• 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?

What is the 'C'?


When people are sloppy with the language then some people try to divert. So if you talk about "marriage" or "same-sex marriage", they will often deflect to religious marriage. I tend to use "Civil Marriage" and "Same-sex Civil Marriage" (SSCM) in posts to ensure the basis is understood to be that which exists under civil law and not what a person's individual religious institution might think of Religious Marriage.


Look back over the last few pages, event the the OP Title is " Do you support legalizing gay marriage?", that which exists under civil law - plenty of post deflecting to what their religious views of marriage are.


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

In my business ..no. I have however been politically taunted by some Gay customers. I blew it off as friendly ribbing since I've know these people for some time and they knew I was a Conservative.
{Austin is Gay Lib ground zero)

:lamo

You live in Austin/Austin area?

As sweet sweet justice.

I love that area of TX, that and the nearby Hill Country.
 
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!!!"


.

On the news tonite, apparently it is legal tonite to walk around naked in public in Kansas as long as it's not for the purpose of sexually-based gratification or acts.

Huh...and yet, Kansas is still here, no militants, no great uprising, Hell didnt freeze over.....:lamo


Walking around is fine, I just hope they dont sit anywhere.....
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

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.

It's already legal in Kansas and apparently, very few people are attempting to shove it down anyone's throat or impose it on others. The 'naked lifestyle' seems to be fairly restrained...and no one...the 'nekkids'...apparently are not trying to force it on anyone else and dont have a 'nekkid agenda.'

:lamo
 
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.


It also relates to the fact that one gender is discriminated against in the fulfilling of the state marriage contract.

And it's easily proven (in the states' interests) that the benefits and legal protections of marriage protect the children of those marriages....it's used as a reason to support the institution of marriage in general....it protects kids of gay families just as much.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

On the news tonite, apparently it is legal tonite to walk around naked in public in Kansas as long as it's not for the purpose of sexually-based gratification or acts.

Huh...and yet, Kansas is still here, no militants, no great uprising, Hell didnt freeze over.....:lamo

No one gives a damn what they want to do in their state--let them go around scaring the livestock if that makes their day. I don't get to Kansas often, and I don't have to look at them. But suppose the people who pushed for this weren't satisfied with just Kansas?

What if they were strident crusaders who were determined to force their views on everyone else, so that they wouldn't feel like the deviants they are? What if they tried the homosexuals' tack and constantly shrieked to anyone who would listen that allstate laws against nudism are unconstitutional, because they are motivated by nothing but naked hostility (couldn't resist) toward nudists--and therefore there they don't promote any legitimate government interest?

Walking around is fine, I just hope they dont sit anywhere.....

Point well taken.
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

No one gives a damn what they want to do in their state--let them go around scaring the livestock if that makes their day. I don't get to Kansas often, and I don't have to look at them. But suppose the people who pushed for this weren't satisfied with just Kansas? What if they were strident crusaders who constantly shrieked to anyone who would listen that state laws against nudism are unconstitutional, because they are motivated by nothing but naked hostility (couldn't resist) toward nudists?

Point well taken.

I would think the strident crusaders would looses unless they come up with a compelling Constitutional reason. It takes more than the motivation for the law to get a court to rule on it.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

I would think the strident crusaders would looses unless they come up with a compelling Constitutional reason. It takes more than the motivation for the law to get a court to rule on it.

The nudists wouldn't need any compelling constitutional reason, if they followed the same-sex marriage playbook. They could just claim that state laws against public nudism were not rationally related to any legitimate purpose of government. That's the basic standard the Supreme Court applies under its so-called "rational basis review."

If a party challenging a state law on Fourteenth Amendment due process or equal protection grounds can show that the law does not meet this standard, the law will be unconstitutional. The reasoning behind this is that purely arbitrary laws are not laws at all. It at least has to be conceivable that the legislature that passed a law might have thought it was a reasonable way to achieve some legitimate purpose of government.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

The nudists wouldn't need any compelling constitutional reason, if they followed the same-sex marriage playbook. They could just claim that state laws against public nudism were not rationally related to any legitimate purpose of government. That's the basic standard the Supreme Court applies under its so-called "rational basis review."

If a party challenging a state law on Fourteenth Amendment due process or equal protection grounds can show that the law does not meet this standard, the law will be unconstitutional. The reasoning behind this is that purely arbitrary laws are not laws at all. It at least has to be conceivable that the legislature that passed a law might have thought it was a reasonable way to achieve some legitimate purpose of government.

Nope, that is not all that we are doing, it is merely one part. The two situations are so disimlar that NONE of the core arguments for SSM could be used for public nudity.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Keep you sex life out the the public sphere. Quit insisting on tarnishing traditional marriage. Quit imposing on private business. Quit lobbying for rights that don't exist. Quit trying to recruit our children into your ideology.

Keep your religion out of the public sphere. Stop discriminating against others. Stop interfering with private business. Stop trying to prevent people from lobbying for rights that don't exist. Stop trying to recruit our children into your religious extremism.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

As I've said many times, I'm a counter to the homosexual lobby propaganda. If others like me and I don't counter this scourge, no one will.

So if you stop, so will I.

You're not a counter. The difference is... and we can see it clearly in this thread, is that you present false information and concepts that lack logic or confuse opinion and fact. If you attempted to provide more honest information, you might actually be able to make the claim that you are a "counter", but you don't, so all you are is just another in the long line of anti-gay propagandists with no information that has any value.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

I'm sure you think the creation of an enormously powerful central government (complete with mechanisms for constant revenue) and the disposal of God from it's institutions and the the acceptance of debauchery as a norm is just nifty.

And I'm sure you'd much prefer an era where it was OK to kill someone because of the color of their skin, their religion, or their sexual orientation, where most were illiterate, and you were either very rich or you eked out a meager subsistence. That's what conservatism seems to stand for in your book.


The Heritage Foundation is a notorious extreme right wing organization that has no credibility in a legitimate discussion. Therefore, anything they say is irrelevant.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

What's really sad is you ask me the same meaningless questions over and over. I'm not debating this for my purposes rather for all our salvation.

You are not required read.

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 belief system that you are professing.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Nope, that is not all that we are doing, it is merely one part.

I don't know what you mean. Who is "we," and exactly what are you doing?

The two situations are so disimlar that NONE of the core arguments for SSM could be used for public nudity.

Now why is that? That's not at all clear to me. 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. 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.

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.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

No one gives a damn what they want to do in their state--let them go around scaring the livestock if that makes their day. I don't get to Kansas often, and I don't have to look at them. But suppose the people who pushed for this weren't satisfied with just Kansas?

What if they were strident crusaders who were determined to force their views on everyone else, so that they wouldn't feel like the deviants they are? What if they tried the homosexuals' tack and constantly shrieked to anyone who would listen that allstate laws against nudism are unconstitutional, because they are motivated by nothing but naked hostility (couldn't resist) toward nudists--and therefore there they don't promote any legitimate government interest?



Point well taken.

I personally see the public health issues that alot of naked people in public areas may comprise. However I have not seen evidence againts it nor heard support for that particular activity. I would hear it and if it was publicly not a health issue or there were some restrictions to keep it from being one, I would support it.

Lord knows, I dont want to see at least 80% of the population naked and it would be pretty disgusting...but if there were no reasons beyond my personal feelings? Yes, I would support it.

People should be no more influenced to do anything wrong (have sex??? is that wrong? be incited to rape??) seeing naked people than they are incited to any immorality or harmful acts by homosexuality. You cant be 'turned gay.'

Constitutionally, there is no reason that nekkid people should not be able to walk around in public. If there is no harm demonstrated....it is an infringement on personal liberty and unnecessary govt intrusion. 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?

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.

There is no rational nor Constitutional reason to prevent SSM. And that does serve a legitimate govt purpose, as I've pointed out.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

I don't know what you mean. Who is "we," and exactly what are you doing?

I meant supporters of same sex marriage.

Now why is that? That's not at all clear to me. 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. 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.

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.

I thought you were referring to SSM, the subject of this thread, and not the legality of sexual relations, not the subject of this thread, between people of the same sex. If you want to start another thread about the question you are asking, please do and I will participate in that one.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Thanks for the update on your local baker. Glad to see he's doing well.

There have been several of these cases (at least the ones made public) around the country. This addresses a couple to which I was referring.

Oregon bakery shuts down after gay rights attacks | Deseret News National

Stand corrected. It does stand to reason there would be more than one. The Masterpiece Cake Shop, however, was the one the garnered the most national attention and was discussed extensively on this board last December (173 pages of posts).

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...d-against-gay-couple-w-113-123-292-647-a.html

So, I "assumed" (as we know that is always dangerous) that was the one you were referring to....
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

I meant supporters of same sex marriage.



I thought you were referring to SSM, the subject of this thread, and not the legality of sexual relations, not the subject of this thread, between people of the same sex. If you want to start another thread about the question you are asking, please do and I will participate in that one.

Once again, I don't understand what you are saying. Another thread about what question I am asking? You are the one who is now introducing the issue of the legality of homosexual sodomy, not me. Why, I have no idea. Anyone who knows even the ABC's of this area of law is well aware the Supreme Court held in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 that state laws criminalizing sodomy are unconstitutional. Sure, the decision's a result-driven piece of fish wrap whose legal reasoning (if it can be dignified as that) is so thoroughly disingenuous as to border on being flat dishonest--but there it is.

I first spun out an analogy to public nudity to poke fun at the vapid, uninformed assertions I've seen on various threads that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. The people who make them pretend to understand the constitutional law involved, but before long the pretense becomes obvious. They've never even read the relevant Supreme Court decisions, for God's sake. But they don't care about the constitutional issues anyway, because their narrow minds are already made up.

I then mentioned bigamy, adult incest, and bestiality as examples of sex-related crimes Justice Scalia had listed in Lawrence. What do any of these acts have to do with "the legality of sexual relations, not the subject of this thread, between people of the same sex"--which you claim is the question I am asking? Nothing whatever. So again, why your claim?
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

I personally see the public health issues that alot of naked people in public areas may comprise. However I have not seen evidence againts it nor heard support for that particular activity. I would hear it and if it was publicly not a health issue or there were some restrictions to keep it from being one, I would support it.

Lord knows, I dont want to see at least 80% of the population naked and it would be pretty disgusting...but if there were no reasons beyond my personal feelings? Yes, I would support it.

People should be no more influenced to do anything wrong (have sex??? is that wrong? be incited to rape??) seeing naked people than they are incited to any immorality or harmful acts by homosexuality. You cant be 'turned gay.'

Constitutionally, there is no reason that nekkid people should not be able to walk around in public. If there is no harm demonstrated....it is an infringement on personal liberty and unnecessary govt intrusion. 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?

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.

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.

There is no rational nor Constitutional reason to prevent SSM. And that does serve a legitimate govt purpose, as I've pointed out.

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.

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.

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.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

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?

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
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

You do realize you can become a slave to small government right?

And your notion of "slavery" is pretty messed up.

Being forced [under the threat of imprisonment] to give up a good chunk of my hard-earned money so that others can sit on their fat asses or wasting it by sending money overseas is a form of slavery. IMHO
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

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

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.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

You're not a counter. The difference is... and we can see it clearly in this thread, is that you present false information and concepts that lack logic or confuse opinion and fact. If you attempted to provide more honest information, you might actually be able to make the claim that you are a "counter", but you don't, so all you are is just another in the long line of anti-gay propagandists with no information that has any value.
Ditto for you. 8)
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

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 belief system that you are professing.

Like your faux-Judaism?
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

I think I speak for us all when I say that if we legalize same-sex marriages, the terrorists win and Jesus weeps.
 
Back
Top Bottom