• 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!

Indiana GOP passes law making it a crime for clergy to perform gay weddings

Dittohead not! said:
You have a good point about states rights and limiting legal entities.
The argument would still go on, but perhaps not as rancorous an argument, about gay civil unions. Clearly, there could be restrictions on brothers forming unions with sisters, among others. On the other hand, could they also make interracial unions illegal?
Click to expand...

I doubt that interracial unions would or could enter back into the equation since we have a suspect class and strict judicial scrutiny over anything race-related.
 
Papa bull said:
I doubt that interracial unions would or could enter back into the equation since we have a suspect class and strict judicial scrutiny over anything race-related.
Click to expand...

Don't we have the same strict judicial scrutiny over anything gender related?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Don't we have the same strict judicial scrutiny over anything gender related?
Click to expand...

Yes. But it is not a solid argument that this is gender related since any person of any sex can marry any person of the opposite sex in any state in the union. No one is denied opportunity to marriage by gender. I can't remember who it was that was arguing that because a man can't marry a man, when a woman can marry a man that it's gender based discrimination, but that argument has no legal validity at all because men and women are not treated differently by such a restriction. A man may no more marry another man than a woman could marry another woman. That argument would only have merit if a state allowed male + male marriage but not female + female marriage (or vice-versa).
 
rocket88 said:
Thank you. Someone on the right who gets it.
Click to expand...

^^^ Someone else who got it wrong.

This should be your clue:

1. If the article was correct and not misleading, the idea that simply holding an informal and unofficial ceremony that was not legal could not possibly be illegal as it would be a hard violation of freedom of speech. No doubt about that.

2. Since this wasn't major network news and because you don't hear democrats all over the media SMASHING the republican for freedom of speech violations, you can rest assured that the implication of the article was wrong. There is no WAY the democrat party would overlook an opportunity this good if there was substance behind the Chinese Whispers.

It's a good test to apply to anything from obscure politically slanted propaganda generation sites. Propaganda is much like anything else.... If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is.
 
Last edited:
Papa bull said:
^^^ Someone else who got it wrong.

This should be your clue:

1. If the article was correct and not misleading, the idea that simply holding an informal and unofficial ceremony that was not legal could not possibly be illegal as it would be a hard violation of freedom of speech. No doubt about that.

2. Since this wasn't major network news and because you don't hear democrats all over the media SMASHING the republican for freedom of speech violations, you can rest assured that the implication of the article was wrong. There is no WAY the democrat party would overlook an opportunity this good if there was substance behind the Chinese Whispers.

It's a good test to apply to anything from obscure politically slanted propaganda generation sites. Propaganda is much like anything else.... If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is.
Click to expand...


Maybe, just maybe - that whole Lamestream Liberal Media thing is an invention of a certain segment of the population. Here's an Indiana newspaper site with an article dated July 6, 2013

Penalties await gay couples trying to marry in Indiana
NDIANAPOLIS | A same-sex couple applying for a marriage license in Indiana, where gay marriage is expressly prohibited by law, could face up to three years in prison for submitting the application to their county clerk -- even if it's denied.

A 1997 state law declares it a Class D felony to submit false information on a marriage license application or lie about the physical condition, including gender, of a marriage license applicant.

Two men or two women seeking to marry inevitably would trigger the law, as the state's electronic marriage license application specifically designates "male applicant" and "female applicant" sections for gathering required background data.
<snip>
The law also penalizes a clergyman, judge, mayor, city clerk or town clerk-treasurer who solemnizes a marriage between two people of the same gender. Those who conduct a gay marriage ceremony can be charged with a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.
Click to expand...


Papa bull wrote:
It's a good test to apply to anything from obscure politically slanted propaganda generation sites. Propaganda is much like anything else.... If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is.
Click to expand...
You mean like breitbart.com or the worldnetdaily.com?
 
Wiggen said:
No, its not even close. You folks keep up your one party war on women, blacks, Hispanics, gays and you win this hands down! May I say that as a Democrat, I'm delighted by your positions on these issues - especially the regressive stance taken by the House Republicans on immigration reform. If these guys were any dumber, they'd be libertarians.
Click to expand...

Libertarians are generally not dumb enough to be Republicans and defiantly not dumb enough to be Democrats.


And historically Democrats were the the ones who stood in the way of women, blacks, hispanics, and gays. Republicans were not that stalwart back then but even back then too many wanted to be liked by their political enemies.
 
Somerville said:
Accusations of dumbness work better when one's comment isn't dumb
Click to expand...

I was responding to a post by Wiggen. Note the Underlined

No, its not even close. You folks keep up your one party war on women, blacks, Hispanics, gays and you win this hands down! May I say that as a Democrat, I'm delighted by your positions on these issues - especially the regressive stance taken by the House Republicans on immigration reform. If these guys were any dumber, they'd be libertarians.
Click to expand...

It would be dumb for a libertarian to be a Republican since the Republican party does not stand up for what it core values are stated publicly and does have elements such as the neo-cons and some of the "religious right" which have authoritarian positions. And I said it would be defiantly be dumb for a libertarian to be a Democrat since the Democrats are almost wholly authoritarian.

If you want to do an accusation of being dumb take it up with Wiggen
 
Papa bull said:
Yes. But it is not a solid argument that this is gender related since any person of any sex can marry any person of the opposite sex in any state in the union. No one is denied opportunity to marriage by gender. I can't remember who it was that was arguing that because a man can't marry a man, when a woman can marry a man that it's gender based discrimination, but that argument has no legal validity at all because men and women are not treated differently by such a restriction. A man may no more marry another man than a woman could marry another woman. That argument would only have merit if a state allowed male + male marriage but not female + female marriage (or vice-versa).
Click to expand...

And any person of any race could marry any person of their own race. That is why it is the same situation, so therefore the same concept of which level of scrutiny would be used would apply in both cases.
 
Papa bull said:
Yes. But it is not a solid argument that this is gender related since any person of any sex can marry any person of the opposite sex in any state in the union. No one is denied opportunity to marriage by gender. I can't remember who it was that was arguing that because a man can't marry a man, when a woman can marry a man that it's gender based discrimination, but that argument has no legal validity at all because men and women are not treated differently by such a restriction. A man may no more marry another man than a woman could marry another woman. That argument would only have merit if a state allowed male + male marriage but not female + female marriage (or vice-versa).
Click to expand...

This logic was rejected with interracial marriage bans. "Anyone can marry someone of the same race! It's equal treatment!"

You and I cannot marry each other. Because we are both men. That is a gender-based classification and is therefore subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny. What important state interest is served in this?
 
Shadow Serious said:
Libertarians are generally not dumb enough to be Republicans and defiantly not dumb enough to be Democrats.


And historically Democrats were the the ones who stood in the way of women, blacks, hispanics, and gays. Republicans were not that stalwart back then but even back then too many wanted to be liked by their political enemies.
Click to expand...

If you want to get into history you should read up on the Southern Strategy. It used to be the way you say. It isn't now.

I don't think libertarians are dumb. They're just not realizing that the world is more complicated than Econ 101.
 
Last edited:
Shadow Serious said:
Libertarians are generally not dumb enough to be Republicans and defiantly not dumb enough to be Democrats.


And historically Democrats were the the ones who stood in the way of women, blacks, hispanics, and gays. Republicans were not that stalwart back then but even back then too many wanted to be liked by their political enemies.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the history lesson. I never knew Abe Lincoln was a Republican! Of course times have changed. It's the Republicans firmly in the doorway as far as women, minorities, are concerned.

and I must respectfully disagree with you regarding Libertarians. Any political organization that includes racists like the Paul family is pretty dumb.
 
Deuce said:
If you want to get into history you should read up on the Southern Strategy. It used to be the way you say. It isn't now.

I don't think libertarians are dumb. They're just not realizing that the world is more complicated than Econ 101.
Click to expand...

Which makes them dumb in my opinion. And as for the Southern strategy, the Republicans have forgotten all about that - after all, it was way back in the 1970's and 80's when Lee Atwater memorably made Republican electoral strategy to go after 'the negrophobe vote'. It worked much better, when blacks weren't allowed to vote in parts of the country. They're slowly trying to get back to those days.
 
Somerville said:
I'll ask it again; (bigger this time, maybe you missed it before as you didn't answer the question)

How does legal same sex marriage harm you and yours?
Click to expand...

But they aren't mine. I've never married.


It doesn't directly harm me if biter self loathing people with envy and validation issues desecrate a cemetery and demand to be given granite monuments just like the honored dead, either.

But I'd still object.

Such reprehensible behavior is an attack upon the culture,and common decency. It's also pestilential, infantile behavior which should never be encouraged nor rewarded.

Marriage, just like the cemetery, is the province of those for whom it was made.

If one wants to be married, one should seek out an eligible and willing member of the opposite sex. If one wishes the honors of the dead, one should die.

Lack of inclination is no denial of rights.

Again, only silly Moderns need to have these things explained.
 
roguenuke said:
He never met Jesus. There is nothing but his word to say that he met Jesus, very much like Joseph Smith.
Click to expand...

Except the testimony of the other Apostles. Say what you wish but you are wrong on that point.
 
roguenuke said:
And any person of any race could marry any person of their own race. That is why it is the same situation, so therefore the same concept of which level of scrutiny would be used would apply in both cases.
Click to expand...

Nice try but it fails as a comparison. Except for the race, the marriage would have been otherwise legal in any state. Same sex marriage requires the fundamental definition of marriage to be changed. You just don't want to get this, do you?
 
Deuce said:
This logic was rejected with interracial marriage bans. "Anyone can marry someone of the same race! It's equal treatment!"

You and I cannot marry each other. Because we are both men. That is a gender-based classification and is therefore subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny. What important state interest is served in this?
Click to expand...

Wrong. We can both marry. We just can't marry each other. The state doesn't have to permit any permutation of marriage anyone desires. If this stupid argument was so potent, all 50 states would have to be allowing same sex marriage by now because it would have been a supreme court slam dunk. Everyone but the rubes on the homosexual advocacy side seem to get this. The lawyers do.
 
Oftencold said:
But they aren't mine. I've never married.


It doesn't directly harm me if biter self loathing people with envy and validation issues desecrate a cemetery and demand to be given granite monuments just like the honored dead, either.

But I'd still object.

Such reprehensible behavior is an attack upon the culture,and common decency. It's also pestilential, infantile behavior which should never be encouraged nor rewarded.

Marriage, just like the cemetery, is the province of those for whom it was made.

If one wants to be married, one should seek out an eligible and willing member of the opposite sex. If one wishes the honors of the dead, one should die.

Lack of inclination is no denial of rights.

Again, only silly Moderns need to have these things explained.
Click to expand...


Your logic is not. It does not compute.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Somerville said:
In which epistle, do the other Apostles say Paul met Jesus in the flesh? Why are you calling Paul an Apostle - he was not one of the 12?
Click to expand...

The original 12 were not the only ones...
Click to expand...

You failed to answer my first question. On the "Apostle" question, you are correct. I was thinking of the 12 Disciples, the original Apostles, but the term is also used to mean any of the early missionaries and preachers of the faith.
 
Somerville said:
You failed to answer my first question. On the "Apostle" question, you are correct. I was thinking of the 12 Disciples, the original Apostles, but the term is also used to mean any of the early missionaries and preachers of the faith.
Click to expand...

Not to my knowledge, however, Luke is the one that recorded the event, not Paul.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom