• 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!

Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

Not allowing homosexual marriage is not gender discrimination.
Yes it is.

Should we remove all male/female bathrooms? Is that gender discrimination?
As far as I know, there is no govt mandate requiring every business in the country to have male and female bathrooms. In fact, I've used quite a few unisex bathrooms in my day.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

sure, a lot of moderates did........I voted for Nixon a moderate twice............

Of course you did navy. He's a republican and a crook.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Here is an easy one: when did states rights become a liberal issue?

Its usually not....Liberals usually don't care about states rights....This Liberal judge does not care about states rights......He is going down though......His decision will be overturned.......What happens in the Peoples Republic of Mass should have no bearing on any other state....

Off Topic: I just noticed you mage moderator.......Congrats:
 
I'm replying to the statement "Gender discrimination is equally as unconstitutional as Racial discrimination in this country." -- which is not true.

If you want to claim that gender-based marriage discrimination isn't "right" - there are better arguments than comparisons to black-white marriage.


In there graping for straws Liberals always use the black white issue as and example when it is a completely different issue and a insult to black people for making the comparison.......
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Of course you did navy. He's a republican and a crook.

No bigger crook the your hero "Slick Willie"....The difference is Nison took his medicine..............
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Its usually not....Liberals usually don't care about states rights...
Breyer sure did when the court ruled for the incorporation of the 2th amendment against the states:

Given the empirical and local value-laden nature of the questions that lie at the heart of the issue, why, in a Nation whose Constitution foresees democratic decision making, is it so fundamental a matter as to require taking that power from the people? What is it here that the people did not know? What is it that a judge knows better?

The liberals among us will agree to this in the context it was presented, and disagree in the context of the current issue.
 
Last edited:
[/B]

In there graping for straws Liberals always use the black white issue as and example when it is a completely different issue and a insult to black people for making the comparison.......

What about the gay black people?
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Its usually not....Liberals usually don't care about states rights....This Liberal judge does not care about states rights......He is going down though......His decision will be overturned.......What happens in the Peoples Republic of Mass should have no bearing on any other state....

Off Topic: I just noticed you mage moderator.......Congrats:

So you came back, and offered zero evidence for your claim that this was a liberal judge. You can do it Navy, find some evidence.

And thank you.
 
What about them? You know the comparison is with straight black people..............

I did not ask about straight blacks. and i doubt every straight black person geels like the comparison is an imsult.
 
I did not ask about straight blacks. and i doubt every straight black person geels like the comparison is an imsult.

Yhere have been polls taken that show blacks in a much higher percentage then whites are against gay marriage......
 
DOMA should be ruled unconstitutional at the SCOTUS level. Hopefully the Supreme Court judges will rule with the law and not their own bias, 5 to 4 striking down DOMA will be good enough for me though.

As has been stated already, DOMA discriminates based on gender. The only criteria restricted by DOMA for marriage is gender and number of participants. I'll get back to number of participants. DOMA restricts people from marrying based on gender, not sexuality. It states that a man can only marry a woman and a woman can only marry a many, not that only heterosexuals can get married. In fact, it is completely legal for a homosexual to marry a heterosexual or even another homosexual or a bisexual, as long as the other person is the opposite gender.

Gender, unlike race and sexuality, is protected under equal protection using an intermediate scrutiny. This means first, the classification drawn must serve important governmental objectives, and second, the discriminatory means must directly and substantially relate to the accomplishment of a legitimate end. So the government must explain why it is in the state's interest to restrict marriage to opposite genders. This should have to be proven in court. Essentially is there a reason why it is important for the government to prevent a person from marrying someone of the same gender?

Also, taking this to the argument of polygamy. A restriction on the number of people allowed to be involved in the contract would only have to meet the rational basis test. This means that the law is constitutional so long as it is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest. Now, if DOMA is deemed unconstitutional, as it should be, then this restriction would be taken down with it, but the laws of the other states would not be affected. And those laws would need to be challenged directly for them to even have to be tried under the rational basis test. Generally speaking, the SCOTUS will not rule on a distantly related law that might get challenged later. Although polygamy could be mentioned, I highly doubt that the SCOTUS would include it as part of their final decision, especially if they rule DOMA unconstitutional.
 
Woot, someone addressing my point! Thanks.

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong - in practice and in law.

Correct, thanks for pointing this out. You are correct, race gets the highest standard of scrutiny (along with religion), followed by sex, followed by everything else.

I'm not aware of any laws that require people of a certain race to register with the government and keep apprised of address changes - although they legally "discriminate based on gender" by requiring men to do this under selective service.

For gender discrimination it requires "important government interest", the government has deemed only men should be in combat roles, as an important government interest (National Defense). Selective Service is a system in which to track males incase of a draft where individuals are needed for call up into primarily combat rolls. Even then, one could still argue its an instance of gender discrimination that frankly hasn't had the political and societal will to push for the over turning of yet. That does not necessarily mean it would be any less of a discriminatory act.

If you look into equal protection law, you'll see differences in how it's applied to race as opposed to gender. See for example rational basis review vs. strict scrutiny.

Gender discrimination is allowable if it serves a "legitimate interest" - racial discrimination must show "compelling government interest," be "narrowly tailored" and be the "least restrictive means" of achieving said interest.

And here's where you are wrong. Sex does not fall under "Rational Basis review but falls under Middle-Tier Immediete Scrutiny. In that the government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.

Gender discrimination is not allowable under "legitimate interest", but under important, not as high as racial but higher than legitimate and the lowest standard of EPC. It needs to shot that the law "substantially relates" to that important interest. It also states that those defending the laws carry a burden of "exceedingly persuasive jurstification".

The only justification given in regards to this gender discrimination is the note that government has an interest in, one, creating a stable family unit and, two, that male/female relations ships are what provide this

With regards to one it is questionable in regards to being exceedingly persuasive since male/female couples unable to have children are allowed to be married and there's no further investigation into traits that could make someone a "stable family unit" outside of sex,

With regadrs to two it is again hardly a "exceedingly persuasive" argument since there's extremely conflicting evidence regarding the family abilities of same sex couplings.

Thanks for the comments. :)
 
I did not ask about straight blacks. and i doubt every straight black person geels like the comparison is an imsult.

Didn't you know....Navy Pride speaks for all people in the military (at least in the navy) and speaks for all black people as well. You should know that by now.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Isn't it the responsibility of the citizenry to regulate themselves for posterity? I ask in all seriousness. Right or wrong, this accountability is the correct path; and this responsibility to our future is ordained upon the society. Some might argue that the "society" was against affording blacks equal rights, and that this was wrong. On the surface I might tend to agree with that proposition, however, the general tone, and the framing of this debate from the pro gay-marriage side, is one that requires intense scrutiny, and the parameters are worth exploring. One, blacks are black, Asians are Asian, and girls are girls, and boys are boys. These are all innate, and immutable conditions of the human experiment. One might argue, that, with the above premise taken as true - that the citizenry is responsible, if not entirely accountable for their posterity; isn't it reasonable to conclude that denying the "right", or more formally, dismissing the recognition, and institutionalization of gay marriage is actually a beneficial thing; if, one decides that homosexuality, fundamentally, falls far short of the reasonable measure comparing the innate, and immutable characteristics of one's gender, or skin color?

One might even argue that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone, why should I care? Great question. Well, I can, and have argued successfully that gay marriage inandofitself IS harmful to society, and it's posterity. The problem with gay marriage, like all other major social changes, is that for the short-sighted (Read obtuse liberal mind) gay marriage has no ill effects, other than a few loud ignorant homophobes (right?), they will get used to it. I argue that they said the same things about no fault divorce, abortion, sex-ed, desegregation, affirmative action, employment equality, public schools - the list is immense. Ask yourself where all those social changes are today? The law of unintended consequences is always at play. One must look deep and far into the future, and realize all the possible outcomes before embarking on a major social change, forced or unforced. My God it takes ten years to approve a runway extension in this country, with all the impact studies that must be done to ensure that the extension has no ill effects, yet, because of loud mouth ideologues we now have our kindergartners reading about Ted, and Steve in classroom reading circles?

Put it all in perspective people.. WE, are the people, and right or wrong, we have the right, and the responsibility to decide our own destiny. There is no moral authority, other than the one we decide. If we decide that gay marriage is a good thing, then that is the moral of the story, if in the reverse, then that too is the authority, and it is by definition, moral!


Tim-
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Well, I can, and have argued successfully that gay marriage inandofitself IS harmful to society, and it's posterity. The problem with gay marriage, like all other major social changes, is that for the short-sighted (Read obtuse liberal mind) gay marriage has no ill effects, other than a few loud ignorant homophobes (right?), they will get used to it. I argue that they said the same things about no fault divorce, abortion, sex-ed, desegregation, affirmative action, employment equality, public schools - the list is immense. Ask yourself where all those social changes are today? The law of unintended consequences is always at play. One must look deep and far into the future, and realize all the possible outcomes before embarking on a major social change, forced or unforced. My God it takes ten years to approve a runway extension in this country, with all the impact studies that must be done to ensure that the extension has no ill effects, yet, because of loud mouth ideologues we now have our kindergartners reading about Ted, and Steve in classroom reading circles?

Put it all in perspective people.. WE, are the people, and right or wrong, we have the right, and the responsibility to decide our own destiny. There is no moral authority, other than the one we decide. If we decide that gay marriage is a good thing, then that is the moral of the story, if in the reverse, then that too is the authority, and it is by definition, moral!


Tim-

I read the bolded part and was really excited for someone to tell how gay marriage will cause harm.
Then, I notice, a distinct lack of explaining what that harm is. You are arguing: "Gay marriage causes harm because you can't predict the harm it will cause."

That's not a "successful" argument. That's not even an argument. Also, your "very conservative" tag isn't sufficient. We need a tag for "Would prefer to reinstate segregation."
 
Last edited:
Yhere have been polls taken that show blacks in a much higher percentage then whites are against gay marriage......

So Navy, how you coming with that evidence the judge is a liberal?
 
So Navy, how you coming with that evidence the judge is a liberal?

Psst, don't tell him that gay rights activists actually lobbied against this judge because of his history.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Well I was hoping someone as clearly intellectual as yourself might put it all together. I did indicate the gist of my argument, you just missed it. Perhaps it was my intent to promote further discussion on the issue, maybe even a challenge or two; it is, after all my nature to argue. :)

That said, here it is:

1. Homosexuality is not innate, nor is it immutable, it, by all definitions manifest itself as no more than a fetish, and although not necessarily terrible, nothing certainly worthy of regulation, or legislation. Certainly nothing that should be institutionalized, or forced upon an otherwise ill equipped mind.

2. To my next point - By regulating, and legislating homosexual marriage, the State invariably endorses the behavior, and, by direct consequence, proponents of said behavior force it upon the society by way of the schools, and the workplace.

3. The beef I have is in the schools aspect of it all. Consenting adults are free to make up their own minds, and if it stopped at the adult level, say a restriction on teaching the morality of homosexuality to kids, then I would be i favor of it. but we both know that will not happen. Much like a ban on the commercialization, or marketing of the product, like with alcohol, and tobacco to children, then by all means, have at er.

4. Children, in fact up until the age of roughly 20 have an immature pre frontal cortex. It means that they do not have the ability to reason the way adults do. It is why the military like em young, it is why sex with children, even consenting ones is prohibited. It is why most kids right up until they join the adult population, are generally liberal in their thinking. Adult liberals are simply immature conservatives. :)

5. Homosexuality is demonstrably harmful to the homosexual, both females and males. They have a much higher incidence of many negative behaviors, and circumstances. The list is extensive, but I suspect you might already know what they are, so can we please stipulate on this point? Given this to be demonstrably true, why would anyone want to promote homosexuality? Promotion of homosexuality will be the norm, through the public schools, if it is deemed gay marriage legal. You can count on it.

6. What's the upside of legalizing gay marriage? if you say it's the right thing to do, then I refer you to my authority of morality argument.

Go ahead, convince me that gay marriage is the right thing to do. I'm all ears.

Oh, this part - Also, your "very conservative" tag isn't sufficient. We need a tag for "Would prefer to reinstitute segregation." comment. Interesting, could you elaborate more on this?


Tim-
 
Last edited:
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Well, I can, and have argued successfully that gay marriage inandofitself IS harmful to society, and it's posterity.

I've argued this issue for years. Have yet to see anyone come up with a an anti-GM argument that I cannot beat, other than getting the government out of marriage altogether. I doubt you would be any different... but feel free to give it a shot.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Well I was hoping someone as clearly intellectual as yourself might put it all together. I did indicate the gist of my argument, you just missed it. Perhaps it was my intent to promote further discussion on the issue, maybe even a challenge or two; it is, after all my nature to argue. :)

That said, here it is:

1. Homosexuality is not innate, nor is it immutable, it, by all definitions manifest itself as no more than a fetish, and although not necessarily terrible, nothing certainly worthy of regulation, or legislation. Certainly nothing that should be institutionalized, or forced upon an otherwise ill equipped mind.

This is incorrect. Homosexuality is an orientation, just like heterosexuality. Or are you saying that heterosexuality is a no more than a fetish?

2. To my next point - By regulating, and legislating homosexual marriage, the State invariably endorses the behavior, and, by direct consequence, proponents of said behavior force it upon the society by way of the schools, and the workplace.

So the state endorses alcohol and tobacco?

3. The beef I have is in the schools aspect of it all. Consenting adults are free to make up their own minds, and if it stopped at the adult level, say a restriction on teaching the morality of homosexuality to kids, then I would be i favor of it. but we both know that will not happen. Much like a ban on the commercialization, or marketing of the product, like with alcohol, and tobacco to children, then by all means, have at er.

So the state does not endorse alcohol and tobacco. You have some problem with telling kids that they are OK being what they are?

4. Children, in fact up until the age of roughly 20 have an immature pre frontal cortex. It means that they do not have the ability to reason the way adults do. It is why the military like em young, it is why sex with children, even consenting ones is prohibited. It is why most kids right up until they join the adult population, are generally liberal in their thinking. Adult liberals are simply immature conservatives. :)

Very good, you manage to not make any point, but be insulting anyways.

5. Homosexuality is demonstrably harmful to the homosexual, both females and males. They have a much higher incidence of many negative behaviors, and circumstances. The list is extensive, but I suspect you might already know what they are, so can we please stipulate on this point? Given this to be demonstrably true, why would anyone want to promote homosexuality? Promotion of homosexuality will be the norm, through the public schools, if it is deemed gay marriage legal. You can count on it.

This is false. Feel free to try and document it, it should be fun.

6. What's the upside of legalizing gay marriage? if you say it's the right thing to do, then I refer you to my authority of morality argument.

Go ahead, convince me that gay marriage is the right thing to do. I'm all ears.

Gays increasingly are raising children. Marriage is the most stable type of environment to raise children. There are no logical arguments against gay marriage, and without some evidence of harm, should be allowed. Marriage promotes stable homes, which are good for society.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

This is going to be easy. Watch.

Well I was hoping someone as clearly intellectual as yourself might put it all together. I did indicate the gist of my argument, you just missed it. Perhaps it was my intent to promote further discussion on the issue, maybe even a challenge or two; it is, after all my nature to argue. :)

That said, here it is:

1. Homosexuality is not innate, nor is it immutable, it, by all definitions manifest itself as no more than a fetish, and although not necessarily terrible, nothing certainly worthy of regulation, or legislation. Certainly nothing that should be institutionalized, or forced upon an otherwise ill equipped mind.

1. Heterosexuality is not innate, nor is it immutable. Sexual orientation. ALL sexual orientations fall under the same category. Researchers believe that they are created through a combination of genetics/biology/biochemistry-hormones/environment. Yes, heterosexuality, too. Your opinion that is is defined as a fetish is inaccurate. It is a sexual orientation. Please get your definitions correct.

2. To my next point - By regulating, and legislating homosexual marriage, the State invariably endorses the behavior, and, by direct consequence, proponents of said behavior force it upon the society by way of the schools, and the workplace.

No, the state does not force it on anything. By legislating homosexual marriage, you are not required to marry a homosexual. The is no force nor endorcement. It's called regulation. Again, get your defintions correct.

Further, the state DOES have reason to endorse marriage... all marriage. Plenty of reasons, all of which apply to both hetero and homosexual marriage.

3. The beef I have is in the schools aspect of it all. Consenting adults are free to make up their own minds, and if it stopped at the adult level, say a restriction on teaching the morality of homosexuality to kids, then I would be i favor of it. but we both know that will not happen. Much like a ban on the commercialization, or marketing of the product, like with alcohol, and tobacco to children, then by all means, have at er.

No morality should be taught in schools. Information should. Proving information does just that. Provides information.

4. Children, in fact up until the age of roughly 20 have an immature pre frontal cortex. It means that they do not have the ability to reason the way adults do. It is why the military like em young, it is why sex with children, even consenting ones is prohibited. It is why most kids right up until they join the adult population, are generally liberal in their thinking. Adult liberals are simply immature conservatives. :)

We also know that as one gets older, the brain, memory, and the ability to make decisions, weaken. Conservatives are just liberals with Alzheimers. See? I can play the partisan hack card, too. Try not to do that around here. You'll get chewed up real fast.

5. Homosexuality is demonstrably harmful to the homosexual, both females and males. They have a much higher incidence of many negative behaviors, and circumstances. The list is extensive, but I suspect you might already know what they are, so can we please stipulate on this point? Given this to be demonstrably true, why would anyone want to promote homosexuality? Promotion of homosexuality will be the norm, through the public schools, if it is deemed gay marriage legal. You can count on it.

Certain sexual BEHAVIORS can be dangerous. You don't seem to understand the difference between orientation and behavior. I have now clarified that and demonstrated that the point you made is invalid. You can thank me later. ;)

6. What's the upside of legalizing gay marriage? if you say it's the right thing to do, then I refer you to my authority of morality argument.

That would not be my argument as there is no evidence to it. Kinda like your argument.

Go ahead, convince me that gay marriage is the right thing to do. I'm all ears.

Tim-

For some reason, I doubt that. None of your points are accurate. Took me all of 10 minutes to invalidate all of them.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Quick question how does one use quote tags? Are they BB code? I can't address you without being able to quote you, and to put it in full context.

By the way, you don't know me.. The liberal comments are merely a jest, no real offense is meant. :)


Tim-
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

CC, for short. You invalidated nothing. You simply redefined things, and once I figure out how to quote, I'll show you the error of your ways.

Tim-
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

CC, for short. You invalidated nothing. You simply redefined things, and once I figure out how to quote, I'll show you the error of your ways

test

Ok, I figured out how to quote..

Tim-
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom