Page 112 of 137 FirstFirst ... 1262102110111112113114122 ... LastLast
Results 1,111 to 1,120 of 1363

Thread: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?[W:667]

  1. #1111
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,955

    Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    The Heritage Foundation is a notorious extreme right wing organization that has no credibility in a legitimate discussion. Therefore, anything they say is irrelevant.
    Is there any "conservative" think tank that you feel is credible? I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your assessment of Heritage, but I have noted that there are many people who dismiss this think tank or that one purely on the basis of being liberal or conservative. Are there any conservative ones out there, that while you may disagree with their conclusions and/or premises, you hold as honest in their methods?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Good. I'm not debating this for my purposes either, but to make sure that any unsuspecting person who wanders in this thread recognizes just how invalid anything you say actually is, so they won't fall under the same non-credible (religious) belief system that you are professing.
    In that same vein, are there any religious belief systems that you hold to be credible?

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    And if you don't like my public nudity analogy, feel free to substitute adult incest, bigamy, bestiality, or any of the other acts Justice Scalia mentioned in his Lawrence dissent.
    Bestiality is an automatic for comparison to the others. Unless you can prove a non-human with equal or superior intelligence and sentience to human, then you run afoul of the consent issue in the same manner that you run afoul of the consent issue with pedophilia. Of those that remain only adult incest has active laws against it (I exclude bigamy since bigamy is specifically about legal marriages and not about an act in and of itself). SSM, polygamy and interracial marriage can all be practiced without involvement of the law. They will simply not receive all the legal benefits and protections. These acts and even incest, can all be looked at comparably alongside public nudity. Bestiality cannot even come close. I would also put forth the argument that should we discover a non-human sentient creature that is effectively our equal, then the label of bestiality would not apply should one desire to have sex with a member of that species/race.

    After more than two hundred years during which, in every state of this country, continuously, it was assumed that promoting the moral convictions of a majority was a legitimate government interest--and during which two hundred years the Supreme Court never even suggested anything to the contrary--that Court has arbitrarily decreed that it is not.
    When did this arbitrary period start? With interracial marriage? Women's suffrage?

    What you don't want to admit is that the only reason for laws that make a number of sex-related acts crimes is that the majorities that made those laws believe those acts are immoral and unacceptable. If promoting that belief through laws is no longer a legitimate government interest, I'd like to know just what constitutional grounds those laws--thousands of them, in every state--rest on. Please tell us that.
    As a counter question what is the constitutional grounds for the laws that forbid the practice of witchcraft? Law that are still on the books in many states and local city/county governments. There is a relation here.

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    But if most people in your state think there should be no laws against masturbating on the street in broad daylight, or buggering your dog in front of city hall, or entering into an incestuous homosexual marriage with your son, or God knows what else, that's your lookout. As you seem to suggest (for the most part, at least--your remark about "need to demonstrate a legit govt interest" is confused) those things are just not constitutional issues.
    I find this list of examples to be rather disingenuous. You've taken two sex acts, masturbation and bestiality, and not addressed them per se', but specifically placed them in public view and then tried to compare them to general incest, homosexuality and SSM (in one shot no less!). The argument against masturbation is not the same as the one against masturbating in public. To be comparable, you would have to compare SSM with simple masturbation in and of itself. Same with bestiality.

    There is no constitutional reason to prevent it or require it or anything else, because it is simply not a constitutional issue. And it is not same-sex marriage that needs to serve a legitimate government purpose. That is part of the standard ordinary state laws have to meet in order to survive a Fourteenth Amendment due process or equal protection challenge. A garden-variety state law has to be rationally related to furthering a legitimate government interest.
    Loving vs Virgina. If SCOTUS ruled that there is no legitimate basis for a state to prevent interracial marriages and has over multiple cases noted that marriage is a basic fundamental right, then what basis does a state have for preventing SSM?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Why does any personal freedom that harms no one need to demonstrate a legit govt interest? Does skateboarding? That's a freaking nuisance. Causes alot of harm to those individuals. How about motorcycles? How about pot? Prostitution?
    Skateboarding does hold a legitimate concern of government, but only insofar as restriction of where it is allowed, or more specifically, certain areas where it is not allowed. Similar to bicycles and scooters. The introduction of these to various pedestrian and/or vehicular throughways can be dangerous both the the rider and to others.

    Anything for which there is NOT any legitimate govt or social harm should be legal. Period. And let's face it....things like cigarettes and alcohol DO cause social harm. Increase public health costs.
    Social harm is a highly subjective term. We can demonstrate physical harm from alcohol and pot when used and then a motor vehicle is operated and other similar situations. So that indeed does argue for laws restricting activity while under the influence of such substances, while not arguing for the absolute restriction of the substance itself. As to tobacco, there are many other activities that we do not restrict or prohibit that have higher potential health risks than smoking or chew or other products. So the only legitimate restriction of tobacco would be for public area due to the imposition of those who do not wish to be exposed to such substances. The issue of whether or not a business is public or private is for another thread.

    On the nudity front, you could show a potential health issue of unconsented exposure with the surface transfer issue. So a restriction of not being allowed on public siting surfaces with no bottoms would be a legitimate law.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    You ignore one sin but go after another. Pretty Hypocritical.
    This is pretty close to personal attack. Within this thread he is attacking what the subject of this thread is about. Can you show that he is not tackling these other sins, either in other thread about those "sins" or outside of DP altogether. I might be willing to call him seemingly hypocritical, but not as an absolute.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  2. #1112
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,955

    Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
    a Fundamentalist I'm not. I don't want Gays corrupting the sanctity marriage and would like cheaters [in a relationship] to pay some sort of price for their indiscretions and you make me out to be a tyrant. 8)

    Assumptions
    No assumptions here. Re: businesses closed on Sunday's, I didn't assume that such was part of what you wanted imposed which is why I asked the question instead of saying that was something you wanted. As to the rest you have openly stated here on DP and in this thread that you do not want SSM made legal, indeed having it illegal. You are directly saying that you want your particular set of morality, or at least part of it, placed into law. The sanctity of marriage is obviously a subjective view as shown by the many short lived OSM that have occurred over the last few decades.

    And now it seems that you want to add to that by also imposing legal penalties upon how a couple (or greater) view and treat their relationship. I am married. I have girlfriends on the side and each and everyone of them are approved by my wife before I start dating them. Are you saying that there should be some sort of legal penalty imposed upon me for this?

    Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
    Keep it in your F-n bedroom, stop trying to tear down tradition and quit making a spectacle of yourselves and you'll be surprised how accepted you'll be.
    If marriage was about keeping it in the f-n bedroom then we wouldn't have OSM either. False argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
    Those who take their vows (before God or not) seriously are the 50% who stay married. That's quite a lot of people.

    I already posted an article stating homosexuals who are married don't take monogamy (nor the marriage itself) seriously. Here's another.

    Were Christians Right About Gay Marriage All Along? - The Daily Beast
    But there are many within that 50% staying married that never took the vows you want to believe that they took. As a matter of fact you have no clue who took what vows unless you have personally attended their marriage ceremony (be it civil or a full fledged wedding) or you have a certified transcript of said event. So please don't even bother with who is taking what vow seriously.

    Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
    This was the study in question. Relationship Characteristics and Motivations behind Agreements among Gay Male Couples: Differences by Agreement Type and Couple Serostatus

    I'm happy for your marriage but, there's nothing I can do about the ones that fail.
    There it is again. The focus on males. Has anyone else noticed that when these types of studies come up they only focus on "gay males"? And even then they never really focus on gay males, but MSM (males having sex with males) which could cover any number of situations. Show me a study that looks at homosexuality and SSM as a whole with both male and females included and then you might have a solid foundation for an argument.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  3. #1113
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    This is pretty close to personal attack. Within this thread he is attacking what the subject of this thread is about. Can you show that he is not tackling these other sins, either in other thread about those "sins" or outside of DP altogether. I might be willing to call him seemingly hypocritical, but not as an absolute.
    Well before you go playing mod, re-read my statements, I'm attacking his comments which IS allowed. Also, yes, I can prove his comments hypocritical because he had stated that three is nothing he can do about divorce, adultery, etc. yet he goes after SSM. That IS hypocritical when he says a sin is a sin.

    So if you don't like my statements you have some choices. Report them, ignore them, or go pound sand.

  4. #1114
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,955

    Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Well before you go playing mod, re-read my statements, I'm attacking his comments which IS allowed. Also, yes, I can prove his comments hypocritical because he had stated that three is nothing he can do about divorce, adultery, etc. yet he goes after SSM. That IS hypocritical when he says a sin is a sin.

    So if you don't like my statements you have some choices. Report them, ignore them, or go pound sand.
    Not trying to play mod and my apologies if you think I was. I would simply say stop it, vice pointing out why I thought you were wrong in your statement were I trying to play mod. IMHO, since this is a public forum, that means that everyone is included in the discussion but being so vast not everyone is privy to all comments made. If you has made a statement along the lines of "You said elsewhere that you aren't bothering to fight against divorce and adultery but you are fighting against SSM....", then at least you've shown the hypocrisy.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  5. #1115
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,013

    Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Well before you go playing mod, re-read my statements, I'm attacking his comments which IS allowed. Also, yes, I can prove his comments hypocritical because he had stated that three is nothing he can do about divorce, adultery, etc. yet he goes after SSM. That IS hypocritical when he says a sin is a sin.

    So if you don't like my statements you have some choices. Report them, ignore them, or go pound sand.
    To be fair, WCH did say he wished adultery would be illegal.

  6. #1116
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,782

    Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    The things you mention are public policy questions that you or anyone else who lives in your state is free to debate to your heart's content. I happen to believe it's reasonable for a majority to enforce its view that certain acts are immoral and unacceptable by making those acts crimes. And I defend the right of the majority in a state to pass laws to do that, however ridiculous I personally may consider their moral views. If the people of the state of Miasma think the sight of animals' genitals is indecent, and pass a law requiring owners to diaper their pets in all public places, that's simply no damned business of anyone who's not a resident of Miasma.

    But if most people in your state think there should be no laws against masturbating on the street in broad daylight, or buggering your dog in front of city hall, or entering into an incestuous homosexual marriage with your son, or God knows what else, that's your lookout. As you seem to suggest (for the most part, at least--your remark about "need to demonstrate a legit govt interest" is confused) those things are just not constitutional issues.
    Masturbating in public is a public health issue, ****ing a dog is physically abusing it....it causes internal damage, so that is animal abuse, and if they are consenting adults, I dont care if related people marry either. Again: why? What would be outstanding reasons/harm?

    To keep something illegal there should be a legitimate harm shown to the state or society and it should not infringe unnecessarily on their rights. People tend to use that to maintain that SSM should remain illegal, so when I rephrase it in order rebut that argument, I say that SSM does not harm the state (none has yet been shown in any discussion) and it actually is in the best interests of the state, increasing the stability of families and in additional protections of the children in those families.


    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    There is no constitutional reason to prevent it or require it or anything else, because it is simply not a constitutional issue. And it is not same-sex marriage that needs to serve a legitimate government purpose. That is part of the standard ordinary state laws have to meet in order to survive a Fourteenth Amendment due process or equal protection challenge. A garden-variety state law has to be rationally related to furthering a legitimate government interest.
    Since it is gender discrimination, of course it's covered under the Constitution. I never said marriage was a Constitutional right, altho others will point out to you how it is (previous court decisions). But it is gender discrimination preventing one gender from entering into a state contract and benefiting from that contract. It is also gender discrimination under due process.


    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    It doesn't take much to pass that "rational basis" test. Out of respect for the separation of powers, courts defer strongly to the legislature that made the law when they apply this test. Just as a person charged with a crime starts out being presumed innocent, duly enacted state laws are presumed constitutional.
    That's fine but has nothing to do with whether a law actually is Constitutional, just whether or not they are revisited. There's plenty of proof that previous laws were prejudicial, discriminatory, and then are not upheld.

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    The party claiming the law somehow violates due process or equal protection bears the burden of proving the law is not rationally related to furthering any conceivable legitimate government interest. That's usually hard to do, because in most cases the Supreme Court has been very reluctant to tell the people of a state that their policy decisions are not legitimate and have to be changed.
    Gender discrimination is a Constitutional issue. In some states, sexual orientation is also a protected class and that may happen someday at the federal level too. But gender already is.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  7. #1117
    Sage
    WCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Lone Star State.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    22,151

    Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Yes, but there is a difference in being MARRIED and being a COUPLE. In fact, other studies have proven you wrong in the fact that married gay couples are in fact monogamous more than non-married gay couples which is the same as heterosexuals.

    And no a sin is not a sin to you because you go after one, but not the other. So you are quite hypocritical in your comments.
    Find me a thread about hetero cheating spouses and I'll show you how to go after them.
    32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
    Matt. 10:32-33

  8. #1118
    Sage
    WCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Lone Star State.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    22,151

    Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    In post #874, you said specifically



    Laws apply to everyone, not just you.
    I wouldn't have a problem because I've never cheated on my Wife. (either of them)
    32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
    Matt. 10:32-33

  9. #1119
    Sage
    WCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Lone Star State.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    22,151

    Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    As I said before I don't think his comments are homophobic because I don't think they are based on fear, but they are definitely ignorant in regards to gays and the gay community.
    I thought you weren't Gay?
    32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
    Matt. 10:32-33

  10. #1120
    Sage
    WCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Lone Star State.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    22,151

    Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zinthaniel View Post
    That link does what to refute the fact that Homosexual married couples clearly do take their marriages seriously. What does HIV prevention have to do with anything we are discussing? My links effectively established that not only do homosexuals enjoy monogamous relationships they thrive in them.

    In places where gay men and women are constantly accosted by ridicule and intolerance and marriage is not an option. In places where being able to facilitate a healthy relationship is not possible, because one or both partners are afraid of alienation from their community. In these such places, which exists on a large scale, many homosexuals do turn to easier flighty relations, because it's easier to hide. They are effectively forced into the shadows of night living. Clubbing and racing through people, because having a real relationship isn't a feasible option for every homosexual. Especially the ones that live in hostile territory.

    That is where the dubious behavior takes place. In the utopia you dream of where homosexuals are forced to stay hidden they, in turn, can not possibly form meaningful relationships if any relationship they do pursue is marred by the ever looming fear of being outed and judged. It creates a handicap in their judgement. humans, by and large, need to form intimate connections - so expecting homosexuals to stay hidden and simultaneously be scrupulous in their sexual behavior is a ridiculous standard.

    You want to see gay men form better relationships then stop trying push them out of societies. Fight for a society where gay men and women can walk proudly in the open without fear. Be a part of the movement that will allow real gay relationships to be formed. Because as long as people like you exist in surplus homosexuals will continue to have issues with healthy relationships whilst your kin continues to breathe down their neck.
    I don't think I want to be party to that debauchery. (for all the reasons I've repeated continuously)
    32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
    Matt. 10:32-33

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •