• 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!

DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

I'm trying to get some who support gay marriage to see the hypocritical nature of using "human rights" as an argument to allow gay marriage.

You use that argument you cannot deny any human couple or group the same "right"

That's totally false. Children cannot enter into legal contracts. Also, the power disparity issue between a child and an adult make it such that the partnership would be defined by an inherent inequality which also undermines human rights.

So yeah...that little line you're peddling about hypocrisy? That dog don't hunt.
 
To deny the people a right to vote when they ask?

"the people" did not ask to vote. A few people did.



My apologies you are correct. (see it can be done. Wish you would try it when you are mistaken)

Only one problem though. There is no marriage section so it doesn't apply.

Read the law please. Let me quote from it:

Every individual shall have an equal opportunity to participate fully in the economic, cultural and intellectual life of the District and to have an equal opportunity to participate in all aspects of life, including, but not limited to, in employment, in places of public accommodation, resort or amusement, in educational institutions, in public service, and in housing and commercial space accommodations.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Because it exposes the hypocritical nature of your argument using the "human rights" defense.

No, it's an attempt to tie two unrelated things together. Gay marriage is an entirely separate issue from pedophilia. These old tactics are just that, old.
 
I'm trying to get some who support gay marriage to see the hypocritical nature of using "human rights" as an argument to allow gay marriage.

You use that argument you cannot deny any human couple or group the same "right"

I think most are arguing rights under the law.
 
Then explain how they didn't circumvent the people when they denied a vote on this very issue?

Because we live in a republic where we elect representatives to pass laws for us? :confused:

Not every place in the country is California (thank ****ing God). Some places simply are not as open to direct voter referenda as others, and that's fine. If we the people don't like the decisions our elected representatives make, we can vote them out of office. Not that that will happen, as Mayor Fenty is terrific.
 
Last edited:
A more accurate thread title would be, "DC City Council votes to impose gay marriage" - given that most DC citizens are opposed to it.
 
A more accurate thread title would be, "DC City Council votes to impose gay marriage" - given that most DC citizens are opposed to it.

Unless they are passing a law that everyone has to get gay married, no, they are not imposing anything on anyone.
 
The article states Congress is reluctant to interfere with it, but I am not sure it can pass a referendum should it get that far.

Still, it is a sign of the times regarding legislation.

How would Congress interfere with it? in your opinion.
 
Unless they are passing a law that everyone has to get gay married, no, they are not imposing anything on anyone.
Of course they are, they're imposing their beliefs that gay marriage should be legal.
 
Unless they are passing a law that everyone has to get gay married, no, they are not imposing anything on anyone.

I would support such a law.
 
Of course they are, they're imposing their beliefs that gay marriage should be legal.

Depends on how you look at it. From my perspective, it looks as though they are blocking the anti-gm crowd from imposing their moral disapproval upon gays.

Depends on how their marriage laws were worded prior to this. If there was not mention of 1 man or 1 woman, they imposed nothing. They simply stopped the imposition of others before it every got started.

Either way, mob rule voting away the rights of others is still prohibited by our Constitution.
 
Of course they are, they're imposing their beliefs that gay marriage should be legal.

To take a page out of another poster in this thread's playbook...That is true of every law. We are imposing our belief that people should not molest young children on people too.
 
A more accurate thread title would be, "DC City Council votes to impose gay marriage" - given that most DC citizens are opposed to it.

A more accurate post would be "Taylor posts to impose silly opinion" - given that most DP members aren't that silly.


:D
 
We the people ELECTED our City Council to represent us. Why should the people have to approve every single thing that our representatives pass? How is it "circumventing the people" for elected representatives to pass laws? If the people are that pissed about it, they can vote the City Council out of office next time they're up for election.

Will the policies leave with them?
 
:lol: i know that, I meant exactly how they would. The same way the 'interfered' with the Gun Ban?

See that's the tricky thing about this. What the federal congress does with this is going to signal whether the opposition attacks full force in an attempt to get a full on ban across the board by means of federal law or the advocates redouble their efforts state to state to overturn state DOMAs.

It's sort of a litmus test as to where the issue is. That's why all eyes are on this right now.
 
See that's the tricky thing about this. What the federal congress does with this is going to signal whether the opposition attacks full force in an attempt to get a full on ban across the board by means of federal law or the advocates redouble their efforts state to state to overturn state DOMAs.

It's sort of a litmus test as to where the issue is. That's why all eyes are on this right now.

Makes me miss DC. :( Such a greeeaat place.
 
Depends on how you look at it. From my perspective, it looks as though they are blocking the anti-gm crowd from imposing their moral disapproval upon gays.
From the perspective of the majority, they're imposing gay marriage.

Depends on how their marriage laws were worded prior to this. If there was not mention of 1 man or 1 woman, they imposed nothing.
Has to do more with how the laws were interepreted -- and that was indeed 1man/1woman.

Either way, mob rule voting away the rights of others is still prohibited by our Constitution.
Even if true, there is no right to gay marriage in the Constitution.
 
From the perspective of the majority, they're imposing gay marriage.

The majority is irrelevant when discussing individual liberties.

Has to do more with how the laws were interepreted -- and that was indeed 1man/1woman.

Has nothing to do with that.

Even if true, there is no right to gay marriage in the Constitution.

There's no right to marriage, period, in the Constitution, so what's your point?
 
From the perspective of the majority, they're imposing gay marriage.

They're allowing it amongst a sea of opposition MAYBE. That's far from imposing it.

Even if true, there is no right to gay marriage in the Constitution.

A lot of stuff isn't in the Constitution because it didn't exist, wasn't thought of, or wasn't acceptable at the time and yet, now we have lots of things the Constitution and our laws have been adapted to allow or create.
 
From the perspective of the majority, they're imposing gay marriage.

I'm curious, though. Since gay marriage only affects gays, wouldn't it make sense to find out if the majority of gays would support it? I've always wondered how gay marriage affects non-gays...and have yet to hear a legitimate answer that does not affect marriage as a whole.


Has to do more with how the laws were interepreted -- and that was indeed 1man/1woman.

And laws can be reinterpreted based on current societal needs.


Even if true, there is no right to gay marriage in the Constitution.

Nor is the right to use the internet. You are under arrest. See how silly that argument is?
 
Back
Top Bottom