• 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!

Wash. has enough votes to legalize gay marriage

kamikaze483 said:
You have to be kidding me, right? If it is genetic, therefore it is a disease? I bet you don't consider your green eyes a disease. LOL. Or your heterosexuality. And what are you doing talking to many, many homosexuals? LOL. Does your wife know? :)



And most religions consider divorce a sin. And sodomy- even if you are married. And in fundamental Christianity, all sins are equal, whether you lie or commit a murder. All "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Romans 8:28 I think)" so if everyone sins, and all sins are equal, where is the difference between me and you?

I'm gay but I am not an activist. I'm pretty right leaning actually, except with regard to social issues... but I completely reject anyone's notion that the federal government should be involved in this discussion at all. It should be left to the states. We don't need ANY new laws. We just need to repeal old ones. We have over governed at the federal level. If states choose to be intolerant, that's ok with me. I'm gay and I live in Georgia- by choice. And I'm getting married to my partner of three years this summer. Marriage, to us, has absolutely nothing to do with the government. Who cares what they say.
Click to expand...

I disagree that the state of Georgia has any right to discriminate on the basis of gender. I don't see Georgia as being any more justified in preventing two women from marrying than they are from preventing two women from voting. "Marriage is a basic civil right of man, fundamental to our very existence," says the supreme court. Hell, it's more important than voting, going by that.
 
hazlnut said:
Luckily our constitution calls for separation of church and state.

Therefore your beliefs and mythologies have no business at the marriage license window at city hall.
Click to expand...

We do not live in a theocracy, hazlnut. Remember...its, the government of the United States (of the People, by the People and for the People)
 
kamikaze483 said:
You have to be kidding me, right? If it is genetic, therefore it is a disease? I bet you don't consider your green eyes a disease. LOL. Or your heterosexuality. And what are you doing talking to many, many homosexuals? LOL. Does your wife know? :)



And most religions consider divorce a sin. And sodomy- even if you are married. And in fundamental Christianity, all sins are equal, whether you lie or commit a murder. All "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Romans 8:28 I think)" so if everyone sins, and all sins are equal, where is the difference between me and you?

I'm gay but I am not an activist. I'm pretty right leaning actually, except with regard to social issues... but I completely reject anyone's notion that the federal government should be involved in this discussion at all. It should be left to the states. We don't need ANY new laws. We just need to repeal old ones. We have over governed at the federal level. If states choose to be intolerant, that's ok with me. I'm gay and I live in Georgia- by choice. And I'm getting married to my partner of three years this summer. Marriage, to us, has absolutely nothing to do with the government. Who cares what they say.
Click to expand...

I was with you up until you said "leave it up to the states." I think gay marriage should be legalized across the board, both because I believe it's the right thing to do and for consistency's sake. It would be a bitch for a couple's marriage to be recognized in one state and not recognized in another if they choose to move for whatever reason. And what about military couples, whose spousal benefits are determined and disbursed by the federal government?
 
ric27 said:
We do not live in a theocracy, hazlnut. Remember...its, the government of the United States (of the People, by the People and for the People)
Click to expand...

And gay people are in fact, people too.
 
ric27 said:
We do not live in a theocracy, hazlnut. Remember...its, the government of the United States (of the People, by the People and for the People)
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why religious arguments regarding homosexuality should be disregarded entirely. It's nice to see that some conservatives understand that :)
 
Deuce said:
Which is exactly why religious arguments regarding homosexuality should be disregarded entirely. It's nice to see that some conservatives understand that :)
Click to expand...

Well, in fairness, I think this is one of those situations that illuminates the difference between separation of church and state and separation of religion and politics. I completely respect a person's right to vote on the issues according to those beliefs. Now I may not buy their rationale/arguments for the way they choose to vote, but they should have a right to vote according to their own beliefs. It's just incumbent upon the rest of us to change their minds if that's what it's gonna take.
 
winston53660 said:
They not from Uranus?


j.k j/k j/k j/k
Click to expand...

I wish I were gay. So much easier to get laid. And for women? I mean, come on. Women are hot. Who wouldn't choose to be attracted to women? Being gay a choice? Hah, if that were true we'd all be gay.
 
Deuce said:
I wish I were gay. So much easier to get laid. And for women? I mean, come on. Women are hot. Who wouldn't choose to be attracted to women? Being gay a choice? Hah, if that were true we'd all be gay.
Click to expand...

LOL I've had the same thoughts before.
 
Deuce said:
I wish I were gay. So much easier to get laid. And for women? I mean, come on. Women are hot. Who wouldn't choose to be attracted to women? Being gay a choice? Hah, if that were true we'd all be gay.
Click to expand...

Can't say the same. I'm not man enough to take it up the ass.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Well, in fairness, I think this is one of those situations that illuminates the difference between separation of church and state and separation of religion and politics. I completely respect a person's right to vote on the issues according to those beliefs. Now I may not buy their rationale/arguments for the way they choose to vote, but they should have a right to vote according to their own beliefs. It's just incumbent upon the rest of us to change their minds if that's what it's gonna take.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Separation of Church and State means that state laws will not be based on religious laws. No matter how many people choose to vote for it because of their religion, bacon should never be banned in this country. If you want to take away a right of mine, you must demonstrate a secular reason for doing so, based on how that activity might cause harm to others.

StillBallin75 said:
Can't say the same. I'm not man enough to take it up the ass.
Click to expand...

But if you were gay you might think it was the greatest thing ever! Think of how awesome THAT would be.
 
Deuce said:
Which is exactly why religious arguments regarding homosexuality should be disregarded entirely. It's nice to see that some conservatives understand that :)
Click to expand...


Lets try and get things straight here. Here is a basic, biological standard. Any form of sex other than heterosexual, vaginal sex between fertile adults is an aberration to one degree or another. A liking or desire for any other kind of sex is a "defect" whether it is learned behavior or genetic.

I'm using fairly strong terms to get the point across. If we're being strictly honest here, getting a blowjob or a rim job may be a great fun moment, but it doesn't procreate the species. Everything other than the basic is allowed, encouraged or discouraged based on cultural norms. That makes them subjectively, not objectively good or bad. I find the behavior to be abhorrent

That said...If they don't flaunt their sexual preferences or practices. It is a part of their life, but not what the primary. Same for me. So in my book, that makes us people and we get along with no problems. In this respect, we are complying with our societal norms.

No problem
 
Deuce said:
I disagree that the state of Georgia has any right to discriminate on the basis of gender. I don't see Georgia as being any more justified in preventing two women from marrying than they are from preventing two women from voting. "Marriage is a basic civil right of man, fundamental to our very existence," says the supreme court. Hell, it's more important than voting, going by that.
Click to expand...

StillBallin75 said:
I was with you up until you said "leave it up to the states." I think gay marriage should be legalized across the board, both because I believe it's the right thing to do and for consistency's sake. It would be a bitch for a couple's marriage to be recognized in one state and not recognized in another if they choose to move for whatever reason. And what about military couples, whose spousal benefits are determined and disbursed by the federal government?
Click to expand...

Obviously there is that inconsistency currently. I you are gay and marry in DC (the closest place to Georgia where it is legal) your marriage is not a marriage in the eyes of the State of Georgia. I hold drastically different views than most gay people. I think intolerance should be tolerated. If you don't like it, move to another state. I have that choice. I choose not to.

People have the right to be intolerant. And if there are enough intolerent people in a certain state, and they don't wish for their state to issue marriage licenses to SS couples, that's just how the process works. And if the process is left alone, it will work. People choose. And progress comes. I just believe there is some value in moderating progress. A whole country full of liberals would be end up being a country that is far from free- a country so dependent on their government that freedom is less important than basic subsistence. The intolerent people are the people who are holding the country back from moving too fast toward social and financial progressiveness (which is not necessarily the same as progress). The ebb and flow- the resistance of the people to change- is one of the ways this country has prevented major mistakes and has survived and flourished.

Change will come in time. I don't believe in rushing it by means of federal intervention. States rights are far more important and far reaching than the issue of SSM.
 
ric27 said:
Lets try and get things straight here. Here is a basic, biological standard. Any form of sex other than heterosexual, vaginal sex between fertile adults is an aberration to one degree or another. A liking or desire for any other kind of sex is a "defect" whether it is learned behavior or genetic.

I'm using fairly strong terms to get the point across. If we're being strictly honest here, getting a blowjob or a rim job may be a great fun moment, but it doesn't procreate the species. Everything other than the basic is allowed, encouraged or discouraged based on cultural norms. That makes them subjectively, not objectively good or bad. I find the behavior to be abhorrent

That said...If they don't flaunt their sexual preferences or practices. It is a part of their life, but not what the primary. Same for me. So in my book, that makes us people and we get along with no problems. In this respect, we are complying with our societal norms.

No problem
Click to expand...

No it's not. At least not necessarily for those reasons. You have arbitrarily attached the labels of "aberration" and "defect" to homosexuality based on a bull**** assumption about the nature of sexual behavior and human biology.
 
kamikaze483 said:
Obviously there is that inconsistency currently. I you are gay and marry in DC (the closest place to Georgia where it is legal) your marriage is not a marriage in the eyes of the State of Georgia. I hold drastically different views than most gay people. I think intolerance should be tolerated. If you don't like it, move to another state. I have that choice. I choose not to.

People have the right to be intolerant. And if there are enough intolerent people in a certain state, and they don't wish for their state to issue marriage licenses to SS couples, that's just how the process works. And if the process is left alone, it will work. People choose. And progress comes. I just believe there is some value in moderating progress. A whole country full of liberals would be end up being a country that is far from free- a country so dependent on their government that freedom is less important than basic subsistence. The intolerent people are the people who are holding the country back from moving too fast toward social and financial progressiveness (which is not necessarily the same as progress). The ebb and flow- the resistance of the people to change- is one of the ways this country has prevented major mistakes and has survived and flourished.

Change will come in time. I don't believe in rushing it by means of federal intervention. States rights are far more important and far reaching than the issue of SSM.
Click to expand...

I think that's true up to an extent. Hence the whole notion of the importance of minority rights vs. that of majority rule. I see the explicit banning of SSM on the part of the states as a clear breach of the 14th Amendment.
 
ric27 said:
Lets try and get things straight here. Here is a basic, biological standard. Any form of sex other than heterosexual, vaginal sex between fertile adults is an aberration to one degree or another. A liking or desire for any other kind of sex is a "defect" whether it is learned behavior or genetic.

I'm using fairly strong terms to get the point across. If we're being strictly honest here, getting a blowjob or a rim job may be a great fun moment, but it doesn't procreate the species. Everything other than the basic is allowed, encouraged or discouraged based on cultural norms. That makes them subjectively, not objectively good or bad. I find the behavior to be abhorrent

That said...If they don't flaunt their sexual preferences or practices. It is a part of their life, but not what the primary. Same for me. So in my book, that makes us people and we get along with no problems. In this respect, we are complying with our societal norms.

No problem
Click to expand...

By that logic, heterosexual sex with a condom on is also an aberration. Should it be illegal? It doesn't procreate the species. How about an infertile couple? Their sex does not procreate the species. And this is all forgetting that sex and marriage are not the same thing. (ask any married man) Two dudes can already **** eachother. They already have that right. We're not discussing the right to gay sex, we're discussing the right to gay marriage.


kamikaze483 said:
Obviously there is that inconsistency currently. I you are gay and marry in DC (the closest place to Georgia where it is legal) your marriage is not a marriage in the eyes of the State of Georgia. I hold drastically different views than most gay people. I think intolerance should be tolerated. If you don't like it, move to another state. I have that choice. I choose not to.

People have the right to be intolerant. And if there are enough intolerent people in a certain state, and they don't wish for their state to issue marriage licenses to SS couples, that's just how the process works. And if the process is left alone, it will work. People choose. And progress comes. I just believe there is some value in moderating progress. A whole country full of liberals would be end up being a country that is far from free- a country so dependent on their government that freedom is less important than basic subsistence. The intolerent people are the people who are holding the country back from moving too fast toward social and financial progressiveness (which is not necessarily the same as progress). The ebb and flow- the resistance of the people to change- is one of the ways this country has prevented major mistakes and has survived and flourished.

Change will come in time. I don't believe in rushing it by means of federal intervention. States rights are far more important and far reaching than the issue of SSM.
Click to expand...

People have the right to be intolerant, they do not have the right to state sponsorship of their intolerance.

Do states have the right to discriminate on the basis of gender? So, if Georgia wants to ban women from voting, that's ok?
 
Good for Washington. If that's the will of the people then more power to them.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I think that's true up to an extent. Hence the whole notion of the importance of minority rights vs. that of majority rule. I see the explicit banning of SSM on the part of the states as a clear breach of the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

What are the privileges and immunities? The thing is... there is the Constitution, and then there is the interpretation of it in case law and precedent. The interpretation (case law) is almost as important as the Constitution itself as the case law defines what was intended in the Constitution. I believe the privileges and immunities were intended to refer to those previously referred to in the earlier parts of the document.

I'm playing devil's advocate here. But, for instance, if the Supreme Court found that SSM was a "privilege" protected under the 14th ammendment, this opens the door for all kinds of applications across the country. People could just about get away with whatever- people marrying their brothers, people having multiple wives. I say I'm playing devil's advocate because I don't give a damn if someone has 16 wives and two of them are his sisters. But decisions like that have far reaching implications. This is one reason why I think things that should be left for the states.

It isn't a bad argument though- but the current interpretation of the 14th ammendment is that everything in the first section of the ammendment is subject to due process, ie. there must be due process before one can be deprived of life, liberty, property... or of "priveleges and immunities." I think due process is being provided on this issue.

(For the record, I believe that the due process clause was only meant to apply to life, liberty, and property. This means the government can't kill you, lock you up, or take your **** without affording due process. I don't think it was meant to apply to the privileges and immunities listed earlier in the section.)

Deuce said:
By that logic, heterosexual sex with a condom on is also an aberration. Should it be illegal? It doesn't procreate the species. How about an infertile couple? Their sex does not procreate the species. And this is all forgetting that sex and marriage are not the same thing. (ask any married man) Two dudes can already **** eachother. They already have that right. We're not discussing the right to gay sex, we're discussing the right to gay marriage.

Another reason this argument doesn't work well. To make this procreation argument without being a hypocrit, you would never be able to have sex with your wife or husband unless you were trying to have a baby. BS. That isn't even what the Bible says sex is supposed to be. It is supposed to be a sacred joining of two people. It does not have to be about procreation.




People have the right to be intolerant, they do not have the right to state sponsorship of their intolerance.

Do states have the right to discriminate on the basis of gender? So, if Georgia wants to ban women from voting, that's ok?
Click to expand...

If a state decided to ban women from voting in statewide elections, I think that would be up to the people of that state as to whether or not they would stand for it. It would not pass the state legislature in any state. But for the sake of argument, yes. If the State chose to do that and that law represented the will of the people in that state (otherwise the legislature would be unseated and replaced and the law would be repealed), then that is a right of that State in my mind. Obviously, in federal elections they must be permitted to vote.
 
Last edited:
kamikaze483 said:
What are the privileges and immunities? The thing is... there is the Constitution, and then there is the interpretation of it in case law and precedent. The interpretation (case law) is almost as important as the Constitution itself as the case law defines what was intended in the Constitution. I believe the privileges and immunities were intended to refer to those previously referred to in the earlier parts of the document.

I'm playing devil's advocate here. But, for instance, if the Supreme Court found that SSM was a "privilege" protected under the 14th ammendment, this opens the door for all kinds of applications across the country. People could just about get away with whatever- people marrying their brothers, people having multiple wives. I say I'm playing devil's advocate because I don't give a damn if someone has 16 wives and two of them are his sisters. But decisions like that have far reaching implications. This is one reason why I think things that should be left for the states.

It isn't a bad argument though- but the current interpretation of the 14th ammendment is that everything in the first section of the ammendment is subject to due process, ie. there must be due process before one can be deprived of life, liberty, property... or of "priveleges and immunities." I think due process is being provided on this issue.

(For the record, I believe that the due process clause was only meant to apply to life, liberty, and property. This means the government can't kill you, lock you up, or take your **** without affording due process. I don't think it was meant to apply to the privileges and immunities listed earlier in the section.)



If a state decided to ban women from voting in statewide elections, I think that would be up to the people of that state as to whether or not they would stand for it. It would not pass the state legislature in any state. But for the sake of argument, yes. If the State chose to do that and that law represented the will of the people in that state (otherwise the legislature would be unseated and replaced and the law would be repealed), then that is a right of that State in my mind. Obviously, in federal elections they must be permitted to vote.
Click to expand...

while I do respect the role legal and judicial precedent play in Constitutional interpretation, I personally do indeed believe that incest marriage and polygamists ARE entitled to the same protections - obviously the practical and logistical challenges for polygamous marriages would be complicated, but personally for me they fall under minority rights that should not be infringed - not by the states nor the federal gov't.
 
StillBallin75 said:
while I do respect the role legal and judicial precedent play in Constitutional interpretation, I personally do indeed believe that incest marriage and polygamists ARE entitled to the same protections - obviously the practical and logistical challenges for polygamous marriages would be complicated, but personally for me they fall under minority rights that should not be infringed - not by the states nor the federal gov't.
Click to expand...

I do not disagree. I think there should be much less regulation however. These types of changes should be done by repeal of existing laws rather than passage of new ones. This, eventually, would be a pandora's box our legal system will not be able to deal with quickly enough. Child porn legal? Sex with kids? Obviously one would think not- until the legal age of consent comes into question. There must be parameters. Where those parameters should be set is the questions. And that is the current argument against same sex marriage. I see it as an ongoing discussion and debate which will end in inclusiveness when the time is right. Just like women's sufferage and civil rights... which is why I have respect for the intolerance and for the process.
 
kamikaze483 said:
I do not disagree. I think there should be much less regulation however. These types of changes should be done by repeal of existing laws rather than passage of new ones. This, eventually, would be a pandora's box our legal system will not be able to deal with quickly enough. Child porn legal? Sex with kids? Obviously one would think not- until the legal age of consent comes into question. There must be parameters. Where those parameters should be set is the questions. And that is the current argument against same sex marriage. I see it as an ongoing discussion and debate which will end in inclusiveness when the time is right. Just like women's sufferage and civil rights... which is why I have respect for the intolerance and for the process.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree - at the end of the day practical considerations win out. If Georgia does not allow for SSM, then I can't make them pass it even if I want to. It's all a process and yes, inevitably I think the issue will be resolved.
 
Deuce said:
By that logic, heterosexual sex with a condom on is also an aberration. Should it be illegal? It doesn't procreate the species. How about an infertile couple? Their sex does not procreate the species. And this is all forgetting that sex and marriage are not the same thing. (ask any married man) Two dudes can already **** eachother. They already have that right. We're not discussing the right to gay sex, we're discussing the right to gay marriage.
Click to expand...

The basic stuff makes babies, which continues the species. But survival of those offspring is benefited by a bonded pair. Sex for fun, of any kind as long as the two like it, strengthens the bond, which enhances survivability of the offspring. So the field is open to debate as whether it is an "aberration" from biologically normal or if it becomes normal because it has a positive effect on not just survival of the species, but its increase.

A thinking and learned Christian knows that you can't impose your moral beliefs on society or individuals for that matter. Christianity is a personal relationship with God. You don't become a Christian and then have a relationship. The relationship comes first and that makes you a Christian.

We have a government and a country/culture which respects religion, but doesn't follow one. Therefore, the Christian can't expect the rest of the country and the military to follow Christian morals unless there is a clear majority that favors it, and that moral position has a secular benefit as well. One that outweighs the alternative. One that has a basis independent from religion.
 
kamikaze483 said:
What are the privileges and immunities? The thing is... there is the Constitution, and then there is the interpretation of it in case law and precedent. The interpretation (case law) is almost as important as the Constitution itself as the case law defines what was intended in the Constitution. I believe the privileges and immunities were intended to refer to those previously referred to in the earlier parts of the document.

I'm playing devil's advocate here. But, for instance, if the Supreme Court found that SSM was a "privilege" protected under the 14th ammendment, this opens the door for all kinds of applications across the country. People could just about get away with whatever- people marrying their brothers, people having multiple wives. I say I'm playing devil's advocate because I don't give a damn if someone has 16 wives and two of them are his sisters. But decisions like that have far reaching implications. This is one reason why I think things that should be left for the states.

It isn't a bad argument though- but the current interpretation of the 14th ammendment is that everything in the first section of the ammendment is subject to due process, ie. there must be due process before one can be deprived of life, liberty, property... or of "priveleges and immunities." I think due process is being provided on this issue.

(For the record, I believe that the due process clause was only meant to apply to life, liberty, and property. This means the government can't kill you, lock you up, or take your **** without affording due process. I don't think it was meant to apply to the privileges and immunities listed earlier in the section.)
Click to expand...

Slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy for a reason, and quite frankly I'm completely comfortable with a "slippery slope" to civil rights! :mrgreen:



If a state decided to ban women from voting in statewide elections, I think that would be up to the people of that state as to whether or not they would stand for it. It would not pass the state legislature in any state. But for the sake of argument, yes. If the State chose to do that and that law represented the will of the people in that state (otherwise the legislature would be unseated and replaced and the law would be repealed), then that is a right of that State in my mind. Obviously, in federal elections they must be permitted to vote.
Click to expand...

19th Amendment to the United States Constitution[/quote said:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Click to expand...

The 14th amendment has also been ruled to incorporate the bill of rights into the states.

States rights are less important than my rights.
 
hazlnut said:
Luckily our constitution calls for separation of church and state.
Click to expand...

It does? Where? What exact document or phrase in our Constitution specifically calls for separation of church and state?

That being said....Bravo to Washington!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom