• 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!

Obama, in stand for gay rights, calls for repeal of DOMA

Aderleth said:
All of your links are about attempts to ban the presence of Sharia in US courts, not about Muslims trying to get Sharia to replace our legal system. There are lots of contexts in which Sharia is relevant or necessary for the functioning of our legal system as it is now, in much the same way that the principles of many religions are relevant to certain types of legal proceedings. I've already pointed out two of them:
1) Sharia is relevant to the mental state of certain Muslims accused of crimes. This does not mean that Sharia is infiltrating our criminal justice system, it means that as part of the factual analysis that juries are called upon to perform, they need to look at all the relevant evidence. Similarly, a court may look to the religious beliefs of, say, a Christian, or a Hindu to the extent that those beliefs informed the mental state of the individual in question.
2) Arbitration proceedings - if two people agree between themselves to apply Sharia to, say, a contract, that's their business, and also has no impact on our legal system.
I'm now going to add a third one, raised by one of your articles:
3) Wills. People can, and should be able to set up their wills however the hell they want to. If someone wants to bequeath his estate in accordance with Sharia edict, that's his business. People of other faiths do this all the time.

In short, you really don't know what you're talking about, but you might want to review your own articles more thoroughly. I'll leave you with a relevant quote from the last one:

"While Muslim groups are angry about the Oklahoma referendum, leaders of their community say the way the U.S. currently handles matters pertaining to Sharia law is fine."
Click to expand...

So then explain why Muslims are suing to stop the laws
 
Redress said:
Whoopps it is dodging a question you cannot answer, conceding the point that you where wrong.
Click to expand...

I do not respond to mods. We have a mod that abuses power so I respond to no mods. You already know that
 
ptif219 said:
No it was a hit piece on the conservative media.
Click to expand...

Yes, they did show the right wing media to be liars in that video. That was only about 1 minute of the video though. Did you watch the rest or did you just close it the moment you realized it wasn't created by a member of your party?
 
SlackMaster said:
That looks to me like you're incapable of responding to the arguments in the video.
Click to expand...

hell I didnt even watch the video but in this thread he has been cable of responding to any arguments or facts with anything logical. Everything he has tried has been thrown in his face or his logic used against him to prove he is wrong LOL He hasnt been able to back up much of anything. Every time he just deflects, ignores that he is wrong or brings up a meaningless non-related point. Its weird, but its also pretty funny.
 
ptif219 said:
You mean like a city giving gays more money to pay federal taxes
Click to expand...

How is that different than giving heterosexuals more money to pay federal taxes?

I mean that it might be argued that a polygamist can take advantage of the tax code by taking multiple wives, circumventing any tax responsibility by grabbing up as many tax exemptions (aka wives) as possible.
 
ptif219 said:
Equal rights for a lifestyle choice? That is not what rights are about.
Click to expand...

Every "right" is about choice. Every law is about limiting choices.

The 2nd Amendment grants the right to bear arms. It doesn't force people to own a gun. It doesn't force someone to shoot another person. Laws against murder prevent you from choosing to shoot someone you don't like.

The 1st Amendment grants freedom of religion, it doesn't force people to choose a religion. It grants freedom of speech, it doesn't force people to say any thing. It grants freedom of assembly, it doesn't force people to assemble.

Even if being gay is a choice (and most don't believe it is), this nation is a nation of freedom and the freedom to choose the way you live your life up to the point that the way you live your life has a negative impact on the rights of others. Who someone chooses to marry has no negative impact on your life or anyone else's.

Eliminating DOMA doesn't force you to do anything. You can still think gays are icky people all you like. You do not have to attend a gay wedding or give gay couples wedding gifts. You don't even have to acknowledge that they are married (just as the Catholic Church doesn't acknowledge second marriages if their member gets divorced).

The
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Every "right" is about choice.
Click to expand...
That depends on what you consider to be a "right." As you point out, the "right to free speech" is secured by the 1st amendment which says the Government cannot infringe on that right. So yes, you could say the right to free speech protects individual choice.

But we also recognize a "right to education" that in effect secures an entitlement based on a moral/societal belief in the importance of education. It's hard to see how this right protects choice - on the contrary, it limits choice in that it burdens the population to provide this benefit (it conflicts with our right to liberty).

The right to free speech derives from natural law and protects from the actions of others, whereas the right to education derives from legislation and puts obligations on others.

FilmFestGuy said:
Even if being gay is a choice (and most don't believe it is), this nation is a nation of freedom and the freedom to choose the way you live your life up to the point that the way you live your life has a negative impact on the rights of others. Who someone chooses to marry has no negative impact on your life or anyone else's.
Click to expand...
This is indeed a nation of freedom, and if we take to heart the natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, there should be no barrier to a homosexual relationship of any sort so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

But those natural freedoms don't grant a right to civil marriage, which (like the right to education), is a moral/social creation that grants certain benefits and protections. By its very definition, civil marriage in fact does "force" people to do a lot of things in that they are required by law to respect that right. Whether or not it has a negative impact on anyone's life seems largely irrelevant from a legal perspective.

Thus,
Equal rights for a lifestyle choice based on "freedom to choose the way you live your life up to the point that the way you live your life has a negative impact on the rights of others" exists right now, unless you know of any laws prohibiting such activity.

When it comes to equal rights for a civil right to marriage, however, "freedom to choose the way you live your life" provides no more justification for gay marriage than it does for a wealthy white man to claim rights to affirmative action.
 
ptif219 said:
No hetrosexuals will not enter a gay marriage.

The law was changed because people make a lifestyle choice. Should we also pass sharia law because muslims want it?
Click to expand...

Sure some heterosexuals will enter into same sex marriages, for the same reasons that openly gay men and women enter into opposite sex marriages now and the same reasons that people who don't love each other still get married now, because the marriage will somehow benefit one or both parties.

I know some people who would get married to someone they didn't love intimately, even someone of the same sex, just because the marriage would benefit the two of them in some way or another, either financially, emotionally, or both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom