• 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

That's a false analogy. Sexual orientation is not a "behavior". It's a hard-wired personality trait. Homosexuals have no choice in the matter.

skin color / sexual orientation are analogous. A person does not have a 'choice' in the matter.

Blacks in CA opposed Prop 8 because of a last-minute push by their religious leaders. The Sunday before that election, many large congregations got an earful of Biblical misinterpretations. Hispanics in Catholics churches got the same thing.

Since that election many have realized they made a mistake. If Prop 8 were to be voted on again next November, it would not pass.



so it's all just the 'evil church'?


j-mac
 
We just get a little antsy when the legislature deny the people the right to vote on an issue. Not something you liberals care much about as long as its in your favor.

And there is no human rights law. Nice try.

So if a man and a 12 year old girl wanted to marry and the council who supported it denied a vote to stop the decision by the people to vote citing "human rights" you would support it as well?


Step into my parlor said the spider to the fly....
um...there's law in place against that, right?
 
Since that election many have realized they made a mistake. If Prop 8 were to be voted on again next November, it would not pass.
Last I heard, it's NOT going to be voted on next November. It seems the backers who put their money where there mouth is aren't nearly as chipper about their prospects as you are:

Marc Solomon, marriage director for Equality California, said he spent June and early July asking the opinions of nearly two dozen California political consultants and pollsters and had been surprised by the almost unanimous opinion that a 2010 race was a bad idea.

“I expected having watched the protests and the real pain that the L.G.B.T. community had experienced that there would be some real measurable remorse in the electorate,” Mr. Solomon said, referring to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. “But if you look at the poll numbers since November, they really haven’t moved at all.”
 
Last edited:
Why are 'ballot measures' the last thing you come to in affecting change in the law of the land? Shouldn't that be the first?

Ballot measures should be the last resort unless attempting to change the Constitution itself.



Is anyone that doesn't agree with a specific agenda like that found in the homosexual community, just an 'ignorant jackhole'?

You can disagree with it all you want. I couldn't care less whether you approve or disapprove because frankly, your acceptance is irrelevant to me.

However, when someone goes out of their way to impose that lack of acceptance and that disapproval into codefied law to hinder my ability to transfer property, visit my partner int he hospital, pass wealth without tax penalty, etc...then yeah, I kinda look at that person as a knuckledragging moron who is attempting to make me the object of their control issues.



What are the 'failings' endemic in society currently that you see as the downfall of those opposed to SSM?


j-mac

The family structure is already breaking down. I see that as a result of certain segments of society refusing to focus their attention on their own family relationships in favor of projecting that energy outward in an attempt to stop others from peacefully enjoying their relationships. "Family values" leaders have a pattern of being exposed as some of the most morally corrupted individuals in the country. Marriage is already treated with such flippant disregard that the whole sanctity argument is laughable at best but most often pitiful upon close examination.

The moral opposition to gay marriage is sad.
 
Ballot measures should be the last resort unless attempting to change the Constitution itself.


Nonsense. You mean to tell me that you think that the court system should ultimately decide what the law of the land is, even if it runs contrary to the will of the people? Isn't there a middle ground?


You can disagree with it all you want. I couldn't care less whether you approve or disapprove because frankly, your acceptance is irrelevant to me.


I don't believe I said either way, in fact the closest you can find in this thread would I think lead one to believe I was in favor of gay rights.


However, when someone goes out of their way to impose that lack of acceptance and that disapproval into codefied law to hinder my ability to transfer property, visit my partner int he hospital, pass wealth without tax penalty, etc...then yeah, I kinda look at that person as a knuckledragging moron who is attempting to make me the object of their control issues.


I agree, however, does that give you, or the gay community to legislate through fiat?


The family structure is already breaking down. I see that as a result of certain segments of society refusing to focus their attention on their own family relationships in favor of projecting that energy outward in an attempt to stop others from peacefully enjoying their relationships. "Family values" leaders have a pattern of being exposed as some of the most morally corrupted individuals in the country. Marriage is already treated with such flippant disregard that the whole sanctity argument is laughable at best but most often pitiful upon close examination.


Not that I disagree completely, but what do you think is the catalyst to this breakdown?


j-mac
 
However, monogamy doesn't preclude SSM does it?


j-mac

I don't thank conservatives enough, but this warrants a thanks. SSM is monogamous. Polygamy is a separate issue entirely, and a red herring always thrown into SSM debates, just as some one always has to bring in marriage to 12 year olds.
 
That's a false analogy. Sexual orientation is not a "behavior". It's a hard-wired personality trait. Homosexuals have no choice in the matter.

skin color / sexual orientation are analogous. A person does not have a 'choice' in the matter.

Blacks in CA opposed Prop 8 because of a last-minute push by their religious leaders. The Sunday before that election, many large congregations got an earful of Biblical misinterpretations. Hispanics in Catholics churches got the same thing.

Since that election many have realized they made a mistake. If Prop 8 were to be voted on again next November, it would not pass.

That is not only false it is completely unsupported by any factual data whatsoever.

Explain bi-sexuals

Explain people who come out of the closet 40 or 50 years later

Explain people who go back to being straight after some religous retreat.

The facts are homosexuality has never ever been proven to be an inherited or genetic trait.

The fruit fly study has already been proven false and not even the same species and the twin study couldn't even conclude that even in twins when one decides they are gay in even 50% of the cases the other twin who shares the EXACT same genetic structure decides they are gay. Furthermore, the number went down even further when the twins didn't grow up together.

Its time to face reality. Your claims have absolutely no factual backing at all while people who come out decades later, change their sexual orientation back to straight give far more evidence that it is a psychological choice to become homosexual.

Heterosexuality is genetically inherited because only heterosexual sex allows any species to procreate.
 
Last edited:
Nonsense. You mean to tell me that you think that the court system should ultimately decide what the law of the land is, even if it runs contrary to the will of the people? Isn't there a middle ground?

The law of the land has already been decided. It's called the Constitution.

I just expect the courts to rule on the proper interpretation of that. If that does not succeed, then a ballot measure would suffice to get it changed in our favor.

And no, there is no middle ground anymore. That time is past. Now is the time to make key strikes that will cost us little but cost the opposition millions in legal fees, etc. Tire them out and exhaust their resources and will to keep fighting it.



I don't believe I said either way, in fact the closest you can find in this thread would I think lead one to believe I was in favor of gay rights.


That was an editorial "you". I probably should have made that a little more clear. As for the personal "you", no, I have never seen you post anything that I would take great exception to. In fact, you seem to be about where I was a year ago.


I agree, however, does that give you, or the gay community to legislate through fiat?

We didn't create the system. But if it's going to be used against us, we have every right to use the system to fight back, also.



Not that I disagree completely, but what do you think is the catalyst to this breakdown?


j-mac

Honestly, I think it's complex enough to deserve it's own thread. But cliff notes version is this: division politics that use religion and liberty as opposing forces, consumerism, and degradation of personal adherence to tradition.
 
Its time to face reality. Your claims have absolutely no factual backing at all while people who come out decades later, change their sexual orientation back to straight give far more evidence that it is a psychological choice to become homosexual.


OMG

:rofl :lamo :2rofll: :2funny: :funny

I realize now that I will be unable to take you seriously anymore.
 
Nothing in that human rights law addresses marriage in any shape or form.

This has been addressed already. To quote the law:

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.

Bolded the important part for you.
 
We are dealing with it. Every time ignorant jackasses try to enforce their morality over our rights,

Ignorant jackasses.....????? Where? Are you speaking to the process here, the fact that most people are voting no when asked if ssm should be legal in their state? What of the non-activist? The voter strolling to the polls as in California in 2008. Overwhelmingly, he or she votes for Obama. But in even greater reverse order, reject same sex marriage? Is that ignorance?

I mean, it an easy question, most everyone has been involved with marriage at some point in their life or friends or family are married, we all get the issue. Should members of the same gender be the equal to the one man one woman committment our society defines as marriage. There aren't lies and deceit, no one is ignorant, no one is being a jackass, this issue isn't clise in referendum in deep blue states and getting soundly defeated in moderate states like Maine and Hawaii, scorched to shreds in red states.

No one is being an ignorant jackass, using emotion to argue your points isn't getting anywhere, it's not helping convince anyone.

they will find another fight elsewhere. And we will work through the courts, through community action, through law suit after law suit, through ballot measures...everything.

Who are "they"? No doubt, you are speaking to the actual 'jackass ignorants' here, the actual individuals doing the actual shoving of morals down other's throats...yes?

And eventually, ignorant jackholes will lose the will to fight and their money will dry up because the fanaticism behind this drive to deny equality will burn out and fade.

You are correct, I believe the same sex marriage movement has seen its high tide. 4 of 46 states, there may be a few more, however I think the activism on the Left's part has emboldened many states to change their constitutions, I think the public turns against it. The country's demographics are changing rapidly and the rising numbers of minority and first generation Americans oppose it. The election results and referendum data we've looked at repeatedly show this.

But the human tendancy toward freedom and liberty does not fade.

Hopefully, you're correct and society will retain the ability to define its own institutions. We the People really do need to be the final say here, I agree.

We have momentum on our side. And they have...well...nothing really except an empty ache to make others subjugates of a failing morality.

Youve got a Doma...and the just recent defeats in NY, Maine, and California. You've got over 30 states with amendments not recognizing other state's marriages specifically defining theirs as one man one woman. You've got many other states endeavoring into domestic partnerships.

Four states have approved, I'm not aware of exactly how those states became to accept same sex marriage, hopefully the process was via legislative manner. I simply do not think as far as defining marriage is concerned, that the courts or the executive branch get a say. This is a legislative domain.
 
Last edited:
Ignorant jackasses.....????? Where? Are you speaking to the process here, the fact that most people are voting no when asked if ssm should be legal in their state? What of the non-activist? The voter strolling to the polls as in California in 2008. Overwhelmingly, he or she votes for Obama. But in even greater reverse order, reject same sex marriage? Is that ignorance?

I mean, it an easy question, most everyone has been involved with marriage at some point in their life or friends or family are married, we all get the issue. Should members of the same gender be the equal to the one man one woman committment our society defines as marriage. There aren't lies and deceit, no one is ignorant, no one is being a jackass, this issue isn't clise in referendum in deep blue states and getting soundly defeated in moderate states like Maine and Hawaii, scorched to shreds in red states.

No one is being an ignorant jackass, using emotion to argue your points isn't getting anywhere, it's not helping convince anyone.



Who are "they"? No doubt, you are speaking to the actual 'jackass ignorants' here, the actual individuals doing the actual shoving of morals down other's throats...yes?



You are correct, I believe the same sex marriage movement has seen its high tide. 4 of 46 states, there may be a few more, however I think the activism on the Left's part has emboldened many states to change their constitutions, I think the public turns against it. The country's demographics are changing rapidly and the rising numbers of minority and first generation Americans oppose it. The election results and referendum data we've looked at repeatedly show this.



Hopefully, you're correct and society will retain the ability to define its own institutions. We the People really do need to be the final say here, I agree.



We've got a Doma...and the just recent defeats in NY, Maine, and California. We've got over 30 states with amendments not recognizing other state's marriages. We've got many other states endeaviring into domestic partnerships.

Four states have approved, I'm not aware of exactly how those states became to accept same sex marriage, hopefully the process was via legislative manner. I simply do not think as far as defining marriage is concerned, that the courts or the executive branch get a say. This is a legislative domain.

Your grasp on reality, where this issue is concerned, is slipping. It is a back and forth struggle. It is far from over.

You may enjoy your little "neener, neener" moment today. But I hope you choke on the crow you find yourself eating tomorrow.

I am not worried, in the least, that marriage will be denied to homosexuals for long. In fact, I give the issue 5 to 10 years and it will be decided in favor of homosexuals.
 
Your grasp on reality, where this issue is concerned, is slipping. It is a back and forth struggle. It is far from over.

I cannot see where a sound defeat in California of all places, defeats in Maine and NY....challenges my grasp on reality. Same sex marriage is 0-31 in referendum....who here is thinking denial is a river in Egypt?

You may enjoy your little "neener, neener" moment today. But I hope you choke on the crow you find yourself eating tomorrow.

I hope I don't.:cool:

I am not worried, in the least, that marriage will be denied to homosexuals for long. In fact, I give the issue 5 to 10 years and it will be decided in favor of homosexuals.

5 to 10 years ago we were being told that in 5 or 10 years it will be decided in favor of homosexuals. This hasn't become reality. It has gone back and forth, I cannot argue that. 4 states have chose to accept, that means by Obama's count, 53 states oppose.

Perhaps this DC decision though not final will convince others you're right, I'm just not there.:)
 
Last edited:
And...can I just ask about the Santa pic? I mean, I don't want to get stomped by the mods, but, what in the world?
 
OMG

:rofl :lamo :2rofll: :2funny: :funny

I realize now that I will be unable to take you seriously anymore.

Yes. The old "I don't have to support anything I say" argument.

Nice one.
 
This has been addressed already. To quote the law:



Bolded the important part for you.

Please bold the word "marriage" any where after that.

My God Redress they even give examples after that statement and none of them are marriage.

Its amazing you think you can infer something without any evidence to support the theory.
 
Last edited:
Your grasp on reality, where this issue is concerned, is slipping. It is a back and forth struggle. It is far from over.

You may enjoy your little "neener, neener" moment today. But I hope you choke on the crow you find yourself eating tomorrow.

I am not worried, in the least, that marriage will be denied to homosexuals for long. In fact, I give the issue 5 to 10 years and it will be decided in favor of homosexuals.

I think gay marriage will be a reality in our lifetime.
 
As we see DC become the fifth 'locale', joining 4 other states, it appears clear why a national amendent would have made sense during Bush's first term. Many who oppose same sex marriage opposed an amendment to our Constitution, this would have prevented this issue from being yanked from constitutent's decisions-making processes

Where I support this as it's a 'legislative move', it isn't the standard legislature as DC isn't a state. Congress holds ultimate authority, and there is a DoMA law currently written, my guess is Democrats will forego and ignore the law signed by President Clinton and approve ssm anyway torching off much more debate.

...and why...like my state...an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage and specifically not recognizing other state's decisions on this matter become even more critical. We the People need to define what marriage is...not a court....not some Executive Mayor or some House member...We the People must remain the ultimate deciders, we're the one's who need to specifically define and make laws pertaining and regarding marriage. End of story.


Let's not pretend that you are concerned about "We the people". You are concerned with nothing but your own impositions. There is no logical reason to not allow same-sex marriage, only subjective nonsense. That is where a line must be drawn in a legal system based on liberty, it must contain an objective element that exceeds the subjectiveness. Just because you do not like something does not mean it must be promulgated into law. Can people like you comprehend this? Your reasoning takes away freedoms and imposes your selfish restrictions on an entire population of people, same-sex marriage proponents reasoning allows everyone to be free and live their lives. Absolutely nothing in your life is being diminished due to same-sex marriage. You, on the other hand, are creating 2nd class citizens by allowing a government based on liberty to restrict people under the law. That is what this is about, people like you wanting to feel like you are above another group of people. So do not pretend to care about "We the people."

Our Constitution is not a toy, it is not a means to impose what you want society to be like. The Constitution is meant to be law imposed on the government, not the people. It restricts the government and allows for freedoms to its citizens. The fact that you would support a constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage only shows your lack of knowledge on what our system of government is.
 
Back
Top Bottom