View Poll Results: On a scale of one to ten, how much does it matter?

Voters
65. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 (least important)

    21 32.31%
  • 2

    3 4.62%
  • 3

    3 4.62%
  • 4

    2 3.08%
  • 5

    3 4.62%
  • 6

    3 4.62%
  • 7

    7 10.77%
  • 8

    10 15.38%
  • 9

    3 4.62%
  • 10 (most important)

    10 15.38%
Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 161

Thread: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

  1. #141
    Advisor Rising Sun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    United States of America
    Last Seen
    12-10-14 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    331

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Those who choose to and can pass the tests of the DMV are segmented into the populatoin that have the privledge to drive legaly on road ways...others are segmented into the population who can not. This discriminates against those who have issues passing the test, for whatever reason that may be.

    Those over 18 are segmented into the population given the privledge to buy pornography and cigerettes and not have curfews...others who are under 18 are segmented into the population that can not do those things. This discriminates against those who are under 18.

    As the above, those over 21 are segmented into the population given the privledge to buy alcohol...others who are under 21 are segmented into a different set of the population without those privledges.

    The rules regarding combat roles in the military segments adults into two segments based on race...those who can and can't serve in combat roles.

    The laws regarding the precidency segments adults into two segments based on nationality.

    I can keep going. The Law discriminates against people all the time. It just basically comes down to whether or not the discrimination reaches the required levels of necessity on the part of the government, as it relates to the amount of protection the discriminated group is awarded uner the law, to be deemed constitutional or not.
    So, are you saying we should make minors full fledged citizens?

    The military isn't racially segregated, but I do support sending all qualified personnel, regardless of gender, into a combat zone.

    Requirements for the Presidency are written into the Constitution, unlike marriage and sex discrimination laws which are not.

  2. #142
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,691

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    And how many times have we heard the Right say that precident isn't a legitimate reason to allow something unconstitutional and morally wrong to stand.
    BOTH are completely CORRECT. That is why we amend the constitution, NOT simply leave it up to 5/4 of the current nine robed umpires to make these calls. The constitution is NOT intended to be "subtle" and "vague", like the legal tomes in the court houses. It gives limitted and specific powers to the federal gov't, reserves specific rights directly to the people and leaves ALL ELSE up to the states. Something either IS or IS NOT mentioned and addressed in the constitution, all of the "grey area" nonsense means that an amendment is needed to define, in plain english, just what the deal is. Roe vs, Wade is BS, since abortion OR any other optional medical procedure is NOT mentioned in the constitution, so it is not a RIGHT. Why is it not a right to gamble? Is that not covered by PRIVACY? What compelling state interest says I can't run a football pool, host a card game or bet on the next comet to cross the sky? The SCOTUS simply making stuff up is WRONG. SSM may be "unfair" but it is NOT unconstituional, unless the constitution mentions either marriage or GLBT definition as a right or federal power, as ALL ELSE is a state matter.
    The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  3. #143
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun View Post
    So, are you saying we should make minors full fledged citizens?
    No, I'm saying that discrimination is legal for the government to do as long as it meets a certain standard. Just because this issue "divides consenting adults into two groups; those granted special rights and privileges and those who are not" doesn't necessarily mean there's anything constitutionally wrong with it.

    I agree with you completely that it's likely to be something to be decided by the courts. I disagree that it has to be...it COULD be done through legislation. However, I think at this point that's unlikely and will be more costly then having the court weigh in on the constitutional implications.

  4. #144
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    BOTH are completely CORRECT.
    Oh I agree with the notion that precedent alone doesn't mean we should leave something on the books that's unconstitutional. I was just pointing out the humor of trying to use the "lefts" argument against them when the same thing could be done right back at the person.

    That is why we amend the constitution, NOT simply leave it up to 5/4 of the current nine robed umpires to make these calls.
    See, you're talking as if fact. Whether you, or I for that matter, like it....many things are left up to 5/4 of the current nine robed umpires to make these calls. You can say that is why we SHOULD amend the constitution. But in terms of stating what we DO? No, fact is, we do leave it up to them rather often

    The constitution is NOT intended to be "subtle" and "vague", like the legal tomes in the court houses. It gives limitted and specific powers to the federal gov't, reserves specific rights directly to the people and leaves ALL ELSE up to the states. Something either IS or IS NOT mentioned and addressed in the constitution, all of the "grey area" nonsense means that an amendment is needed to define, in plain english, just what the deal is. Roe vs, Wade is BS, since abortion OR any other optional medical procedure is NOT mentioned in the constitution, so it is not a RIGHT.
    See again, all this makes plenty sense in theoritical imaginary ttwtt world where your opinion on it is law and dictates what actually happens in that reality.

    Unfortunately, no mater how much we dislike it, the reality is that what you've stated above is not ENTIRELY the case. That's your opinion of what it is and how it should be, but it doesn't reflect reality. Its what you WANT reality to be. Which is all fine and good and I fully support your right to argue for it and push for it and push your representitives to push for it. However, don't piss on me and tell me its rain and expect that I'm actually going to believe its rain. I'm going to tell you flat out it's piss that you're trying to pass off as rain.

    Why is it not a right to gamble? Is that not covered by PRIVACY? What compelling state interest says I can't run a football pool, host a card game or bet on the next comet to cross the sky? The SCOTUS simply making stuff up is WRONG. SSM may be "unfair" but it is NOT unconstituional, unless the constitution mentions either marriage or GLBT definition as a right or federal power, as ALL ELSE is a state matter.
    All fine and good...but until you can actually do something to change what's been occuring for decades into centuries, your cries of them being "WRONG" does as much good as a guy on a street corner screaming "THE END IS NIGH".

    That's part of the issue. You're talking about things that are theoritical or opinion based but putting them forward and arguing with them as if they're factual reality...that doesn't work.

    SSM, in my opinion...which again, is also rather irrelevant but at least I'm acknowledging it as an opinion...based on the reality of our legal system and constitutional law as it has existed through my and your life time, I believe that SSM has a good chance of being found unconstitutional if argued under the notion of gender discrimination in a EPC 14th amendment case. If you want to talk about the nitty gritty theoritical constitutional philosophy about it...that's an entire different discussion that needs to go back amending TONS of precedences to get to what I think is the actual heart of the truth. However, if you want to talk about reality and what is constitutional based on how the law is actually interprited today? Precedence and case law matters then.

  5. #145
    Sage
    RDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Last Seen
    10-10-17 @ 05:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,398

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    It took the 44th President of U.S.A. to legalise SSM. Was there a surge in homosexualty lately?

  6. #146
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    I think in time SSM could win a civil rights (right to equality) case against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

    Various jurisdictions have enacted statutes to prevent discrimination based on a person's race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual orientation.

    The judiciary, most notably the Supreme Court, plays a crucial role in interpreting the extent of the civil rights, as a single Supreme Court ruling can alter the recognition of a right throughout the nation. Supreme Court decisions can also affect the manner in which Congress enacts civil rights legislation, an occurrence that occurred with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  7. #147
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Are you viewing it from the stand point of gender discrimination or sexual preference discrimination?

    With one it is just important to point out a "legitimate" state interest and one only must show that the discrimination is "rationally" related to it...at least at this point given current case laws placement of the classification on the EPC scale.

    With the other one must show that its an "important", not just legitimate, state interest and that the discrimination is "substantially" related to it...a far higher standard, and one that doesn't apply to homosexuals at this point.

    There's a LOT of wiggle room with regards to the lower teir and proving the state constitutional in its discrimination.
    I honestly do believe that it is gender discrimination. And that is the tier it should fall under. People do not have to prove neither love, nor attraction to legally be married and a requirement to do so would be horrible. So it cannot be said that sexuality is the factor determining how people are being treated unequally here.

    However, giving what the ruling was in Turner v Safley, and the fact that it was a bottom tier ruling that still overturned bans on a group (inmates) from getting legally married and never once mentioned the only thing that separates all same sex couples from most opposite sex couples, the ability to procreate, it still could stand a pretty good chance even at the bottom tier.

    And we can almost guarantee that if the laws read "homosexuals (bisexuals) cannot legally get married", that it would be overturned as unconstitutional at that lowest tier, likely in a unanimous (if not damn close to it) decision.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  8. #148
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    BOTH are completely CORRECT. That is why we amend the constitution, NOT simply leave it up to 5/4 of the current nine robed umpires to make these calls. The constitution is NOT intended to be "subtle" and "vague", like the legal tomes in the court houses. It gives limitted and specific powers to the federal gov't, reserves specific rights directly to the people and leaves ALL ELSE up to the states. Something either IS or IS NOT mentioned and addressed in the constitution, all of the "grey area" nonsense means that an amendment is needed to define, in plain english, just what the deal is. Roe vs, Wade is BS, since abortion OR any other optional medical procedure is NOT mentioned in the constitution, so it is not a RIGHT. Why is it not a right to gamble? Is that not covered by PRIVACY? What compelling state interest says I can't run a football pool, host a card game or bet on the next comet to cross the sky? The SCOTUS simply making stuff up is WRONG. SSM may be "unfair" but it is NOT unconstituional, unless the constitution mentions either marriage or GLBT definition as a right or federal power, as ALL ELSE is a state matter.
    Apparently you missed the Amendment that grants rights to the individuals as well as the state. The 10th Amendment gives all other rights to the states or the people. We have the 14th Amendment that forces the state governments to abide by the US Constitution as well.

    Prior to the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. The states are now limited in the same way the federal government is when it comes to the rights of the people. The states used to be able to establish a state religion. Not any more. The states used to be able to violate the rights of the accused that were guaranteed by the US Constitution as being not within the power of the federal government. Again, not any more.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #149
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,831

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by proud2Bcatholic View Post
    Not allowing something is not the same as criminalizing it. It should not be recognized: Period. But if someone has some goofy ceremony I cetrtainly would not fine them either.

    I agree with you about homosexual sex being a sin. But let us take religion out of it for a moment: Same sex attaraction is a disorder according to the American Psychological Association (APA) for most of its history, until recently.

    For some folks though, this disorder is now the "non-disorder formerly known as disorder." It was a disorder in the DSM I and II published by the APA. But in the last publication, DSM IV, it was removed as a disorder. Why?

    Protests by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970 when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you." To put is bluntly, the American Psychological Association buckled and caved to protestors, and therefore have no legitimacy now.

    So the APA can be, and is, wrong. The current APA thinks that they were "wrong back then," and "right now." But certainly, the opposite can be true, that is was right back then and wrong now. I think that they were right before and wrong now because they now fear liberal retaliation and politcial correctness that did not exist before.

    So the question is: Should we enshrine a mental disorder into a sacred institution?

    SECOND: "LEGAL PRECEDENT". How many times have we heard the Left say it would be outrageous to overturn Roe v. Wade because of its whopping 40 years of legal precident. Well, traditional marriage had 240 years of legal precedent, and thousands of years more in Civilization as a whole. So if it is extreme to overturn Roe v. Wade after 40 years then it is off-the-chart extremism to allow gay "marriage"
    so much disinformation and dishonesty in one post

    first educate yourself on what a mental disorder is LMAO because you obviously dont have a clue about it or its history.

    second your other example makes no sense

    you ask a question "How many times have we heard the Left say it would be outrageous to overturn Roe v. Wade because of its whopping 40 years of legal precedent."

    well for me the answer is NONE ive never heard anybody argue that it be outrageous to overturn it simply because its years of legal precedent, doesnt mean it didnt happen just saying I never heard that.

    next you try to compare that to "allowing" equal gay rights. You understand they aren't a parallel at all. thats simply broken logic. In one case something (abortion being legal) would be made illegal, no one could get one.in the case of gay marriage, straight marriage would not get "overturned" it would still be there, now gays would just have equal rights also LMAO. They arent the same at all.

    not to mention your quote about "thousands of years more in Civilization" is also inaccurate. Gay relationships, marriage, partnerships etc have been around in BC times.

    It may be best if you study this subject a little more because you arent up to par.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  10. #150
    Advisor Rising Sun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    United States of America
    Last Seen
    12-10-14 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    331

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    No, I'm saying that discrimination is legal for the government to do as long as it meets a certain standard.
    Agreed and the "certain standard" is the Constitution. Please tell me how the Constitution allows State governments to allow certain people to marry and certain people to not marry.

    TIA for your civil replies on this question.

Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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