View Poll Results: What is same sex marriage?

Voters
192. You may not vote on this poll
  • A special right

    109 56.77%
  • Equal protection

    62 32.29%
  • Other

    21 10.94%
Page 93 of 98 FirstFirst ... 43839192939495 ... LastLast
Results 921 to 930 of 976

Thread: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

  1. #921
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,516

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    So what? Marriage laws don't discriminate based on sexuality. They discriminate based on sex. There is no law out there that says, "Two gays cannot marry each others." The law states that only a man can marry a woman.
    But it is OK to discriminate as long as you agree with it. Everyone is in agreement with that so far.

    PS that also would depend in the state you are in.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 01-19-11 at 01:04 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  2. #922
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    What does this have to do with my statement?

    PS Gender has nothing to do with polygamy and it would also fall under a much higher tier "religion."
    First off, had you not intentionally ignored my post on how polygamy is detrimental to society, you would not have made the ignorant statement you made above.

    Second, I was making an argument as to why same sex marriage was Constitutional, not polygamy. Had you read my post you would realized such, but it seems you have become an antagonist rather than a legitimate debater.

  3. #923
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,994

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Interesting? Please point out where I said any of this? I said it was an example of laws getting complicated, nothing more.
    Point me where I said laws weren't allowed to be complicated. I just simply stated that not needlessly entering into a complicated and resource draining action was a legitimate state interest. That is different then saying the government can never enter into complicated and resource draining actions.

    See, if you're arguing for a law to be passed legalizing polygamy...well, go ahead. I'm all for you doing that, I'm all for people trying to pass a law to make gay marriage legalized. My arguments got jack **** to do with a law, its got to do with constitutionality. To get the law changed based on discrimination its gotta not reach the level of scrutiny needed. The fact that LAWS are passed that are complicated and resource draining is irrelevant to that because the very nature of them passing deems them necessary. If you're needing the courts to overturn it then the necessity is not nearly as high. Now, if this was talking about race...it wouldn't matter, because it'd still not meet the level of scrutiny needed. But since polygamist is bottom tier at best, there just needs to be a rational reason put forth of a legitimate state interest...and not completely rewriting huge amounts of law IS a legitimate interest of the state.

    To put it another way. Is it in the states interest...not asking if its fair, if its right, if its okay, if you agree, if its mean, if its hateful, if its bigoted, or anything else...is it in the states interest to not have to rewrite heaps of legal and tax law?

    If your answer is "no", its not in the states interest...I'd love an explanation specificlaly of how.

    No proof exists to this day being gay is hard wired, no more than any other sexual orientation really. No "gay gene" exists. So now it is OK to discriminate if something is more likely as well? Wow! Thanks for filling me in.
    Far more proof is available suggesting that's likely the case then there is for polygamy being as such, which is why I said that there's a far more likely chance of one of them becoming higher tier in the future then the other.

    My argument has not, will not, and does not have anything to do with sexual orientation in regards to it. While I recognize a higher likelihood that it will be added to a higher level of scrutiny under the EPC at some time sooner than polygamy would be...its not NOW. So my arguments NOW, under constitutional law as it stands NOW, has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation and everything to do with Sex.

    Hmmm... nothing but a personal attack because you know you really have no real argument, and you don't.
    No, I have an argument. You are confusing my posts apparently with your own, which is no real argument, but rather a worthless parody of other peoples arguments.

  4. #924
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    But it is OK to discriminate as long as you agree with it. Everyone is in agreement with that so far.

    PS that also would depend in the state you are in.
    Once again, I pointed out exactly why polygamy is objectively detrimental to society and same sex marriage is not. You simply intentionally ignored the post because it challenged your rant.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1059226140
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 01-19-11 at 01:11 AM.

  5. #925
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,994

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    OK and this backs up my argument, thanks.




    What does this have to do with my statement?

    PS Gender has nothing to do with polygamy and it would also fall under a much higher tier "religion."
    The law can't discriminate against religion...IE you can't allow a Catholic to get married but a Mormon can't.

    It is not about religious beliefs being given government benefit. Marriage, under the government, is 100% non-religious. It is a secular contract under a secular government. If three radical Mormon's attempted to get married under their church and never once attempted to make any legal notation of it, there's no problem there. If the government someone did something to them for their private religious beliefs, then there'd be a constitutional issue. However, there's no discrimination in not letting them be recognized legally as such, because the governments marriage is not adhering to any particular religion.

  6. #926
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    The law can't discriminate against religion...IE you can't allow a Catholic to get married but a Mormon can't.

    It is not about religious beliefs being given government benefit. Marriage, under the government, is 100% non-religious. It is a secular contract under a secular government. If three radical Mormon's attempted to get married under their church and never once attempted to make any legal notation of it, there's no problem there. If the government someone did something to them for their private religious beliefs, then there'd be a constitutional issue. However, there's no discrimination in not letting them be recognized legally as such, because the governments marriage is not adhering to any particular religion.
    He is not listening so I don't know why you are bothering.

  7. #927
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,994

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    The "it's to complicated" argument has been refuted using historical precedent, sorry will not float.
    You realize that just saying it doesn't make it true. Actual arguments have been put forth showing why you're wrong. All you've done is essentially go "BUT THE BLACKS", showing absolutely no way how it references this at all, and then declared yourself a winner.

  8. #928
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,994

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    But it is OK to discriminate as long as you agree with it. Everyone is in agreement with that so far.
    And here is where you're showing you're either completely and utterly ignorant of the law, absolutely ignoring EVERYONES posts, or just playing dumb.

    NO ONE is saying you cant discriminate "as long as you agree with it".

    They are saying its okay to discriminate as long as it fits within the confines of the rules set forth from the Equal Protection Clause and the constitutional rulings based on it. This has been explained to you in general terms, in more specific terms, and even fully and utterly laid out to you. If you want to continue to put forward this BS, be my guest, but its just making you look nothing but foolish and stubborn rather than someone whose in the least attempting any kind of legitimate debate. Its been restated to you over and over again with you not bothering to even address its substance once.

  9. #929
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,994

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    He is not listening so I don't know why you are bothering.
    Indeed, and with that, I'm off to bed.

  10. #930
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,516

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Point me where I said laws weren't allowed to be complicated.
    Never said that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I just simply stated that not needlessly entering into a complicated and resource draining action was a legitimate state interest. That is different then saying the government can never enter into complicated and resource draining actions.
    I know. This however does not have anything to do with you accusing me of saying "Obama care has zero to do with the equal protection clause nor discrimination under the law and its constitutionality nor with the levels of scrutiny under the 14th amendment." You have yet to point out where I said it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    See, if you're arguing for a law to be passed legalizing polygamy...well, go ahead. I'm all for you doing that, I'm all for people trying to pass a law to make gay marriage legalized. My arguments got jack **** to do with a law, its got to do with constitutionality. To get the law changed based on discrimination its gotta not reach the level of scrutiny needed. The fact that LAWS are passed that are complicated and resource draining is irrelevant to that because the very nature of them passing deems them necessary. If you're needing the courts to overturn it then the necessity is not nearly as high. Now, if this was talking about race...it wouldn't matter, because it'd still not meet the level of scrutiny needed. But since polygamist is bottom tier at best, there just needs to be a rational reason put forth of a legitimate state interest...and not completely rewriting huge amounts of law IS a legitimate interest of the state.
    No it's not. It would be covered under religion. That is higher than any low tier "gender" argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    To put it another way. Is it in the states interest...not asking if its fair, if its right, if its okay, if you agree, if its mean, if its hateful, if its bigoted, or anything else...is it in the states interest to not have to rewrite heaps of legal and tax law?
    If it ends discrimination, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    If your answer is "no", its not in the states interest...I'd love an explanation specificlaly of how.

    Far more proof is available suggesting that's likely the case then there is for polygamy being as such, which is why I said that there's a far more likely chance of one of them becoming higher tier in the future then the other.

    My argument has not, will not, and does not have anything to do with sexual orientation in regards to it. While I recognize a higher likelihood that it will be added to a higher level of scrutiny under the EPC at some time sooner than polygamy would be...its not NOW. So my arguments NOW, under constitutional law as it stands NOW, has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation and everything to do with Sex.
    You already said all of this already. I understand, no need to repeat. It does not change anything though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    No, I have an argument. You are confusing my posts apparently with your own, which is no real argument, but rather a worthless parody of other peoples arguments.
    OK, if you think so.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

Page 93 of 98 FirstFirst ... 43839192939495 ... 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
  •