• 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!

If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do [W:72,96,331

If there was a national vote on equal rights for gays what would you do?


  • Total voters
    133
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

I've yet to hear one single straight person explain how allowing two gay people to marry will have any direct effect on their life/marriage.

A simple and logical reason for that is because straight people won't be effected at all by SSM.

Just like allowing a black man to marry a white woman had no effect on millions of marriages.
Just like allowing a Jew to marry a Catholic had no effect on millions of marriages.
Just like allowing an Asian to marry someone from Ireland has no effect on millions of marriages.

The stance some people take against SSM boils down to ignorance, religious arrogance, and selfishness all rolled into one.

keep waiting because its never gonna happen they have all been debunked as far as legit reason to stop equal rights
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

I would go for a nation wide vote if the left would agree to the results...Would you lefties do that?

Should inter-racial marriage be put to a popular vote NP?
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

I wonder if the left would let the issue drop if there was a national vote....As a Conservative I would let it drop if the vote went against me....What say you left wingers, would you let it drop for good.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

cant answer for them but my guess is the majority of americans would not vote to violate peoples rights.

WHy would you want to vote to violate rights?

cant wait to hear this

Last time I checked we both have the same right. You want a special right.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

Last time I checked we both have the same right. You want a special right.

I think the point is an equal right.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

Last time I checked we both have the same right. You want a special right.


Actually no special right would exist as you also could Civilly Marry someone of the same gender. Right now though...
In some states...

Man can Civilly Marry Woman = Legal
Civil Marriage between the same sex = illegal​

So the treatment based on the gender composition of the couple is not treated the same.

In other states...

Man can Civilly Marry Woman = Legal
Civil Marriage between the same sex = Legal​


So you in reality you are asking that heterosexual retain an existing special right to Civilly Marry.


>>>>
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

Last time I checked we both have the same right. You want a special right.

Was it a "special right" when inter-racial couples sought the right to marry the person they love Navy? After all...at the time people like you would say that they had the "same right" to marry a person of their same race, just like everyone else. Right?
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

I wonder if the left would let the issue drop if there was a national vote....As a Conservative I would let it drop if the vote went against me....What say you left wingers, would you let it drop for good.

LOL....I call major BS here. You said the same thing about the military and DADT. You said, if the military changed their position you would accept it. THAT didn't last 24 hours before you were on this site crying to the world. You ain't fooling anyone NP.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

Last time I checked we both have the same right. You want a special right.

and last time i check that statement is factually wrong proven by rights, laws, court cases and court precedence..
so check again lol
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

and last time i check that statement is factually wrong proven by rights, laws, court cases and court precedence..
so check again lol
I suspect that NP disagrees with the court cases, and court precedence (same thing, I think? Prior court cases ARE court precedence), and disagrees with the interpretation you are using for the laws.

You can't prove rights by pointing to said rights though, that's just crazy. If you meant a specific understanding of rights, quantified by the "laws, court cases, and court precedence" you mention, then I suspect NP disagrees with that understanding of said rights.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

1.)I suspect that NP disagrees with the court cases, and court precedence (same thing, I think? Prior court cases ARE court precedence)
2.), and disagrees with the interpretation you are using for the laws.

3.)You can't prove rights by pointing to said rights though, that's just crazy. If you meant a specific understanding of rights, quantified by the "laws, court cases, and court precedence" you mention, then I suspect NP disagrees with that understanding of said rights.

1.) he can disagree all he wants nobody cares facts remain :)
2.) not my interpretation its again, case law
3.) again he can disagree all he wants, his opinions dont matter to facts
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

1.) he can disagree all he wants nobody cares facts remain :)
2.) not my interpretation its again, case law
3.) again he can disagree all he wants, his opinions dont matter to facts
FFS do you cite some ambiguous "facts" for everything?
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

and last time i check that statement is factually wrong proven by rights, laws, court cases and court precedence..
so check again lol

I'm sorry, since you keep claiming this is a "fact"...are you suggesting that there are no court cases, laws, and precedence suggesting what you call "equal rights" isn't protected?

You seem to be cherry picking laws and court cases and proclaiming only those you cherry pick as "facts".

For example, Sevcik v. Sandoval and Jackson v. Ambercrombie disagree with your claim, that's a "fact".

Right now there's conflicting laws, court cases, and precedences regarding "equal rights" as you term it...so claiming one part of it as "FACT" is really nothing but over inflating the worth of your OPINION.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

FFS do you cite some ambiguous "facts" for everything?

theres only one way to understand a fact that leaves it as fact ;)
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

theres only one way to understand a fact that leaves it as fact ;)
Then there are no facts.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

1.)I'm sorry, since you keep claiming this is a "fact"...
2.) are you suggesting that there are no court cases, laws, and precedence suggesting what you call "equal rights" isn't protected?
3.)You seem to be cherry picking laws and court cases and proclaiming only those you cherry pick as "facts".
4.)For example, Sevcik v. Sandoval and Jackson v. Ambercrombie disagree with your claim, that's a "fact".
5.) Right now there's conflicting laws, court cases, and precedences regarding "equal rights" as you term it...so claiming one part of it as "FACT" is really nothing but over inflating the worth of your OPINION.

1.) yes i do and will continue to do so since im going off of the most recent court rulings/precedent :shrug:
2.) nope not at all, in many places these things havent be challenged and in some im sure theres even older ruling where they didnt rule its equal rights just like there were for women and minorities
3.) nope only going by the recent ones that actually all say equality/equal rights
4.) yes im aware of that case that is under appeal :shrug: I have a tracker that i post around that keeps track of some cases but mostly i mention complete cases or stayed cases. Theres sooooooo much going on on this equal rights front its hard to keep up so i dont post everything and have only really been posting recent updates and or appeals.

If im not mistaken his claim was that he doesnt view this as heightened scrutiny and even made reference to an older case. 1989 maybe or 90

Jackson v. Ambercrombie im not familiar with, at least not that i remember that might be the case that along with Sevcik v. Sandoval that the APA supplied backing for equal rights for best on thier medical expertise (if being gay is a choice) but please dont quote me on that as im not sure.

6.) except my opinion plays no role at all, its simply restating what those court cases stated and that was that it is a discrimination and equality issue :shrug: thats not my opinion, thats what those cases said and thats a fact.

now if you like i can start quoting the other cases also and say what ever thier current status is and what state they affect Nevada (Sevcik v. Sandoval being appealed, judge didnt feel sexuality fits higher scrutiny standards) Ill have to look up the Jackson v. Ambercrombie one though because like i said i dont think i know that one unless its the one with a very similar ruling of the Sevcik v. Sandoval case that the APA didnt like and if it was that wa HAwaii where equal rights for gays exist now based on thier Hawaii marriage equality act which was challenged and judged dismissed the challenge and said the bill was constitutionally sound.

EDIT: wanted to add and make it clear, if i was right about guessing thats the hawaii case i was NOT suggesting that case was eventually ruled on for equality and thats way Hawaii has equal rights, equal rights was obtained in hawaii by legislation, not that case but the bill was definitely based on equal rights and ending illegal discrimination, just didnt want a misunderstanding.
 
Last edited:
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

Then there are no facts.

ah but there are
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

Even as I think far too much time and effort are spent on this so-called "gay" problem, it is uplifting that nearly 80% of us favor equal rights...and I am certain this is far better that . . . . -say - 20 years ago.
We have progressed , and rather quickly...
We have entered the 20th century, at least 80% of us....
The other 20% can regress to the 1600s , they are in a shrinking minority..




Where there's life, there's hope.

As long as they're living and breathing there's always the chance that they will join the reality based world.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

ah but there are
Nope, none.

All just stuff we crazy humans made up to make us feel better, and use to punish and/or ridicule those we don't agree with.


But more seriously....

Nothing is absolute (except this statement).

Thus, all "facts" are subject to change given new information, and subject to new interpretations given a different viewpoint.

Hell, most of the ideas we base our lives on are only theories.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

1.)Nope, none.

All just stuff we crazy humans made up to make us feel better, and use to punish and/or ridicule those we don't agree with.


2.) But more seriously....Nothing is absolute (except this statement).

3.)Thus, all "facts" are subject to change given new information, and subject to new interpretations given a different viewpoint.

4.)Hell, most of the ideas we base our lives on are only theories.

1.)that some neat philosophy
2.) you proved yourself wrong :)
3.) facts can change if info proves them wrong
interpretations to facts are just wrong interpretations

4.) i dont know about most thats pretty subjective but yes we do base our lives off many theories
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

1.)that some neat philosophy
2.) you proved yourself wrong :)
3.) facts can change if info proves them wrong
interpretations to facts are just wrong interpretations

4.) i dont know about most thats pretty subjective but yes we do base our lives off many theories
Everything we do is based off of interpretations of data. Sometimes, said data is factual for certain values of the term.

You're saying they're all wrong interpretations?

Everything is based on a lie?
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

1.)Everything we do is based off of interpretations of data. Sometimes, said data is factual for certain values of the term.

2.)You're saying they're all wrong interpretations?

3.)Everything is based on a lie?

1.) correct
2.) nope never even suggest anything like that
3.) see #2
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

Ah, excellent.
You did, right here:

Same.

nope thats nothing like what you said :shrug:
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

nope thats nothing like what you said :shrug:
How does "interpretations to(of?) facts are just wrong interpretations" NOT mean that?

I read it as you saying that all interpretations of facts are wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom