• 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!

California gay marriage ban overturned: report

Status
Not open for further replies.
That is a deceiving statistic. What is the margin of victory in each case? 31 strait 1 % wins is not an overwhelming majority of opinion.

You have evidence its always 1%? Because I know that isn't true.
 
the expressed will of the majorities of 31 of 31 states...

and NAZIS!

LOL!

Argumentum ad populum. "If many believe so, then it is so." That logical fallacy never gets old, especially in this debate.
 
Zyphlin, equal protection prevails after due process. Due process, is the key here. It is the same as "reasonable" in legal circles. This ruling is due process, but my beef is in the Judges ruling, and the language of it. She cites a lack of due process, but that's not true? Equal protection can be legislated for, "provided" the due process test is met. That's it and that's all.


Tim-

I thought you might like to see a picture of her.

Vaughn_Walker.jpg


You might want to spend some time learning about what we are talking about before making these repeated mistakes.
 
Why do you care, Navy? I lived in the same state with some 20,000 polygamists, and the sky didn't fall. I see no reason why consenting adults can't marry other consenting adults without Navy Pride or anyone else butting his nose into their marriage.

Again one more time, now pay attention their might be a test.....The majority of the people (31-0 states and growing) so far have said they don't want the instituion of marriage redefined to a class of people defined by their sexual orientation.......What part of that do you not understand?
 
No I'd rather not, but it was an interesting exercise to find a way out for the conservative supremes. :) By the way, precedent doesn't always hold.


Tim-

I doubt that anyone is going to be challenging whether marriage is a Constitutionally protected right in this case.
 
Hehe.. Yes I misspoke about "her" sex.. LOL So what..??

Tim-
 
You are forgetting the polygamy issue as well as people who are related wanting to get married for the benefits provided without sex involved............In fact we have something similar here in Washington in that older people who are related can be involved in a domestic partnership with full benefits.............

These people have the same rights under the 14th amendment as gays do.............

Why is it when I asked about what in the ruling specifically allowed for Polygamy, you did not manage to find anything, but here you are, repeating the same tired red herring again?
 
Argumentum ad populum. "If many believe so, then it is so." That logical fallacy never gets old, especially in this debate.

Argumentum ad Misericordiam "(argument from pity or misery) the fallacy committed when pity or a related emotion such as sympathy or compassion is appealed to for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted."
 
Argumentum ad populum. "If many believe so, then it is so." That logical fallacy never gets old, especially in this debate.

and comparisons to NAZIS are always fresh, lively and pointedly ON TOPIC

LOL!
 
Again one more time, now pay attention their might be a test.....The majority of the people (31-0 states and growing) so far have said they don't want the instituion of marriage redefined to a class of people defined by their sexual orientation.......What part of that do you not understand?

Argumentum ad populum. "If many believe so, then it is so." That logical fallacy never gets old, especially in this debate.
 
Marriage is between two consenting adults. Minors can't consent to anything legally.

Nice try again though.

He knows this. It's just easier to keep parroting the same failed arguments.
 
I doubt that anyone is going to be challenging whether marriage is a Constitutionally protected right in this case.

Why not? I just provided a good argument for why it shouldn't be a fundamental right, at least not construed to include everyone. Do you find my argument lacking in some way? Please elaborate.

Tim-
 
All I can say is: YES!

I see. I guess you then just toss this out the window:

"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?"
- Justice Breyer, McDonald v. chicago
 
Never going to happen. Also, you failed to mention things like tax law, which is not something individuals can assign.

That's cause in my ideal, the tax thing is not necessary as your tax rate would not be affected by your marriage status (there should be no tax breaks for married people, nor should there be tax breaks for having kids). Also, if you look at what I wrote there, I did pretty much say it wouldn't happen; the government would not give up the power. And thus so long as the marriage license exists, you can't exclude gays. So I don't know, I'm pretty damned sure whatever base contention you had was covered in the original post.
 
Why not? I just provided a good argument for why it shouldn't be a fundamental right, at least not construed to include everyone. Do you find my argument lacking in some way? Please elaborate.

Tim-

I agree. Making a blatant logical fallacy is just about as good an argument as marriage shouldn't be a Constitutionally protected right. In my mind they are pretty much equally irrational.
 
I doubt that anyone is going to be challenging whether marriage is a Constitutionally protected right in this case.
Its not. Its a privilege.
You can only get married because the state creates a mechanism that allows it, and then allows you to engage in it. This necessarily means it is a pirivilege, not a right, because you cannot do it until the state allows you to do so by the creation of the institution, and the state can, at any point, end the institution.
 
Again one more time, now pay attention their might be a test.....The majority of the people (31-0 states and growing) so far have said they don't want the instituion of marriage redefined to a class of people defined by their sexual orientation.......What part of that do you not understand?

What part of "It doesn't matter what the majority wants, the majority may not infringe upon the rights of the minority" do you not understand?
 
I may be a bit biased about polygamy, being an old man of 64, but I think that having more than one spouse at the same time is crazy stupid. The logistics of it has to be difficult at best.
If I was 24, I might have a different opinion....;)

UtahBill is so awesome. Wished you posted more often sir.
 
I thought you might like to see a picture of her.

Vaughn_Walker.jpg


You might want to spend some time learning about what we are talking about before making these repeated mistakes.

Transvestite! Now it all makes sense :D
 
He knows this. It's just easier to keep parroting the same failed arguments.

Not true Redress. You want to throw out all laws banning homosexual marriage in favor of allowing it so why can't other alternative lifestyles throw out the laws you enjoy for the sake of your argument?
 
Its not. Its a privilege.
You can only get married because the state creates a mechanism that allows it, and then allows you to engage in it. This necessarily means it is a pirivilege, not a right, because you cannot do it until the state allows you to do so by the creation of the institution, and the state can, at any point, end the institution.

Which is why I'm happy to see state mandated gender roles in marriage coming to an end in California with this ruling. Why should the state get to mandate what role my sex plays in marriage?
 
Which is why I'm happy to see state mandated gender roles in marriage coming to an end in California with this ruling. Why should the state get to mandate what role my sex plays in marriage?
The point was that your statement about marriage being a right is in error.
 
Do children have the intellectual capacity to reconcile the gay marriage issue, or homosexuality, if taught in the public schools as perfectly "normal"?


Tim-

What the hell is this? Are we trying the "oh the children" argument? If gay marriage is made legal, all the school should say on the issue is the same that is said now, except replace "man and woman" with "2 people". How the hell is this some issue even worth mentioning?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom