View Poll Results: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homophobe

Voters
101. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    24 23.76%
  • No

    77 76.24%
Page 32 of 44 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 432

Thread: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homophobe

  1. #311
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    08-07-12 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    216

    Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    The undenialable fact is 33 states have amendments voted for by the people saying that marriage is between a man and a woman....Two more will be added in November......If SSM is so popular with the American people why is it the only way it can be approved is by activist judges?
    "Activist judges" is a popular term to throw around. But the fact is that the constitution as it was written, explicitly and undeniably calls for the SCOTUS and other courts to play the role of deciding the constitutionality of laws. You know, like overturning SSM bans. The whole state referendum thing was put into place a century after the writing of the constitution by bleeding-heart progressives who wanted to circumvent the constitution to ban "social vices."

  2. #312
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    The undenialable fact is 33 states have amendments voted for by the people saying that marriage is between a man and a woman....Two more will be added in November......If SSM is so popular with the American people why is it the only way it can be approved is by activist judges?
    And it was also undeniable that most states had voted in miscegation laws. Do you think that because of that then we should just disregard Loving v Virginia? And yes...back then they used the same arguement as you do. The bible.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  3. #313
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

    Quote Originally Posted by Miguel17 View Post
    So when you're talking about "much, much greater numbers of people who don't want their institution of marriage sullied," you're referring exclusively to people who "hold the traditional institution of marriage valuable"? That was your great argument? That most people who believe in traditional marriage don't want traditional marriage to change? In that case, you're right and I was wrong. Your claim was merely a tautology, and I was stupid enough to assume you were making an assertion that was in anyway relevant to the SSM debate.

    I have a tautology of my own to waste everyone's time with: the vast majority of people who believe that gays should have marriage equality, also support SSM. Anyone care to challenge me on this?

    I have a feeling that the if the majority of people support SSM, as demonstrated by the polls I cited, then it isn't possible that the majority of Americans associate marriage with a man and a woman. We can argue semantics, but I don't think those two assertions are compatible, assuming that people who believe in marriage as between a man and a woman wouldn't support SSM, by definition.

    I'm concerned that what you think a win-win is not a win-win, because many people who want marriage to include same-sex couples want those marriages to be the same, de facto and de jure, as heterosexual marriages.
    Now you're not only obfuscating, you're being purposely obtuse .. also an activist rallying tactic in the win-lose battle.

    But just look at your last statement. A number of people do want homosexual committed couples to have all the "sameness" of heterosexual committed couples, but what relevantly matters is the subset of those people who are indeed homosexuals who want that "Sameness".

    The problem is that "marriage", by long-standing humanity definition is "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

    To accomplish what a number of people want, gay activists have to either 1) redefine the word marriage or 2) work for decades likely to get homarriage civil union domestic partnerships implemented in all 50 states.

    Tack number 1 is not only based on a ludicrous premise, it will piss off a comparative very large segment of the population, a lot larger than the segment it will help.

    Tack number 2 will take a very long time without help from the opposition who's blockading that effort.

    It just seems to me that a win-win situation can be had by gay activists letting go of the ludicrous attempt at redefinition of the word "marriage" in exchange for the support of their opposition to rush through homarriage civil union domestic partnerships in all 50 states and whatever's required federally.

    That's a win-win solution regarding the true goals of each side.

    You have a problem with that win-win solution that not only respects words and their meaning but really makes everyone reasonably happy?
    Last edited by Ontologuy; 08-06-12 at 08:57 PM.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  4. #314
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

    Quote Originally Posted by Miguel17 View Post
    "Activist judges" is a popular term to throw around. But the fact is that the constitution as it was written, explicitly and undeniably calls for the SCOTUS and other courts to play the role of deciding the constitutionality of laws. You know, like overturning SSM bans. The whole state referendum thing was put into place a century after the writing of the constitution by bleeding-heart progressives who wanted to circumvent the constitution to ban "social vices."
    I'm sorry Miguel, I'm really not trying to insult you here, but you really need to bone up on history before you continue to post such outright inaccuracies. State referendums (initiatives) were not created in the few states that have them to "circumvent the constitution". They only hold sway in the state itself and have nothing to do with addressing the federal constitution. They are the way voters can directly vote on legislation (bypassing the state legislature) dealing with STATE law and STATE constitution. They are the reflection of the direct will of the people. There are pros and cons to that and that's why only a few states have enacted an initiative process.

    And no, the federal Constitution as written does not confer judicial review. That is a power the court took as Jefferson so rightly claimed.

  5. #315
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    08-07-12 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    216

    Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Now you're not only obfuscating, you're being purposely obtuse .. also an activist rallying tactic in the win-lose battle.

    But just look at your last statement. A number of people do want homosexual committed couples to have all the "sameness" of heterosexual committed couples, but what relevantly matters is the subset of those people who are indeed homosexuals who want that "Sameness".

    The problem is that "marriage", by long-standing humanity definition is "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

    To accomplish what a number of people want, gay activists have to either 1) redefine the word marriage or 2) work for decades likely to get homarriage civil union domestic partnerships implemented in all 50 states.

    Tack number 1 is not only based on a ludicrous premise, it will piss off a comparative very large segment of the population, a lot larger than the segment it will help.

    Tack number 2 will take a very long time without help from the opposition who's blockading that effort.

    It just seems to me that a win-win situation can be had by gay activists letting go of the ludicrous attempt at redefinition of the word "marriage" in exchange for the support of their opposition to rush through homarriage civil union domestic partnerships in all 50 states and whatever's required federally.

    That's a win-win solution regarding the true goals of each side.

    You have a problem with that win-win solution that not only respects words and their meaning but really makes everyone reasonably happy?
    You're acting as though only the tiny minority of homosexuals are relevant to the debate. But quite obviously, most people who support SSM are not gay and are supporting it on moral grounds. Next, you pretend that what matters is comparing the numerical amount of homosexuals who want to redefine marriage to the people who don't, but that's a false comparison and is irrelevant. Then you act as though including SSM in the definition of marriage is wrong because the number of people who don't support SSM is greater than the homosexual population that does, even though you're ignoring the obvious and overriding fact that the majority of people in this country support SSM, even if they're straight. That means that, your irrelevant subset notwithstanding, more people will be happy with legalizing SSM than will be pissed off about it. You don't have a moral reason for opposing SSM, nor a legal reason, and even the public is not on your side anymore; so you have to make up the irrelevant arithmetic of "homosexuals approving of SSM" and "people who would be pissed off by SSM" and pretend that it's an argument.

    Not to mention the fact that the logic of your argument would fail you if applied to, say interracial marriage. After all, when interracial marriage was legalized throughout the nation in 1967, the subset of blacks and whites who would enjoy the benefits of getting married was minuscule, compared to the much larger segment of the population that was pissed off by it. Do you stand by the logical corollary of your argument; that blacks and whites should have fought for a state-by-state recognition of interracial civil unions without being marriage?

    You seem convinced that homarriage civil union domestic partnerships is a win-win. I don't know how many different ways to tell you the same thing, but it's only a win to your side. Do you understand that?

  6. #316
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    08-07-12 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    216

    Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    I'm sorry Miguel, I'm really not trying to insult you here, but you really need to bone up on history before you continue to post such outright inaccuracies. State referendums (initiatives) were not created in the few states that have them to "circumvent the constitution". They only hold sway in the state itself and have nothing to do with addressing the federal constitution. They are the way voters can directly vote on legislation (bypassing the state legislature) dealing with STATE law and STATE constitution. They are the reflection of the direct will of the people. There are pros and cons to that and that's why only a few states have enacted an initiative process.

    And no, the federal Constitution as written does not confer judicial review. That is a power the court took as Jefferson so rightly claimed.
    They were created because the laws that progressives wanted passed (at the time, things like alcohol prohibition and female suffrage) weren't going to get passed in the legislature. You know, the constitutionally established way to pass laws? So the progressives established initiatives to get these sorts of things passed. Establishing laws in states without going through the constitutionally established process in the legislature is what I would call "circumventing the constitution." Shall I explain this in minute detail to you, or do you understand how going passing laws in a way the constitution does not envisage means circumventing the constitution?

  7. #317
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    08-07-12 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    216

    Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    I'm sorry Miguel, I'm really not trying to insult you here, but you really need to bone up on history before you continue to post such outright inaccuracies. State referendums (initiatives) were not created in the few states that have them to "circumvent the constitution". They only hold sway in the state itself and have nothing to do with addressing the federal constitution. They are the way voters can directly vote on legislation (bypassing the state legislature) dealing with STATE law and STATE constitution. They are the reflection of the direct will of the people. There are pros and cons to that and that's why only a few states have enacted an initiative process.

    And no, the federal Constitution as written does not confer judicial review. That is a power the court took as Jefferson so rightly claimed.
    And I wasn't speaking about the constitution in a literalist sense. The right to privacy vis-a-vis Roe v. Wade isn't literally in the constitution, but it was interpreted as explicitly called for via corollary. I don't think anyone here is going to argue that the literal word of the constitution is the only sense in which it can call for anything.

    And no worries about the ad hominem attack. I'm quite confident you're capable of making arguments in a civilized way. There have been times when I could have made fun of you personally for saying such silly things as you have, but I'm not big on ad hominems. I suggest you stick to attacking my arguments.
    Last edited by Miguel17; 08-06-12 at 09:26 PM.

  8. #318
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

    Quote Originally Posted by Miguel17 View Post
    They were created because the laws that progressives wanted passed (at the time, things like alcohol prohibition and female suffrage) weren't going to get passed in the legislature. You know, the constitutionally established way to pass laws? So the progressives established initiatives to get these sorts of things passed. Establishing laws in states without going through the constitutionally established process in the legislature is what I would call "circumventing the constitution." Shall I explain this in minute detail to you, or do you understand how going passing laws in a way the constitution does not envisage means circumventing the constitution?
    Again, you have a spotty and unreliable view of history. We have no national referendum process (read that again and memorize it), so neither the initiative nor the referendum process has anything to do with alcohol prohibition or women's suffrage or any other FEDERAL law. There is a difference between the two btw (referendum and initiative are not interchangeable). Look it up.

    Neither process skirts the state's constitution because in every case those processes came about by amending the state's constitution to allow the process.

    My own state, Oregon, was the second to adopt the initiative and the referendum process (1902). We have been a model for all those that came after. It was actually called the Oregon System.
    Last edited by clownboy; 08-06-12 at 09:38 PM.

  9. #319
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    08-07-12 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    216

    Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Again, you have a spotty and unreliable view of history. We have no national referendum process (read that again and memorize it), so neither the initiative nor the referendum process has anything to do with alcohol prohibition or women's suffrage or any other FEDERAL law. There is a difference between the two btw (referendum and initiative are not interchangeable). Look it up.

    Neither process skirts the state's constitution because in every case those processes came about by amending the state's constitution to allow the process.
    The state initiatives were used to prohibit alcohol and grant women the right to vote. Do I need to pull out the historical evidence for you, or are you familiar with these episodes in our history?

    cir·cum·vent/ˌsərkəmˈvent/
    Verb:
    Find a way around (an obstacle).

    So you're saying that establishing state initiatives or referendums to pass or strike down laws did not entail not finding a way around (I gave you the definition to make sure we're on the same semantic page) the federal constitution, which confers upon state legislatures the power of passing or striking down laws? The fact that it conveys the will of the people is as true as it is irrelevant to my claim, which you seem intent upon attacking on semantic grounds instead of fighting the losing battle on SSM.

    By the way, did you jump off the sinking ship of the debate we were having twenty minutes ago? Are you still digging up that scientific evidence of your anecdotally based claims? Or did you give up on a losing argument and move onto another one?

  10. #320
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: If a man states I favor tradiional marriage does that make him a bigot or a homop

    Quote Originally Posted by Miguel17 View Post
    The state initiatives were used to prohibit alcohol and grant women the right to vote. Do I need to pull out the historical evidence for you, or are you familiar with these episodes in our history?
    Yes, you do. Show me where either the state initiative or the state referendum process was used to attempt either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Miguel17 View Post
    cir·cum·vent/ˌsərkəmˈvent/
    Verb:
    Find a way around (an obstacle).

    So you're saying that establishing state initiatives or referendums to pass or strike down laws did not entail not finding a way around (I gave you the definition to make sure we're on the same semantic page) the federal constitution, which confers upon state legislatures the power of passing or striking down laws? The fact that it conveys the will of the people is as true as it is irrelevant to my claim, which you seem intent upon attacking on semantic grounds instead of fighting the losing battle on SSM.
    That's exactly what I'm saying. Neither process is designed to circumvent the FEDERAL constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Miguel17 View Post
    By the way, did you jump off the sinking ship of the debate we were having twenty minutes ago? Are you still digging up that scientific evidence of your anecdotally based claims? Or did you give up on a losing argument and move onto another one?
    Which claims are you referring to? The debunked crap about polling being more accurate than actual voting results? That's already been provided for you. And btw, this little detour into the referendum and initiative processes doesn't help your point at all. Besides showing you have little knowledge of either (still haven't looked up the difference have you?), still confirms that the people, at the voting booth are against SSM in great number.
    Last edited by clownboy; 08-06-12 at 10:07 PM.

Page 32 of 44 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... 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
  •