• 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

Charles Martel said:
An amendment...you do know what the amendment process is, 2/3rds majority and all of that....would "yank" the issue away from Constituents? Really? What other federal emendment yanks decision making from the constituent?
Click to expand...

None so far, and I'd like to keep it that way.

Charles Martel said:
Can we stop the federal funds supporting your fair city then? I mean if it ain;t none of my business.......why should ANYTHING going on in DC...ACORN, poverty, AIDS, crime, gun control, why should ANY of it be under government purview, correct? Sure you've thought this argument out, it sounds unreasonable to me. Unrealistic and flat out silly really.
Click to expand...

Every state in the country has ACORN, poverty, AIDS, crime, and gun control...yet the federal government doesn't have veto power over anyone else's laws. Congress should butt out and let the people of DC run DC, unless the law somehow interferes with the operations of the federal government.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
Funny because you certainly did a good job of convincing us you were ignorant of that fact.
Click to expand...
Here's where I ask you to back up your stupid assertions and you make the next asinine remark... rinse/repeat

/bored
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
As far as the federal government is concerned:
1) Marriage is a 1 man 1 women arrangement
2) No state must recognize homosexual marriages from other states
Click to expand...

Here's where you make a statement that somewhat indicates you believe in a sort of...Federal infallibility...on the subject...

EpicDude86 said:
As far as the Federal Government was concerned:
-Slavery was legal
-Separate but Equal was legal
-Production and Sale of Alcohol was illegal
-Marriage was between consenting adults of the same skin color
-Women and Minorities used to not be allowed to vote.

Shall I go on? Or can you see that nothing is really set in stone, especially cultural and societal issues.

Anyone have any other Federal laws that have been repealed or overturned?
Click to expand...

I interject, and make a damn fine point if I do say so my self.

Taylor said:
Yes, everyone here understands that we're allowed to change the law.
Click to expand...

You deflect it without so much as a tiny justification or clarification of your post.

jallman said:
Funny because you certainly did a good job of convincing us you were ignorant of that fact.
Click to expand...

He has a point. Perhaps you should have elaborated instead of going for the little quip you posted.

Taylor said:
Here's where I ask you to back up your stupid assertions and you make the next asinine remark... rinse/repeat

/bored
Click to expand...

Once again no substance, all deflection.

/you
 
EpicDude86 said:
Here's where you make a statement that somewhat indicates you believe in a sort of...Federal infallibility...on the subject...
Click to expand...
I stated the law, plain and simple. There's no statement supporting "federal infallibility" in anything I've written, so I believe you'll have to admit you were jumping to conclusions.

EpicDude86 said:
You deflect it without so much as a tiny justification or clarification of your post.
Click to expand...
You were stating the obvious. I really don't know what you want me to do with that.

If I happen to mention the Constitution, do I need to also list all the amendments and a disclaimer at the bottom explaining how the process works?
 
Last edited:
EpicDude86 said:
As far as the Federal Government was concerned:
-Slavery was legal
-Separate but Equal was legal
-Production and Sale of Alcohol was illegal
-Marriage was between consenting adults of the same skin color
-Women and Minorities used to not be allowed to vote.

Shall I go on? Or can you see that nothing is really set in stone, especially cultural and societal issues.

Anyone have any other Federal laws that have been repealed or overturned?
Click to expand...

The second amendment?

Oh wait they're still working on that one.
 
Taylor said:
Sorry but that's what the law is.
Click to expand...
\

The law is not infallible, that is the reason the Supreme Court of the United States exists. Our Constitution sets nothing on a standard of infallibility, and our Declaration of Independence gives that status only to the universal rights of man. You, as an American citizen, should recognize this and realize that "right" and "wrong" are not determined by federal fiat. Which leads me to my critique of EpicDude86:

EpicDude86 said:
As far as the Federal Government was concerned:

-Slavery was legal
-Separate but Equal was legal
-Production and Sale of Alcohol was illegal
-Marriage was between consenting adults of the same skin color
-Women and Minorities used to not be allowed to vote.

Shall I go on? Or can you see that nothing is really set in stone, especially cultural and societal issues.

Anyone have any other Federal laws that have been repealed or overturned?
Click to expand...

With the exception of slavery, all of these were overturned by the courts or the Supreme Court, not by federal statute. Therefore, you cannot logically use them as a defense of a legal statue. Even slavery is not applicable, because it was made illegal by Constitutional Amendment. So, unless you intend to propose that we amend our constitution you are using inapplicable examples to depend your point, although I do support the spirit of your argument.
 
wbreese91 said:
The law is not infallible, that is the reason the Supreme Court of the United States exists.
Click to expand...
Once again, I think everyone understands this.
 
Taylor said:
Once again, I think everyone understands this.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, by setting up federal laws as the basis for an argument on a moral debate, you put forth a indication of federal infallibility. If you had supplemented this with some sort of interpretation of why the federal government is right in this regard it would have been a different story. Still not one that I agree with, but a more difficult one to argue with than a post that uses a whole three lines to put forth federal law as the be all end all of a moral question.
 
wbreese91 said:
On the contrary, by setting up federal laws as the basis for an argument on a moral debate, you put forth a indication of federal infallibility....Still not one that I agree with, but a more difficult one to argue with than a post that uses a whole three lines to put forth federal law as the be all end all of a moral question.
Click to expand...
I hold no such view. Assuming you read the entire three lines, I think you'll find I made no such argument. Frankly, I didn't make an argument whatsoever with that post, nor did I intend to - it was just a simple summary of the DOMA.
 
Taylor said:
I stated the law, plain and simple. There's no statement supporting "federal infallibility" in anything I've written, so I believe you'll have to admit you were jumping to conclusions.
Click to expand...

I used the term "somewhat indicates". Who's jumping to conclusions now?

Taylor said:
You were stating the obvious. I really don't know what you want me to do with that.

If I happen to mention the Constitution, do I need to also list all the amendments and a disclaimer at the bottom explaining how the process works?
Click to expand...

Just asking that you defend what you say, or at least asking for me to clarify if you don't understand what I'm asking for. :)
 
Taylor said:
As far as the federal government is concerned:
1) Marriage is a 1 man 1 women arrangement
2) No state must recognize homosexual marriages from other states
Click to expand...

This is your post.

You state the current federal laws sans any interpretation. You posted this in the context of a debate, not over current federal laws, but over the morality of gay marriage. Thus, you argue that the laws stand on their own as justification for the prohibition of gay marriage. If you meant them as a summary, that's all well and good, but the fact remains that that is not what your post indicates.
 
wbreese91 said:
\

With the exception of slavery, all of these were overturned by the courts or the Supreme Court, not by federal statute. Therefore, you cannot logically use them as a defense of a legal statue. Even slavery is not applicable, because it was made illegal by Constitutional Amendment. So, unless you intend to propose that we amend our constitution you are using inapplicable examples to depend your point, although I do support the spirit of your argument.
Click to expand...

You mean Women's suffrage and the repealing of prohibition were ruled/overturned by the courts? I'm pretty sure those were amendments. And an Amendment is: Federal Law, or rather a change to current Federal Law.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Just asking that you defend what you say,
Click to expand...
Always happy to do so - but I'm surely not in the habit of defending what I did not say. When people start talking about things I never claimed or intended, I'm left holding up my hands.
 
Taylor said:
Always happy to do so - but I'm surely not in the habit of defending what I did not say. When people start talking about things I never claimed or intended, I'm left holding up my hands.
Click to expand...

Well I made an inference, not a false claim. ;) Correct me if I am wrong, clarify where I am mistaken. That's all I ask.

Also, ITT: Speak in the manner of a stately gentleman time?

Example:
I say, what rousing debate has been brought forth upon us today!
 
EpicDude86 said:
You mean Women's suffrage and the repealing of prohibition were ruled/overturned by the courts? I'm pretty sure those were amendments. And an Amendment is: Federal Law, or rather a change to current Federal Law.
Click to expand...

The United States Constitution is not only Federal Law, as is confirmed by the "supreme law of the land" clause and strengthened by the fourteenth amendment. The Constitution is a higher source of legal authority than federal law.
 
wbreese91 said:
The United States Constitution is not only Federal Law, as is confirmed by the "supreme law of the land" clause and strengthened by the fourteenth amendment. The Constitution is a higher source of legal authority than federal law.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this, because if a federal law is unconstitutional, it's struck down.
 
wbreese91 said:
The United States Constitution is not only Federal Law, as is confirmed by the "supreme law of the land" clause and strengthened by the fourteenth amendment. The Constitution is a higher source of legal authority than federal law.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, Good sir!


Also, Why am I not seeing conversing in the manner of stately gentlemen? Come now, lads!
 
wbreese91 said:
You state the current federal laws sans any interpretation. You posted this in the context of a debate, not over current federal laws, but over the morality of gay marriage. Thus, you argue that the laws stand on their own as justification for the prohibition of gay marriage. If you meant them as a summary, that's all well and good, but the fact remains that that is not what your post indicates.
Click to expand...
So now you're not only making up arguments for me, but creating contexts as well? :doh

Had you bothered to actually view the post in context, you would have seen that I was specifically responding to a point that someone else made in reference to why there should be federal involvement in marriage.

Although I must admit, the way the forum is set up makes it a bitch to track conversations.
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
So now you're not only making up arguments for me, but creating contexts as well? :doh

Had you bothered to actually view the post in context, you would have seen that I was specifically responding to a point that someone else made in reference to why there should be federal involvement in marriage.
Click to expand...

I didn't make your argument I interpreted a vague statement of federal law. I also find it laughable that your post makes even less sense in the context you gave.:doh The federal government should be involved, because it already is? I think not.
 
wbreese91 said:
I hope by stately gentlemen, you don't mean parliament :lol: those guys are nuts
Click to expand...

Monocle%20Man.jpg


Nay sir! Nay! I merely wish for the vocabulary and grammar of our posts to lend themselves to an air of stateliness and gentleman-hood.
 
wbreese91 said:
I also find it laughable that your post makes even less sense in the context you gave.:doh The federal government should be involved, because it already is? I think not.
Click to expand...
You find it laughable because you are again (go figure) arguing with yourself!
 
Taylor said:
You find it laughable because you are again (go figure) arguing with yourself!
Click to expand...

Then why don't you state clearly what you mean, pray tell? If you don't want us to interpret don't blindly throw around federal statutes and then complain when people don't understand an argument that was never developed in the first place.
 
wbreese91 said:
Then why don't you state clearly what you mean, pray tell?
Click to expand...
I'll make you a deal. You go back and take the simple steps to find the original post and put it into context by tracing replies. If it still doesn't make sense, paste what you've found and we'll talk further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom