• 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!

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

Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

They waited until I was through doing my work and was waiting for the bill to be paid when they all gathered around to 'hiphiphorray' for the ObamaCare bill being signed.

Losers still don't understand they make too much for it to be free.

:|

.........
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

LOL. Austin is a great town. I can see why you'd be so miserable there.

We had to move to the next county. It got too expensive to live there.

Run by Communist you know.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

A business cannot discriminate against customers on the basis of religion in any state that I'm aware of.

It was the business owners in Oregon
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

They waited until I was through doing my work and was waiting for the bill to be paid when they all gathered around to 'hiphiphorray' for the ObamaCare bill being signed.

Good for them.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

We had to move to the next county. It got too expensive to live there.

Run by Communist you know.

I'm sure you're happier being around your own kind now.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

I never said YOU had to do anything.

Good news! Same-sex marriage doesn't require you to do anything either.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

It was the business owners in Oregon

No, again, that's an issue with public accommodation laws. They weren't discriminated against because they were Christian. They were required to serve homosexuals because Oregon public accommodation laws don't allow any business to discriminate on sexuality. Or religion. Do you want it to be legal to put a "No Jews" or "No Blacks" sign on my store? What if my religious beliefs would lead me to do that?
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

It can't be long before a militant nudism movement arises, inspired by other strident grievance groups to demand their rights. I can just see them shrieking angrily at "xtian haters" who want to deny them the right to go nude in public, just because they feel ashamed of sex and nudity and want to force their puritanical, xtian beliefs on everyone else. "Take your god-based bull and shove it--you don't have the right to tell me and mine how to live!!!"

I imagine these crusaders will ape the black civil rights movement, shamelessly trying to compare the restrictions that peeve them to Jim Crow while adding their own cute symbols and bumper-sticker slogans. "Bare is Fair!" Maybe they'll borrow a page from the homosexuals, and purposely go nude into small bakeries to order the cakes for their nude weddings. They could keep this up until they found a baker who was scandalized enough to refuse their business, and then sue him for discrimination.

I expect militant nudists will claim that just as with same-sex marriage, the state laws that frustrate them are arbitrary, because the government can't show how nudism hurts anyone. Even if public nudity is legal on certain beaches, etc., they will howl that their lifestyle deserves to be recognized everywhere, just like the clothed lifestyle is. And even if their own state had made public nudity legal everywhere, it wouldn't be enough--they'd insist that it was a constitutional right, so that every other state had to legalize it, too.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Do you want it to be legal to put a "No Jews" or "No Blacks" sign on my store? What if my religious beliefs would lead me to do that?

I realize you weren't asking me, but of course I want any state to be free to allow that kind of private discrimination, allow it with certain restrictions, or forbid it, however the majority of its people sees fit. I'm sure you know all about the state action requirement in Fourteenth Amendment cases. I'm sure you also know about the limitations of both the fifth section of that amendment and the second section of the Thirteenth, when it comes to private discrimination.

If you think something in the federal Constitution prohibits discrimination by private individuals, please tell us--specifically--what you think that something is. The "Icky and Yucky Clause," maybe? The "Just Be Nice Clause?" The "Because We Say So Clause?"
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Waiting for Sodom and Gomorrah 2 to hit. And if and when it comes know that people like you helped it along.

denying civil same sex marriage is preventing the rapture. oookkkaayyy......{sarcasm intended}
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

It was the business owners in Oregon


The business owners in Oregon can't discriminate based on religion either.



>>>>
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

It says get off your own throne so God can assume his rightful place. Got it?

Woooooshhhhhhhhhh…………

:lamo
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

No, again, that's an issue with public accommodation laws. They weren't discriminated against because they were Christian. They were required to serve homosexuals because Oregon public accommodation laws don't allow any business to discriminate on sexuality. Or religion. Do you want it to be legal to put a "No Jews" or "No Blacks" sign on my store? What if my religious beliefs would lead me to do that?


I'm fine with removing PA laws and allowing businesses to decline service to customers for any reason including race, religion, body odor, rudeness, sexual orientation, etc.

I think though that they should be required to file an intent to discriminate (or not) to the business licensing bureau, have it on file and have to prominently display it in their business and make note of discriminatory practices in advertizing.

What the law should be and the reality of what the law is are two different discussions through.



>>>>
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

It can't be long before a militant nudism movement arises, inspired by other strident grievance groups to demand their rights. I can just see them shrieking angrily at "xtian haters" who want to deny them the right to go nude in public, just because they feel ashamed of sex and nudity and want to force their puritanical, xtian beliefs on everyone else. "Take your god-based bull and shove it--you don't have the right to tell me and mine how to live!!!"

I imagine these crusaders will ape the black civil rights movement, shamelessly trying to compare the restrictions that peeve them to Jim Crow while adding their own cute symbols and bumper-sticker slogans. "Bare is Fair!" Maybe they'll borrow a page from the homosexuals, and purposely go nude into small bakeries to order the cakes for their nude weddings. They could keep this up until they found a baker who was scandalized enough to refuse their business, and then sue him for discrimination.

I expect militant nudists will claim that just as with same-sex marriage, the state laws that frustrate them are arbitrary, because the government can't show how nudism hurts anyone. Even if public nudity is legal on certain beaches, etc., they will howl that their lifestyle deserves to be recognized everywhere, just like the clothed lifestyle is. And even if their own state had made public nudity legal everywhere, it wouldn't be enough--they'd insist that it was a constitutional right, so that every other state had to legalize it, too.
You have just straight abandoned even pretending you were here for reasonable debate, haven't you?
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Is that what you are pretending to be here for?

You're the guy who now repeatedly spams these threads with ridiculous premises like this one.

I've given you constitutional reasoning to overturn same sex marriage bans. I've given you links to courts who applied strict scrutiny in a same sex marriage case. You've claimed to have a rebuttal, but refuse to actually give it.

Balls in your court dude.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

And yet laws often subject similarly situated people to wildly disparate treatment without violating the Equal Protection Clause. When it comes to state economic regulations, that is more the rule than the exception. How the guarantee of equal protection applies, how it applies to various groups, and in what context, is a complex area of constitutional law.

Absolutely, just as there are laws that limit speech such as slander. The Equal Protection Clause is not a universal statement that the government cannot discriminate. The government absolutely CAN discriminate, however it's discrimination must meet certian muster depending on who it's discriminating against, why it's discriminating, and to what end it's discriminating.

GENDER discrimination however has a long held standing within the legal system as to the criteria applied to it via the EPC

From your use of the language of the "intermediate" standard of review the Court has used in sex discrimination cases, it sounds like you would apply that standard to marriage laws that exclude same-sex couples.

You are correct in that I was using the "intermediate" standard of review, as historically has been the case as it relates to gender discrimination.

The main problem I see with that approach is that these laws don't discriminate against anyone on the basis of sex. They no more allow two men to marry each other than they allow two women to marry each other.

This is patentedly untrue. It absolutely does discriminate against someone on the basis of their sex/gender.

A man is legally able to marry a woman.

A woman is not legally able to marry a woman.

A man, UNDER THE LAW, has the ability to do something that a woman does not do.

For that to be constitutional it would need to be substantially related to serving an important state interest. Same goes for the fact that a woman, under the law, has the ability to do something that a man does not in regards to marrying a man.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

You're the guy who now repeatedly spams these threads with ridiculous premises like this one.

I've given you constitutional reasoning to overturn same sex marriage bans. I've given you links to courts who applied strict scrutiny in a same sex marriage case. You've claimed to have a rebuttal, but refuse to actually give it.

Balls in your court dude.

The spam and ridiculous premises I have seen on these threads are your own. You haven't even the faintest grasp of the constitutional issues involved, as you've made painfully clear several times. You haven't offered any constitutional reasoning worth the name. I assume that's not because you're refusing to, but simply because you have none to offer. And I don't care that a federal appeals court has seen fit to declare a fundamental right to same-sex marriage.

Why don't you tell us all why that decision is so important to anyone outside the states in that jurisdiction? Please explain why, when the Court has so strongly shied away from taking the fundamental rights/strict scrutiny path on this subject, Anthony Kennedy will feel obliged to follow a lower federal court down it. Tell us why Kennedy, as Justice Scalia pointed out in his Lawrence dissent, even though he claimed to be overruling Bowers v. Hardwick, was so careful to leave intact Bowers' central holding: That there is no fundamental right to homosexual sodomy.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Absolutely, just as there are laws that limit speech such as slander. The Equal Protection Clause is not a universal statement that the government cannot discriminate. The government absolutely CAN discriminate, however it's discrimination must meet certian muster depending on who it's discriminating against, why it's discriminating, and to what end it's discriminating.

GENDER discrimination however has a long held standing within the legal system as to the criteria applied to it via the EPC



You are correct in that I was using the "intermediate" standard of review, as historically has been the case as it relates to gender discrimination.



This is patentedly untrue. It absolutely does discriminate against someone on the basis of their sex/gender.

A man is legally able to marry a woman.

A woman is not legally able to marry a woman.

A man, UNDER THE LAW, has the ability to do something that a woman does not do.

For that to be constitutional it would need to be substantially related to serving an important state interest. Same goes for the fact that a woman, under the law, has the ability to do something that a man does not in regards to marrying a man.

Rather than debate this point with you any further, I'll just note that I don't know of anyplace in the Supreme Court's three "gay" decisions since Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986--Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, or U.S. v. Windsor--where it has shown even the slightest inclination to take up the argument you're making. And that would be because no party had chosen to make that argument in its briefs. If it had the merit you seem to think it has, it's a little surprising all those extremely able lawyers flat missed it in cases claiming discrimination against homosexuals.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Trust me, I'm not worried personally. After all, we're simply having a debate, not a trial here. by debating, perhaps readers will learn something they didn't know before or seek out additional knowledge.

Jesus didn't stay out of people's lives, he spent most of his time bringing the word of his Father to the masses.

When in the company of a woman accused of adultery (a crime punishable by stoning) he said 'Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.'" (John 8:1-11)

This is what I wish for those who lead a life of sin. In the process, it helps me recognize my own sin and how to deal with it.

I never said that he stayed out of people's lives. I said that he preached his word, talked to people, try to persuade them, but in the end he left the people to make their own decisions and never attempted to get anything he preached placed into law. You on the other hand want your particular set or morality placed into law despite that others follow other religions that do not have such restrictions. Do you feel that all businesses should be closed on Sunday's?
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

No you don't have to believe but, if you did to would help the cause. ;)

So if I don't have to believe, why do you seem so insistent that we needs laws or restrictions to ensure I do conform to your beliefs? Sometimes people are conflicted with the notions of individuality and religious conformity.

What someone choses to believe, what they chose to do in their bedroom are their concerns, and theirs alone. We should focus on our eternal souls, nobody elses

The folks that seem to believe that laws, restrictions and some sort of 'Talibanesque' moral police are the answer to 'collective salvation' go against everything our founding fathers wanted.

Freedom and Liberty, maybe some people need to re-access what those words mean
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Supreme Court's three "gay" decisions

Well there's your issue and what you're missing. Instead of actually listening and addressing what I'm actually saying you're instead stereotyping and projecting an argument onto me.

Homosexuality has ZERO to do with my argument. Nothing that I stated has anything to do with homosexual rights under the law. Citing "gay" decisions is irrelevant, because my argument is not based nor connected to homosexuality at all...it's connected to GENDER. If you want cases to cite it'd be ones involving gender.

Whether or not others have made the argument is irrelevant to whether or not I believe it to be an issue. Additionally, you fall into a fallacy of assuming that simply because no briefs have taken this stance automatically means it's because it has no merit. There alternative explanations, one simple one that immediately comes to mind....homosexual activist groups aimed at expanding equal rights for homosexuals under the law, as opposed to simply caring about a single solitary issue in relation to same sex marriage would be unlikely to push from this angle because it explicitly does not move forward the attempt to categorize homosexuals as a significant classification under the EPC. The Marriage cases are probably the best chance for these activists to achieve such a goal, and thus giving up on that for a "simpler" fix would probably not be very attractive of an option.
 
Back
Top Bottom