your claims and argument, but you still have to make those claims and arguments.
 
Last edited:
Instead of telling someone they are "wrong" (which in matters of opinion only sets you up for a right humbling), ask them to "consider this". Does no one understand how to debate? or are we just arguing?

I didn't realize this was ArguePolitics2.0 :lol:
 
Jerry said:
All you're doing is saying I'm wrong. You are not posting those tiers. You are not presenting an argument. You are not quoting information.

It's as though you think linking to a page = making an argument.

No, I'm not reading the whole page, I came to DP for that. Post it here, and not just a static quote, but your own original, fluid argument, in your words.

Links do not replace your posts. Links are for backing up your claims and argument, but you still have to make those claims and arguments.
Click to expand...

I already posted it....maybe you missed it...in post #927

Its not "mere disagreement". I'll attach equal protection 101...but you are going to have to take the time to read it.

There are three levels of analysis under equal protection depending upon the nature of the right involved and the class of individuals.

Suspect classes and fundamental rights receive the highest scrutiny.
non suspect classes and/or rights that are not fundamental receive standard scrutiny.
There is an intermediate level that the court sometimes employs.

Let me search around for a link and you can read a little more indepth if you choose.

Here's a link I found with a quick search that isn't bad...it explains the process fairly well. I was looking for something a little more user friendly...but the info in this is accurate.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...pcscrutiny.htm
 
EpicDude86 said:
Instead of telling someone they are "wrong" (which in matters of opinion only sets you up for a right humbling), ask them to "consider this". Does no one understand how to debate? or are we just arguing?

I didn't realize this was ArguePolitics2.0 :lol:
Click to expand...

He links to some information, and then tells me that my understanding of that same information is incorrect, without even trying to demonstrate how I'm incorrect.
 
disneydude said:
I already posted it....maybe you missed it...in post #927

Its not "mere disagreement". I'll attach equal protection 101...but you are going to have to take the time to read it.

There are three levels of analysis under equal protection depending upon the nature of the right involved and the class of individuals.

Suspect classes and fundamental rights receive the highest scrutiny.
non suspect classes and/or rights that are not fundamental receive standard scrutiny.
There is an intermediate level that the court sometimes employs.

Let me search around for a link and you can read a little more indepth if you choose.

Here's a link I found with a quick search that isn't bad...it explains the process fairly well. I was looking for something a little more user friendly...but the info in this is accurate.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...pcscrutiny.htm
Click to expand...

Link doesn't work, and again you're just saying I'm wrong without demonstrating how.
 
Jerry said:
He links to some information, and then tells me that my understanding of that same information is incorrect, without even trying to demonstrate how I'm incorrect.
Click to expand...

No.....that's not true. I gave you the tiers. I even gave you a link to educate yourself so you wouldn't have to hunt it down for yourself.

I'll try to explain it one last time. You are incorrect because you stated that only fundamental rights can be discrimination.
That is incorrect.
Infringements on fundamental rights receive the highest level of scrutiny - strict scrutiny which requires the government to justify the infringement with a compelling state interest.

However, infringement on rights that are not "fundamental" can still = discrimination. However, they will not be scrutinized under the highest level (unless it is an infringement on a "suspect class" such as race or gender)
Most of the time it will be analyzed under the first tier -standard scrutiny which only requires the government to show a legitimate state interest in order to justify the infringement. "Legitimate" v. "Compelling"
In some cases the Court has engaged in an intermediate level requiring an "important" state interest.

I don't know how to make it any more simple than that. It is a little more complicated which is why I suggest taking a few minutes and reading the link or researching it yourself.
 
Jerry said:
Link doesn't work, and again you're just saying I'm wrong without demonstrating how.
Click to expand...

The link works if you go back to post #927...for some reason when I copied and posted it doesn't work on that post.
 
disneydude said:
No.....that's not true. I gave you the tiers. I even gave you a link to educate yourself so you wouldn't have to hunt it down for yourself.

I'll try to explain it one last time. You are incorrect because you stated that only fundamental rights can be discrimination.
That is incorrect.
Infringements on fundamental rights receive the highest level of scrutiny - strict scrutiny which requires the government to justify the infringement with a compelling state interest.

However, infringement on rights that are not "fundamental" can still = discrimination. However, they will not be scrutinized under the highest level (unless it is an infringement on a "suspect class" such as race or gender)
Most of the time it will be analyzed under the first tier -standard scrutiny which only requires the government to show a legitimate state interest in order to justify the infringement. "Legitimate" v. "Compelling"
In some cases the Court has engaged in an intermediate level requiring an "important" state interest.

I don't know how to make it any more simple than that. It is a little more complicated which is why I suggest taking a few minutes and reading the link or researching it yourself.
Click to expand...

Everything you just said first requires a right to exist to be infringed upon.

There is no right, therefore there is nothing to infringe, therefore there is nothing to scrutinize.
 
Jerry said:
Everything you just said first requires a right to exist to be infringed upon.

There is no right, therefore there is nothing to infringe, therefore there is nothing to scrutinize.
Click to expand...

First of all Marriage has been recognized as a right.

But for arguments sake....even pretending that it is a right. Equal Protection analysis applies to infringement on rights and/or privileges.

For instance. You don't have a right to have a driver's license. However, if the state made a law that said only white people can have driver's licenses, that law would be required to undergo Strict Scrutiny because it triggers a "suspect case", i.e., race. The state would have to show a compelling state interest.

On the otherhand. Suppose the state said that at age 80 you are not allowed to drive.
Age is not a suspect class...but has triggered the intermediate level in other cases. The government would have to show an important state interest in order for the law not to be struck down as discriminatory under the EP clause.
 
disneydude said:
First of all Marriage has been recognized as a right.
Click to expand...

Your argument on tiers of scrutiny already excluded fundamental rights, which is what marriage has been found to be, exactly.

Marriage between 1 unmarried, unrelated, STD-free man of legal age of consent with 1 unmarried, unrelated, STD-free woman of legal age of consent.

You're claiming that the right to marry just whomever you please is a right.

That was never, ever a right. Ever.

disneydude said:
For instance. You don't have a right to have a driver's license. However, if the state made a law that said only white people can have driver's licenses, that law would be required to undergo Strict Scrutiny because it triggers a "suspect case", i.e., race. The state would have to show a compelling state interest.

On the otherhand. Suppose the state said that at age 80 you are not allowed to drive.
Age is not a suspect class...but has triggered the intermediate level in other cases. The government would have to show an important state interest in order for the law not to be struck down as discriminatory under the EP clause.
Click to expand...

You're changing the goal posts.

First you were talking about rights, now you're changing your argument and discussing licenses.

I was never discussing licenses to be right or wrong. I was only discussing rights.

***
So now pro-gm wants to change marriage from a fundamental right, down to a civil privilege like driving.

That's a reason to oppose gay-marriage, not support it.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Your argument on tiers of scrutiny already excluded fundamental rights, which is what marriage has been found to be, exactly.

Marriage between 1 unmarried, unrelated, STD-free man of legal age of consent with 1 unmarried, unrelated, STD-free woman of legal age of consent.

You're claiming that the right to marry just whomever you please is a right.

That was never, ever a right. Ever.



You're changing the goal posts.

First you were talking about rights, now you're changing your argument and discussing licenses.

I was never discussing licenses to be right or wrong. I was only discussing rights.

***
So now pro-gm wants to change marriage from a fundamental right, down to a civil privilege like driving.

That's a reason to oppose gay-marriage, not support it.
Click to expand...

Wow....that is all over the place.

and you didn't even address the very issue that you have been harping on.

What you were claiming is that discrimination only exists when you are dealing with a fundamental right....remember that?
Now do you understand that you were wrong?
The license example was to show you that "discrimination" can exist even whe you aren't dealing with a right at all.

Yes...I believe that marriage is a fundamental right, therefore any governmental restriction on that right must be backed up by a compelling state interest.
What is the compelling state interest against gay marriage?
There isn't one....which is why many anti-gay groups are hoping that the court won't apply strict scrutiny.
But even under the lowest level...standard scrutiny....what legitimate state interest is there to justify the discrimination?
 
disneydude said:
What you were claiming is that discrimination only exists when you are dealing with a fundamental right....remember that?
Click to expand...

That's not something I ever said.

I said without a fundamental right to marry the same-sex, denying same-sex marriage is not discrimination under the law.

I said without a fundamental right to marry married persons, denying polygamy is not discrimination under the law.

I said without a fundamental right to marry people who can not legally consent, denying so-called dependent 'marriage is not discrimination under the law.

I said without a fundamental right to marry your immediate family, denying incest is not discrimination under the law.


Without a fundamental right to own missiles, denying private ownership of missiles is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment.


I agree that discrimination exists in many, many cases where fundamental rights are not an issue. That's why I never said anything like "discrimination only exists when you are dealing with a fundamental right".
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
That's not something I ever said.





I never said anything like "discrimination only exists when you are dealing with a fundamental right".
Click to expand...

From post #904

Jerry said:
It has to be a "fundamental right" to be "discrimination" under the law.
Click to expand...

:doh
 
disneydude said:
From post #904



:doh
Click to expand...

Context FTW :2wave:

"It" = "same-sex marriage".

"It" does not mean "just whatever disneydude wants to think about that Jerry never intended".

Same-sex marriage has to be a "fundamental right" for same-sex marriage bans to be "discrimination" under the law.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom