Page 132 of 149 FirstFirst ... 3282122130131132133134142 ... LastLast
Results 1,311 to 1,320 of 1483

Thread: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

  1. #1311
    Professor Charles Martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    03-21-10 @ 08:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,668

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    I'm just curious, what would be the basis for a federal amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman?
    So, you ask me a question and give me the 'only' five reasons I could base my answer on?

    What a joke. You interested in a conversation wiht me...or yourself?

    I can only see five ways that you could answer such a question. Not a single one is consistent with reason.
    And furthermore, not just tell me there are only 5 ways to answer, but that all five are without reason? You're funny, is this the way you have most of your "critical thought" conversations.....ask the question, supply the only 5 wrong answers. Sorry, the circus games don't impress me.

    And what I would base my answer on is what I linked to. Courts in some states and even in some cases, city Mayors...as in SF...some of this occurs in lower court rulings, or some state supreme court finds same sex marriage opposition unconstitutional and thus legalizes it in that state...or requires the legislature to take action. Some states may indeed legalize same sex marrriage and thus those same sex couples have every right to expect their marriages to be recognized by other states. A federal amendment excluding other states from recognizing such marriages is what I'd support and for obvious reasons. To define marriage as a society...by our society...rather than the executive branch or judicial branch of our government, this decision would be decided once and for all by a legislative endeavor.

    So my two reasons....I reckon I'll call these 6 and 7 as your limited knowledge on this subject reigned you in at 5.

    6). To make sure this issue is decided upon by a legislative or referendum endeavor thus making sure marriage is defined by We the People.

    7) To make sure that should one state legalize same sex marriage, there is no reason to expect other states to recognize such marriages. Right there in our Constitution(as the federal DOMA says right now), would be language quite specific concerning marriage in these United States. No reason for lawsuits, no arguments, no debates, no fuss, no worries. It would cone this issue down to a state by state issue and where I think it belongs.

    Now...a very important personal note here. I don't necessarily support a federal amendment. However, in reaction to states that are legalizing marriage expecting those marriages are recognized elsewhere. It's the EXACT REASON why the current and standing DOMA was voted on and approved so overwhelmingly, I find it odd you list of 5 didn't include my 6 and 7 as those two reasons ARE why existing law is on the books.

    1. An appeal to tradition fallacy. (marriage has always been between a man and a woman)
    2. Ignoring the countries that have legalized same sex marriage and making a fallacious argument that it would be somehow harmful to this country.
    3. An appeal to the majority fallacy. (most people don't agree with same sex marriage)
    4. A slippery slope fallacy. (if we allow same sex marriage then we have to allow polygamy)
    5. Religious condemnation. (its a sin)
    These aren't even good guesses.

    Please prove me wrong and provide some rational that isn't listed above for why a federal amendment banning same sex marriage would be a good idea.
    I just proved you wrong. And the rationale is the same as the rationale for the current DOMA, here, allow me to quote that law signed by Bill Clinton and voted on by som many in your current Congress such as Harry Reid and Execs running your government that you voted in like Joe Biden.

    1)No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

    2)The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.
    Isn't that easy to read. OBVIOUSLY, a federal amendment would protect this law, only a matter of time before some court gets involved, an amendment would solidify and code the DOMA. And it protects other states from recognizing those states that do legalize same sex marriage.

    The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
    Here is where all the selective outrage shows. NEVER...will Bill Clinton ever be called the names and accused of discrimination or hate of gays or anything close to it. Neither will ANY of the Dem Senators or House members who voted against same sex marriage. It's all quite transparent, this pretend outrage from the gay community concerning this marriage issue, it's a political issue. NOBODY can marry within gender in this nation and have it recognized, gay or straight, bi or tri, it doesn't matter.

    I found the text from Wiki, their quote here gives the reason why so easily...and doesn't use one of your 5 "only" reasons that are all wrong.

    At the time of passage, it was expected that Hawaii (and possibly other states) would soon legalize same-sex marriage, whether by legislation or judicial interpretation of either the state or federal constitution. Opponents of such recognition feared (and many proponents hoped) that the other states would then be required to recognize such marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.
    And that is why in some cases, I can see a federal amendment making sense. If the state's rights to define marriage for themselves is challenged, a federal amendment reinforces We the People's decision here to define our own institutions, any court properly interpreting would clearly see this and dismiss any irrepsonsible and kneejerk legal action from gay communities. They'd just be told sorry, it is Constitutional. Now...you can overturn if you'd like, the amendment process is crystal clear.
    Last edited by Charles Martel; 12-28-09 at 12:18 PM.
    It was the Austrasians, that hewed on bravely through the thick of the fight, it was they who found and cut down the Saracen King.

  2. #1312
    Advisor Binky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In the land that is now.
    Last Seen
    07-19-14 @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    595
    Blog Entries
    2

    joke Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    I'm not even concerned that GM is being shot down in other areas. As long as a few States have it for now, that is a great first step. It will provide a working model for other States that have fears or are simply on the fence to show them that households with gay partnerships are as normal and functional as heterosexual setups.


    "are as normal"..........: 2funny:

  3. #1313
    Professor Charles Martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    03-21-10 @ 08:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,668

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    CriticalThought(), I can only see 5 reasons for you to disagree with my fact laced opinion above. And none stand on its own, all 5 answers you could possibly give me are unreasonable. They are:

    1) You aren't aware of the current DOMA
    2) You aren't aware many oppose other states marrying within gender and then expecting it be recognized by their own states for many more reasons than the 5 you;ve limited yourself to.
    3) You believe the courts and execs have been consistent even when, NY votes one way, Iowa the other, California Mayors start marrying within gender in their cities but prop 8 squashes that endeavor.
    4) It's up to courts or the executive branch, the legislature should have no say and neither should We the People.
    5) You have an agenda to force We the People to accept your alternative lifestyle.

    All 5 of these wrong headed and mistaken. Thus, there are no reasonable arguments from Criticalthought or CC, all agenda driven arguments. Once your politics leaves the arena, I think you'll see my reasons are sound and also happen to be current law.
    It was the Austrasians, that hewed on bravely through the thick of the fight, it was they who found and cut down the Saracen King.

  4. #1314
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Jefferson State
    Last Seen
    11-25-12 @ 12:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    3,545

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    You know, this isn't fair. I need to give these guys a chance to prove that they are not as illogical as they seem to be coming off. For the sake of determining whether they even have the basic reasoning skills to warrant discussing the issue with them, or anyone for that matter, I think a litmus test is in order. So I welcome any of the opposition to same sex marriage to answer these five simple questions...

    Same sex marriage litmus test...

    1. Is it true that since marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman then only marriage between a man and a woman is correct?
    2. Is it true that since majority of people reject same sex marriage that automatically proves that same sex marriage is wrong?
    3. Is it true that same sex marriage will lead to polygamy?
    4. Can it automatically be assumed that same sex marriage will cause harm to this country despite evidence that it has caused no such major harm in other countries that have it?
    5. Are you an authority on homosexuality based simply on what your religious beliefs say about the topic? In other words, do you know everything of relevance about homosexuality and same sex marriage based simply on what your religious scriptures say?
    1. No. We have had traditions not allowing marriage between people of different races before and it was wrong and has since been corrected.

    2. No. Majority arguments are a logical fallacy. We've had a majority of citizens reject marriage between the races in the past and that has been since proved wrong.

    3. There is no evidence that same sex marriage will lead to polygamy.

    4. It can not be assumed that same sex marriage will cause harm to the country. There is no evidence that supports that claim.

    5. No one posting here can be considered an authority on homosexuality due to their religious beliefs. Marriage equality is a civil law issue. Religion is irrelevant to the discussion.

    PS Nice outline. I'm a proponent of marriage equality but couldn't resist responding to your clear and concise outline. Too bad opponents, so far are unwilling to use your outline to debate the issue.
    Last edited by windovervocalcords; 12-28-09 at 12:38 PM.

  5. #1315
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Last Seen
    05-06-11 @ 07:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,082

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    It all boils down to approval and acceptance.

    The Church declares approval and acceptance of 2 people living together by virtue of a wedding ceremony. "It's morally acceptable now for you two to sleep together."

    The government needs to make the same decision. Does it approve of gay marriage or not? This is not a moral decision. It is just legal.

  6. #1316
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,136

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Martel View Post
    CriticalThought(), I can only see 5 reasons for you to disagree with my fact laced opinion above. And none stand on its own, all 5 answers you could possibly give me are unreasonable. They are:
    Charles, you misunderstood. I was asking in general why you are opposed to same sex marriage. Why do you need DOMA? Why do you need any state ban? Why do you need a federal amendment to ban it? In essence, I was asking for you to justify your entire position, not just a federal amendment. I thought I was clear on it because tex seemed to instantly know what I meant. I'm sorry you seemed to misunderstand. I feel the opposition to same sex marriage's arguments are limited to those 5 positions I presented. I asked you to prove me wrong. Please do prove me wrong. I have yet to hear a rational basis for your position.

    1) You aren't aware of the current DOMA
    I'm aware of the Defense of Marriage Act. I'm also aware that traditional marriage people are afraid of it being struck down by the courts because it violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. I'm also aware that Bill Clinton rescinded on his position.

    If you are still confused of my intention, then please just simply answer the questions I added right after to clarify...

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Same sex marriage litmus test...

    1. Is it true that since marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman then only marriage between a man and a woman is correct?
    2. Is it true that since majority of people reject same sex marriage that automatically proves that same sex marriage is wrong?
    3. Is it true that same sex marriage will lead to polygamy?
    4. Can it automatically be assumed that same sex marriage will cause harm to this country despite evidence that it has caused no such major harm in other countries that have it?
    5. Are you an authority on homosexuality based simply on what your religious beliefs say about the topic? In other words, do you know everything of relevance about homosexuality and same sex marriage based simply on what your religious scriptures say?
    If you can think of a rational not listed above for why you wish to oppose same sex marriage (via federal amendment, state statute ban, DOMA, whatever...) then please provide it. Otherwise, I am forced to assume that you are an illogical lot who know very well that you opposing same sex marriage based simply on your prejudices.
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 12-28-09 at 02:12 PM.

  7. #1317
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post

    Same sex marriage litmus test...

    1. Is it true that since marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman then only marriage between a man and a woman is correct?
    Great post, I just want to elaborate on that word "tradition".

    TRADITIONALLY Marriage has been a lot of things. It started out as a business deal between two patriarchs. The father of the bride would be selling his underage daughter as part of land deal or to pay off a debt.

    TRADITIONALLY wealthy men could have as many wives, sex slaves, and servants as they could afford.

    More recently: TRADITIONALLY in California (and other states) Blacks could not marry whites. That has been changed.

    Also, all married Christian Evangelicals please be advised: That wedding band on your finger is a pagan tradition. You must take it off now and get down on your knees to pray for forgiveness. Filthy pagans. You probably sang songs and danced at your wedding ceremonies, just like the pagans! (I know I did)

  8. #1318
    Professor Charles Martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    03-21-10 @ 08:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,668

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Charles, you misunderstood. I was asking in general why you are opposed to same sex marriage. Why do you need DOMA? Why do you need any state ban? Why do you need a federal amendment to ban it? In essence, I was asking for you to justify your entire position, not just a federal amendment. I thought I was clear on it because tex seemed to instantly know what I meant. I'm sorry you seemed to misunderstand. I feel the opposition to same sex marriage's arguments are limited to those 5 positions I presented. I asked you to prove me wrong. Please do prove me wrong. I have yet to hear a rational basis for your position.
    Beacuse marriage is a unique relationship in our society and while many people define it differently, our society needs to define it exactly so as we can make laws and apply standards. It does stand above all others as far as human relationships go and defining marriage as such keeps it standing above all others.

    I'm aware of the Defense of Marriage Act. I'm also aware that traditional marriage people are afraid of it being struck down by the courts because it violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. I'm also aware that Bill Clinton rescinded on his position
    Exactly...so rather than be concerned the full faith and credit clause is applied, why not fully define and Constitutionally cement the definition of marriage? Once and for all. Secondly, you'll NEVER hear anyone criticize Clinton nor did you during his terms regarding his position on same sex marriage. You'll NEVER hear Biden or Reid or Clinton nor any Democrat leveled for his position, no one will ever accuse them of fearing gays or being a homophobe. The reason I realize it's all poltiical on the Left's part, this entire same sex marriage agenda is a political effort.

    If you are still confused of my intention, then please just simply answer the questions I added right after to clarify...
    Not confused at all, your position clear....but wrong.

    If you can think of a rational not listed above for why you wish to oppose same sex marriage (via federal amendment, state statute ban, DOMA, whatever...) then please provide it. Otherwise, I am forced to assume that you are an illogical lot who know very well that you opposing same sex marriage based simply on your prejudices.
    Assume whatever you'd like, who really cares? You just told me there were only five reasons and all five are all wrong. You have all the answers to all of your own questions, who cares what assumptions you're 'forced' to take or not take.

    The joke continues, you're not in here for conversation, you're trying to name call. Opposition to same sex marriage doesn't have to have anything to do with being gay, it's the knowledge that marriage is much more than a contract, much more than benefits afforded, much more than two people who love each other. It's an important fabric holding our nation together, it's the ultimate relationship that is required for a healthy happy society.

    Again...the absence of homosexuality...would mean nothing. No two men or two women acting or oriented towards each other in any way or form adds to society, isn't required by society, it isn't necessary, it isn't defined as marriage. Not by me and most others. Marriage...the unique relationship between one man and one woman has obvious and relevant influence on children, society, our education levels, the prosperity of this nation and I believe you naive and agenda driven if you cannot clearly see this. I must assume you're just another Left wing agenda driven political animal trying to force your lifestyle on others. Ain't gonna happen.
    It was the Austrasians, that hewed on bravely through the thick of the fight, it was they who found and cut down the Saracen King.

  9. #1319
    Professor Charles Martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    03-21-10 @ 08:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,668

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by sazerac View Post
    The government needs to make the same decision. Does it approve of gay marriage or not?
    No, it doesn't. By overwhelming majorities. And the disapproval is on same sex marriage, not gay marriage. Hundreds of thousands of 'gays' are married, with children. It's obvious we allow gays to marry. A gay man and lesbain woman could get a marriage license tomorrow in any city given they're not already married. IT's irrelevant your orientation or being 'gay.' You're being discriminated against for gender, plase use the appropriate lingo.
    Last edited by Charles Martel; 12-28-09 at 02:34 PM.
    It was the Austrasians, that hewed on bravely through the thick of the fight, it was they who found and cut down the Saracen King.

  10. #1320
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,136

    Re: DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Martel View Post
    Beacuse marriage is a unique relationship in our society and while many people define it differently, our society needs to define it exactly so as we can make laws and apply standards. It does stand above all others as far as human relationships go and defining marriage as such keeps it standing above all others.
    That makes no sense. Why would allowing gays to marry in any way hurt the standards or status of marriage? If you are going to make such a statement, then you need to back it up with facts, otherwise it is simply an assumption that falls under 2nd of the 5 positions I presented earlier in this thread.

    Not confused at all, your position clear....but wrong.
    You have yet to provide a rational basis for your position.

    Assume whatever you'd like, who really cares? You just told me there were only five reasons and all five are all wrong. You have all the answers to all of your own questions, who cares what assumptions you're 'forced' to take or not take.
    I asked you to prove me wrong. You have yet to do so. Or is the rational basis for your position, "To secure the standards and status of marriage by defining it as between a man and a woman"?
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 12-28-09 at 02:41 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •