• 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!

New York State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill

Charles Martel said:
Rights are afforded equally, I'm heterosexual, I cannot marry within gender either.
Click to expand...

Just like blacks had schools and whites had schools, and everyone had the right to go to school, right?
 
misterman said:
Yeah, well, when you explain over and over something that is indisputable fact (incorporation of the 14th amendment as accepted legal doctrine) and people just come back with the same old stuff base on their ignorance, it gets old. You can disagree with it, but don't tell me it doesn't exist.

Then there was the guy who thought "respecting an establishment of religion" meant I had respect for something. :rofl
Click to expand...

It's hard to connect when you're using just words. Especially if other people and yourself are both sort of wrong or off base, and neither one is willing to meet in the middle. I'm guilty of this on occasion.
 
misterman said:
Just like blacks had schools and whites had schools, and everyone had the right to go to school, right?
Click to expand...

Not 'just like' that at all. You and I walk into any city admin and ask for a marriage license, we'll be denied on the basis of gender. So in this case, blacks cannot marry within gender either, neither can whites. Not 'just like' your school analogy at all.
 
EpicDude86 said:
It's hard to connect when you're using just words.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean - what else can I use except words? You mean we're not in person? That's probably a good thing sometimes. On the other hand, it does enable rudeness.

I used more than words though - I used links!:lol:
 
Charles Martel said:
Rights are afforded equally, I'm heterosexual, I cannot marry within gender either.
Click to expand...

That's the snarkiest and laziest of analyses of this issue. You ARE permitted to name your one irreplaceable person in this world based on your devotion and dedication to that one person. You get to make your choice based on your desires and not based on making sure the genitals match for baby making.

If baby making were a standard obligation and requirement of marriage, that argument and requirement might fly. However, it is not. Marriage, as it stands today, is a contract between two people who name one another irreplaceable to each other and so united that the law treats them as one. Heterosexuals get to make that choice. Homosexuals do not.

The rights most certainly are NOT afforded equally despite the mindless repetition of that grossly over simplified statement above.
 
EpicDude86 said:
What laws that have tried to govern 'fairness' and 'equality' that were met with little to no resistance and accomplished exactly what they were set out to do? I mean, I can't think of any off the top of my head so I just want another viewpoint. :D
Click to expand...

Well, desegregation was met with a lot of resistance but it did end people getting arrested for not sitting at the back of the bus.
 
misterman said:
I don't know what you mean - what else can I use except words? You mean we're not in person? That's probably a good thing sometimes. On the other hand, it does enable rudeness.

I used more than words though - I used links!:lol:
Click to expand...

It's difficult because someone may not read what you're saying in the manner that you thought it, which can definitely create some barriers, and I do appreciate the link to the Univ. of Iowa. :D
 
Charles Martel said:
Not 'just like' that at all. You and I walk into any city admin and ask for a marriage license, we'll be denied on the basis of gender. So in this case, blacks cannot marry within gender either, neither can whites. Not 'just like' your school analogy at all.
Click to expand...

But you can't mix analogies together! It's not about blacks and whites marrying!

Let's try again - a black man goes to a prestigious university and is denied entry on the basis of race. Is that okay?
 
EpicDude86 said:
It's difficult because someone may not read what you're saying in the manner that you thought it, which can definitely create some barriers,
Click to expand...

Sure, but it seems many simply didn't read it at all, and certainly didn't explain what they thought I was saying.
 
jallman said:
Well, desegregation was met with a lot of resistance but it did end people getting arrested for not sitting at the back of the bus.
Click to expand...

And slowly but surely, not really all peacefully, people came around. So either we can go the way of the Civil Rights movement and go gung ho, piss off a bunch of people (Anti-Homo-Marriage crowd), and then eventually settle into 'peace' and 'equality' with all sorts of organizations and programs like the NAACP and Affirmative Action, or they can slowly take what they want, piece by piece, being patient. That's usually how I go about getting something I want, If I can't get it right away.
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
Sure, but it seems many simply didn't read it at all, and certainly didn't explain what they thought I was saying.
Click to expand...

The same could be said about your posts though, especially regarding the law ornaments issue :lol:
 
EpicDude86 said:
The same could be said about your posts though, especially regarding the law ornaments issue :lol:
Click to expand...

Communication is a two-way street, yes.
 
EpicDude86 said:
And slowly but surely, not really all peacefully, people came around. So either we can go the way of the Civil Rights movement and go gung ho, piss off a bunch of people (Anti-Homo-Marriage crowd), and then eventually settle into 'peace' and 'equality' with all sorts of organizations and programs like the NAACP and Affirmative Action, or they can slowly take what they want, piece by piece, being patient. That's usually how I go about getting something I want, If I can't get it right away.
Click to expand...

After seeing what they pulled in California, all bets are off at this point. It is a struggle and a fight and it is one that will not be won by compromising positions to keep the peace.

There was an attempt to keep it civil and respectful with a spirit of compromise and open dialog. That time has passed.
 
jallman said:
After seeing what they pulled in California, all bets are off at this point. It is a struggle and a fight and it is one that will not be won by compromising positions to keep the peace.

There was an attempt to keep it civil and respectful with a spirit of compromise and open dialog. That time has passed.
Click to expand...

What did the Homosexual community want in California? A word or the same rights?
 
EpicDude86 said:
What did the Homosexual community want in California? A word or the same rights?
Click to expand...

The same rights. And the word cannot be seperated from the rights when you get down to it. If a new word were applied to the same rights, all kinds of openings would be left for legal wrangling by those who opposed the rights to begin with with. There would be challenge after challenge to any of those rights enumerated as being the same because you have an element in this society that believes their moral convictions should be codefied into legally encouraged social ethics and norms.

You cannot give these people an inch and trust that they will be satisfied. Today it is a battle for the word but if conceded, tomorrow it will be a battle for the institution again. This element in society espouses equality but they firmly believe that their beliefs are a little more equal.
 
jallman said:
You ARE permitted to name your one irreplaceable person in this world based on your devotion and dedication to that one person.
Click to expand...

So are you. It's called a power of attorney.

Marriage, as it stands today, is a contract between two people who name one another irreplaceable to each other and so united that the law treats them as one.
Click to expand...

Really? Marriage as it stands today in the majority of states isn't defined as you've put it above, the federal DOMA is still law, many states have amended their Constitutions defining marriage to one man and one woman, where is this "two people naming the other irreplaceable" nonsense coming from, did you make that up? Cause, that's not the definition of marriage and we both know it.

The rights most certainly are NOT afforded equally despite the mindless repetition of that grossly over simplified statement above.
Click to expand...

It isn't oversimplified, it's accurate. Two men or two women entering any city aren't going to be asked about orientation. Aren't going to be asked about children. They're going to be denied based on gender. Period. As far as the law is concerned the discrimination is based on gender, perhaps have your gay rights leadership focus on that fact, the 0-31 record in referendum proves the 'gay rights' argument isn't flying.
 
misterman said:
But you can't mix analogies together! It's not about blacks and whites marrying!

Let's try again - a black man goes to a prestigious university and is denied entry on the basis of race. Is that okay?
Click to expand...

No.

Neither would it be ok if he were whining about being denied if this prestigious university was an all female university.

Let's try again. If the black man returned from this entry into an all female college endeavor with a denial form and crying racism, would you believe in a kneejerk manner that it was the color of his skin that denied him?

Those are called crocodile tears and so are the emotional based arguments for same sex marriage.
 
jallman said:
The same rights.
Click to expand...

They didn't want "marriage" as a term?

jallman said:
And the word cannot be seperated from the rights when you get down to it.
Click to expand...

Yes it very well can. Ask Misterman about words and their definitions ;) They can be changed, altered, or have different meanings pertaining to different situations. Do I think that's right? not really...

jallman said:
If a new word were applied to the same rights, all kinds of openings would be left for legal wrangling by those who opposed the rights to begin with with. There would be challenge after challenge to any of those rights enumerated as being the same because you have an element in this society that believes their moral convictions should be codefied into legally encouraged social ethics and norms.
Click to expand...

And everyone knows how desperate and dickish they are. After prohibition, you'd be hard pressed to see another moral crowd push their agenda in whole on the Nation. Homosexuals will have their day, and most likely it will be soon.

jallman said:
You cannot give these people an inch and trust that they will be satisfied. Today it is a battle for the word but if conceded, tomorrow it will be a battle for the institution again. This element in society espouses equality but they firmly believe that their beliefs are a little more equal.
Click to expand...

You have to take what you can get first, and then go for broke. I'm sorry that's how you feel, but if the Homosexual community wants the rights that they would deserve, that is a union like marriage, with rights the same as marriage, they're going to have to be patient and get crafty.
 
Charles Martel said:
So are you. It's called a power of attorney.
Click to expand...

Wrong answer.

There are MANY legal rights that only married couples have that cannot be accomplished any other way. And those that can be can cost thousands in lawyer's fees.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Yes it very well can. Ask Misterman about words and their definitions ;) They can be changed, altered, or have different meanings pertaining to different situations. Do I think that's right? not really...
Click to expand...

I didn't say that.

But people can disagree on the definitions of words. And they can change over time, or have more than one definition. This is a basic principle of language.
 
misterman said:
Wrong answer.

There are MANY legal rights that only married couples have that cannot be accomplished any other way. And those that can be can cost thousands in lawyer's fees.
Click to expand...

Can't anyone get Power of Attorney so long as YOU give it to them?
 
jallman said:
EpicDude86 said:
What did the Homosexual community want in California? A word or the same rights?
Click to expand...
The same rights.
Click to expand...

Frankly Jallman I think you need to thank the anti-gm people who were so foolish as to support domestic partnership, because without them there would be no "separate but equal" construct for gays to now challenge in court and win the war on.

Thanks to people like Navy Pride, you will one day have gay marriage. I hope you will at least send him an invitation :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Charles Martel said:
So are you. It's called a power of attorney.
Click to expand...

No. Power of attorney does not grant all the same rights as a marriage. Snarky as ever and still just as lazy in your analysis.

Really?
Click to expand...

Yes, really.

Marriage as it stands today in the majority of states isn't defined as you've put it above,
Click to expand...

It is defined EXACTLY as I stated it and has been since that exact language was used in Perez v Sharp in 1948.

the federal DOMA is still law,
Click to expand...

So? Laws get overturned. Especially when they are proven to violate equality.

many states have amended their Constitutions defining marriage to one man and one woman, where is this "two people naming the other irreplaceable" nonsense coming from, did you make that up? Cause, that's not the definition of marriage and we both know it.
Click to expand...

Why don't you familiarize yourself with the list of over 1400 rights granted by marriage and the body of case law that has contributed to marriage and then see if you can't give me a definition of marriage that suits you?

One thing is for certain, the language stating that two people name each other as irreplaceable will surface over and over again.

But you were depthless and lazy in your mindless parroting of a trite sound byte as an analysis before so I don't really expect you to educate yourself any further.

It isn't oversimplified,
Click to expand...

It is grossly simplified.

it's accurate.
Click to expand...

No, it is precise but it is not accurate.

Two men or two women entering any city aren't going to be asked about orientation. Aren't going to be asked about children. They're going to be denied based on gender. Period. As far as the law is concerned the discrimination is based on gender, perhaps have your gay rights leadership focus on that fact, the 0-31 record in referendum proves the 'gay rights' argument isn't flying.
Click to expand...

No, what has happened is that the debate continually gets focused on a plethora of lies and red herrings as shown in California. And what does entering a city have to do with this debate? We are talking about marriage law, not freedom of travel. Are you having a hard time keeping up?
 
EpicDude86 said:
Can't anyone get Power of Attorney so long as YOU give it to them?
Click to expand...

I think so. But like I said, there are many privileges that only married couples have that power of attorney or other legal arrangement cannot replicate. And of those that can, some require much more than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom