• 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!

Maryland Gay Marriage Bill sent back to cmte. Shelved for this year at least.

CriticalThought said:
@Jerry,

Most people in Gens X, Y, and Z support marriage equality.

As Baby Boomers and Greatest Gen die off, the issue will become a non issue. As politicians run for office, they will seek the younger generation's vote. They will appoint judges that are pro marriage equality. The end result is that your defeat on this issue is inevitable.

And yes, a 33 year old is an old fart compared to me. :D
Click to expand...
Taunting someone who can't respond? Really?

Well, I guess that's one way to "win" an argument.
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
That's not really cool to taunt someone who can't respond.
Click to expand...

I was replying to his last post to me. I just didn't bother going back and quoting it since I doubt he was going to come back to this thread now that he can't reply to it.
 
CriticalThought said:
I was replying to his last post to me. I just didn't bother going back and quoting it since I doubt he was going to come back to this thread now that he can't reply to it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm throwing the BS flag on this. This was Jerry's last post to you,

Jerry said:
He was asking about ME, not anyone per-se, and no, no one could marry a 1st cousin in CA at the time before I got married. You seem to be ignorant of that fact.
Click to expand...

Your response had nothing to do with this post.
 
Moderator's Warning:
topic folks, get on it.
 
Jerry said:
I'm not challenging that it's their choice, I'm pointing out that it's an expansion of government, even if the expansion is wanted.
Click to expand...

I would have to disagree. Expansion of government is giving them more power(s). It's not the expansion of coverage of a power already in place. Adding the ability to vote to blacks and women didn't expand the government. It merely covered more people in it's power to set who can and cannot vote. Heck for that matter, for all that it expanded the potential voter base, it restricted or shrank the government all the more.
 
mac said:
That's not what either one of us are saying. The states have the right to enact laws to regulate their societies. If the laws they pass are unconstitutional the SCOTUS will strike them down. That doesn't mean the states no longer have the rights to make and enforce laws and it doesn't give the USG undue right to meddle in the affairs of the states.
Click to expand...

Okay, so your stating its perfectly fine for states to pass unconstitutional laws because they can enforce them until SCOTUS strikes it down? How amazingly fiscally responsible of you.

The CONSTITUTION has a supremacy clause. The CONSTITUTION also includes the Equal Protection Clause that puts limits on the ability of the government...including state governments due to the supremacy clause...on discrimination under the law.

So I ask you again....are you suggesting that the Equal Protection Clause does not apply to the states?

States also very much do have the right to define categories of people that laws apply to and that they don't apply to.[/QUOTE]
 
Jerry said:
If you've never heard pro-SSM cry discrimination then you have no exposure to the topic.

The problem with SSM is that there are no arguments unique to it. Every reason to allow SSM can be applied to other unions which those very advocates oppose, thus nullifying their own position.

When a group invokes the 14th, and wishes for other groups to be left out, just as pro-SSM does, then they need to distinguish themselves from those other groups.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm replying to posts as I hit them which is why I might make some arguments that have aleady been made in response (such as my last one). My appologies.

To be guite honest I've never heard any group advocating for SSM claiming to be against anything except for maybe blood relation marriages on that common assumption that the marriage would include being sexual with each other.

Something that occured to me. Would a sexual relation between two blood relations of the same sex be a problem since there is no chance of any birth defects or other genetic problems? My mind goes wierd places sometimes.
 
maquiscat said:
I would have to disagree. Expansion of government is giving them more power(s). It's not the expansion of coverage of a power already in place. Adding the ability to vote to blacks and women didn't expand the government. It merely covered more people in it's power to set who can and cannot vote. Heck for that matter, for all that it expanded the potential voter base, it restricted or shrank the government all the more.
Click to expand...

Blacks having the right to vote and women did not expand govt or COST the rest of us...it was a justified right.
Homosexual marriage is all about MONEY. Its all about benefit sharing and passing on Social security and and insurances it will cost the taxpayers a fortune
It has zero to do with love....Ill be all for homosexual marriage if everyone also agrees that single americans love their mothers fathers sisters and brothers just as much as a homosexual male loves his buddy...and when single americans can pass their benefits and insurance and Social Security to their immediate family...
I would like to know how you prove that two men or two women are really not heterosexuals posing as homosexuals just to share their benefits and Social Security etc.
This whole thing is absurd its a about a handful of americans that just want what they want and they want it right now...pfffffffffft to them...Your abnormal and you need to come to grips with that and realize the rest of NORMAL america doesnt have to cater to you.
 
Last edited:
lpast said:
Homosexual marriage is all about MONEY. Its all about benefit sharing and passing on Social security and and insurances it will cost the taxpayers a fortune
It has zero to do with love.
Click to expand...

:rofl :rofl :rofl

Wow!

So homosexuals don't love eachother at all?

And they all want to do it JUST for the benefit right?

Well if we're going to talk about costing tax payers a fortune, lets get rid of marriage benefits all together.

I mean honestly.

Only heterosexuals get married for love.

Look at this happy couple:

Crystal-Harris-Playboy.jpg
 
Jerry said:
If you don't love them, then when you recite your vows in the solemnization process you are committing fraud on the other person and they can sue you accordingly.
Click to expand...

CriticalThought said:
That is a lie.
Click to expand...

Not necssarily. It really depends upon the laws of the individual state. If the state has laws that give the process the wieght of sworn testamony then it is possible, although highly unlikely. Much in the same way that adultry laws are no longer enforced save as divorce basis. Some states or individual court systems no longer require you to do more that prove you are who is on the certificate and the official to ask if you're sure you want to do it.

Also keep in mind that a lie is a statement that you know if false at the time you make it. If Jerry truely believes the statement, then while it may be an incorrect statement, it's not a lie. Please be careful when making such accusations.
 
Jerry said:
You have the same right as that other sex.

That other sex noes not have "the right to marry a man".

That other sex has "the right to marry the opposite sex", just as you do also.
Click to expand...

Actually as you go through this, I think it would be more the "right to marry" or the "right to enter into a marriage" and then marriage has to be legally defined. We have the right to free speech. Then we define free speech to not include slander, libel or things like yelling "fire' in a crowded venue.

Likewise, currently marriage is defined as being between opposite genders. So right now even gay people have to right to marry but it is limited to opposite genders, but the definition of marriage can be changed and the right remains only now more options are available.

Granted both arguments have a good legal weight behind them, IMHO as one who has not done any indepth study of law. It really comes down to how you define the right to marry. Is it the right to marry the opposite gender, or the right to marry another person?
 
Jerry said:
Each sex can marry the opposite sex, neither sex can marry the same sex.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, where does that leave people with indeterminate genitalia? I'm putting aside those who are mentally one gender and physically another and those in transition from one to the other for the moment. Seriously, how do we go about determining the gender? Do we require a genetic test? If they have one or more X chromosone then they are male?

This just occured to me.
 
lpast said:
Homosexual marriage is all about MONEY. Its all about benefit sharing and passing on Social security and and insurances it will cost the taxpayers a fortune
Click to expand...

And heterosexual marriages have never been about getting citizenship early, or merging family fortunes or any number of non-love issues? Seriously, you need to do better than that.

I would like to know how you prove that two men or two women are really not heterosexuals posing as homosexuals just to share their benefits and Social Security etc.
Click to expand...

I would like to know how you prove that two sets of couple engaged in hetrosexual marriages are not actually homosexuals working together just to share their benefits and Social Security etc.
 
Zyphlin said:
Okay, so your stating its perfectly fine for states to pass unconstitutional laws because they can enforce them until SCOTUS strikes it down? How amazingly fiscally responsible of you.
Click to expand...

That's not what I am saying either. I don't think any state intentionally passes laws they know to be unconstitutional. When they do, however, it is the SCOTUS responsibility to overturn them. What the SCOTUS find unconstitutional and what YOU find unconstitutional just may not be the same thing.

The CONSTITUTION has a supremacy clause. The CONSTITUTION also includes the Equal Protection Clause that puts limits on the ability of the government...including state governments due to the supremacy clause...on discrimination under the law.
Click to expand...

The states have the right to group citizens. The equal protection clause is limited by such groups.

So I ask you again....are you suggesting that the Equal Protection Clause does not apply to the states?
Click to expand...

I will tell you again...that is not what I said or even alluded too. See above reply.
 
Exactly....bigotry is dying out with the aging population. Of course, there will always be bigots in every generation...but the statistic show that each new generation is less and less bigoted. Its just a matter of time.
 
^ This.

The problem is that most power in this country is handed down. Have you ever noticed that it's mostly aristocrats who become congress people? They tend to be a pretty conservative bunch. According to the standards of the rest of the western world, the American democrats are right leaning, and the GOP are very conservative.

The twisted values will just get handed down, but with each passing there will be slight changes. If you think there will be major changes, don't hold your breath.
 
mac said:
That's not what I am saying either. I don't think any state intentionally passes laws they know to be unconstitutional. When they do, however, it is the SCOTUS responsibility to overturn them. What the SCOTUS find unconstitutional and what YOU find unconstitutional just may not be the same thing.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely true. However, what you find as constitutional is not necessarily the same thing as something being constitutional. In your mind this type of thing isn't unconstitutional, so you have no problem with it being passed. And that's fine. However its no more legitimate than my belief that it is unconstitutional and that the state shouldn't be engaging in it.

The states have the right to group citizens. The equal protection clause is limited by such groups.
Click to expand...

And one such grouping that the EPC limits what the government can do to them is ones based on sex/gender.

Is it unquestionably unconstitutional by the EPC? No. Is it unquestionably constitutional? No either. There are legitimate and significant questions and legally worthwhile arguments that the laws are unconstitutional. And its completely legitimate to argue against a policy or law based on your belief that it is unconstitutional.

For example see both the Democrats arguing against the Patriot Act under Bush or Republicans arguing against the Health Care Bill under Obama.
 
Zyphlin said:
This is absolutely true. However, what you find as constitutional is not necessarily the same thing as something being constitutional. In your mind this type of thing isn't unconstitutional, so you have no problem with it being passed. And that's fine. However its no more legitimate than my belief that it is unconstitutional and that the state shouldn't be engaging in it.
Click to expand...

So you think it's not fair, and since it's not fair, SSM shouldn't be unlawful.

And one such grouping that the EPC limits what the government can do to them is ones based on sex/gender.
Click to expand...

Right, women can marry men and vice versa.

Is it unquestionably unconstitutional by the EPC? No. Is it unquestionably constitutional? No either. There are legitimate and significant questions and legally worthwhile arguments that the laws are unconstitutional. And its completely legitimate to argue against a policy or law based on your belief that it is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Then I would imagine someone at sometime would have challenged them and brought them to the supreme court to decide.

For example see both the Democrats arguing against the Patriot Act under Bush or Republicans arguing against the Health Care Bill under Obama.
Click to expand...

It's not that clear cut, but I understand what you're saying. Many if not most Democrats voted for the patriot act, and voted to renew it.
 
Jetboogieman said:
:rofl :rofl :rofl

Wow!

So homosexuals don't love eachother at all?
Click to expand...


Well, actually do be fair...

I don't think anyone getting married has to do with love. Being married doesn't suddenly make one person love another person more, it doesn't create love, doesn't even define love nor require love. A couple who is single and then gets married the next day had as much love the day before and the day after. Marriage is not required for love...it is required for the large amount of financial, governmental, and economical benefits that our society and our government bestow upon it.

So no, heterosexual marriage isn't about love either.
 
mac said:
So you think it's not fair, and since it's not fair, SSM shouldn't be unlawful.
Click to expand...

No, I think its unconstitutional discrimination against a group with middle tier protection under the EPC, and therefore its unlawful.

Right, women can marry men and vice versa.
Click to expand...

Right, women can marry men...but men can't marry men...thus allowing women to do something a man can't do under the law and vise versa.

What if the law said that every race can marry anyone of a race that isn't their own, and then said its perfectly acceptable under the EPC because "White person X can marry anyone that's not his race, and Black Person Y can marry anyone that's not his race, so its exactly the same". Or how about "Religious people can marry religious people and Athiests may marry athiests, but they can't marry across that line and its perfectly okay because they both are able to marry the opposite religious preference".

Then I would imagine someone at sometime would have challenged them and brought them to the supreme court to decide.
Click to expand...

It simply hasn't reached the Supreme Court yet. There have been cases already in the lower courts that have ruled its an issue of Gender under the EPC. That said, simply because something hasn't reached the SCOTUS yet doesn't prove constitutionality.
 
Zyphlin said:
I don't think anyone getting married has to do with love.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this because I beleive that many people have learned to consider marriage the ultimate cvulmination of a loving relationship.

I agree that it is not a requirement, and that this inclusion of love in the equation is an arbitrary one, though.
 
Tucker Case said:
I disagree with this because I beleive that many people have learned to consider marriage the ultimate cvulmination of a loving relationship.

I agree that it is not a requirement, and that this inclusion of love in the equation is an arbitrary one, though.
Click to expand...

True enough to a point, and in some ways I agree. Then again, the marriage doesn't increase their love or change their love or anything else. It simply places a new title on their love for society, and perhaps themselves. It may be an act to SHOW ones love for another person, I would not deny that, and an act that people engage in due to their love of someone. But ultimately, the act itself is partaken for societal benefits, be in your own views of society or how society views you, and lifestyle benefits, such as the fiscal advantages. Its not done "for love" because for it to be done for love it'd need to have some tangible effect on the love two people have prior to marriage and after. The reason society and individuals within it tends to see it as the ultimately culmination of a loving relationship is because society has bestowed labels upon romantic relationships with "married" being the culminating term, and thus there is a desire by people to profess or prove their love through the gaining of that term. There's no tangible benefit to "love" two people have for each other from marriage, simply the benefits that the title and status gives (which, in part, can be feeling as if you've engaged in the ultimate presentation of your love).

So perhaps I didn't explain myself fully. I'm not saying Love can not be a component for what drives someone to want to get married, but even then that drive typically is due to the non-love related benefits it gives and not due to any actual need to do it with regards to their "love".
 
Zyphlin said:
No, I think its unconstitutional discrimination against a group with middle tier protection under the EPC, and therefore its unlawful.
Click to expand...

Please show what "middle tier protection" is, and show where it specifies what groups are specifically protected by it.

It simply hasn't reached the Supreme Court yet. There have been cases already in the lower courts that have ruled its an issue of Gender under the EPC. That said, simply because something hasn't reached the SCOTUS yet doesn't prove constitutionality.
Click to expand...

And doesn't say doodoo about it being unconstitutional either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom