• 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

One more state that I won't be visiting any time soon; assuming this happens.
 
ric27 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Gay couples with children are also bonded pairs, and being married strengthens that bond.

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.
Click to expand...

Yes, and banning same-sex marriage doesn't have a secular benefit. You have absolutely nothing to gain by preventing two men from getting married, nor do you stand to lose anything if they do get married.

From a more legal perspective, discrimination on the basis of gender must pass intermediate judicial scrutiny, meaning:
wikipedia said:
In order to overcome the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest.
Click to expand...
 
Tigger said:
One more state that I won't be visiting any time soon; assuming this happens.
Click to expand...

Poor tigger might be forced to gay marry before long :(
 
Deuce said:
Poor tigger might be forced to gay marry before long :(
Click to expand...

Considering the way this country is going your sarcasm has a little too much truth in it for my tastes. Though it's much more likely that I would have to deal with it in other ways that I don't care to think about.
 
Why not make homosexuality a choice? if there was a pill I'd probably take it, being gay in most parts of the world is no fun, even in the U.S. (which only fully legalized homosexuality..what like 9 years ago?) 1 in 4 gay kids commit suicide
People above joked about wanting to be gay because of the sex, well when its impossible to have anything more than that am sure a lot of you would reconsider...
 
Tigger said:
Considering the way this country is going your sarcasm has a little too much truth in it for my tastes. Though it's much more likely that I would have to deal with it in other ways that I don't care to think about.
Click to expand...

I love the perpetual fear that is inherent to conservatism.
 
CriticalThought said:
I love the perpetual fear that is inherent to conservatism.
Click to expand...

Fear forces preparedness. Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance when the **** hits the fan. When that day does arrive you're all going to be banging on the doors of your local Conservative begging for food, water, clothes, shelter, weapnos and ammunition, etc.... Whether it's WWIII or just the next natural disaster, this is proven time after time.
 
Dragonfly said:
Why would you let 3.5% of the overall population have so much power over you?
Click to expand...

It's not just the 3.5% who self-identify that way who are the problem. It's the millions of people who accept these ideologies as appropriate who are just as much the problem. They are the passive co-conspirators in this mess that keep the problem from ever being fixed or dealt with.
 
Tigger said:
It's not just the 3.5% who self-identify that way who are the problem. It's the millions of people who accept these ideologies as appropriate who are just as much the problem. They are the passive co-conspirators in this mess that keep the problem from ever being fixed or dealt with.
Click to expand...

Which results in what? Tolerance?

What exactly is the problem?

If you don't like NASCAR do you resist going to states that host NASCAR races?
 
Tigger said:
It's not just the 3.5% who self-identify that way who are the problem. It's the millions of people who accept these ideologies as appropriate who are just as much the problem. They are the passive co-conspirators in this mess that keep the problem from ever being fixed or dealt with.
Click to expand...

The problem to be fixed is you, not everyone else. You know there comes a point when you might want to look at yourself and say "Gee, maybe it isn't everyone else. Maybe I'm the problem".
 
Dragonfly said:
It does? Where? What exact document or phrase in our Constitution specifically calls for separation of church and state?
Click to expand...

It's been interpreted that way as being consitutional. The consitution doesn't specifically mention a whole lot of things that are also covered under it.
 
Dragonfly said:
Which results in what? Tolerance? What exactly is the problem?
Click to expand...

Tolerance IS the problem. I was taught that the acceptance of an improper act makes one as much at fault as committing that act yourself. We are not so slowly destroying the morals and values that were the foundation of this nation; and someday soon it is going to lead to our downfall.

Dragonfly said:
If you don't like NASCAR do you resist going to states that host NASCAR races?
Click to expand...

If NASCAR is a major part of their society, YES.


TheNextEra said:
The problem to be fixed is you, not everyone else. You know there comes a point when you might want to look at yourself and say "Gee, maybe it isn't everyone else. Maybe I'm the problem".
Click to expand...

Actually I've found over the years that it's when I AGREE with the majority that I'm wrong much more often than when I don't.
 
Tigger said:
We are not so slowly destroying the morals and values that were the foundation of this nation; and someday soon it is going to lead to our downfall.
Click to expand...

The values of the founding fathers were to have child labor, slavery, blacks not being able to vote, women not being able to vote and treated like property, etc. The morals of the time were to treat blacks and women as property. Are you saying you are for all those things?

Tigger said:
Actually I've found over the years that it's when I AGREE with the majority that I'm wrong much more often than when I don't.
Click to expand...

That's part of the whole paranoia thing I was talking about earlier.
 
I'd love to hear what Navy Pride has to say about this......
 
Tigger said:
Tolerance IS the problem. I was taught that the acceptance of an improper act makes one as much at fault as committing that act yourself. We are not so slowly destroying the morals and values that were the foundation of this nation; and someday soon it is going to lead to our downfall.
Click to expand...

I view your inability to tolerate the freedoms that other people deserve to be the "improper act".

Why do you let what other people do have so much power over you?

What are your thoughts on mixed-race marriages? Moral or immoral?

What about marriages between people of different religions? Say a Catholic and a Jew? Moral or immoral?

Isn't sex out of wedlock a bigger moral issue than sex within wedlock?
 
Last edited:
Tigger said:
Tolerance IS the problem. I was taught that the acceptance of an improper act makes one as much at fault as committing that act yourself. We are not so slowly destroying the morals and values that were the foundation of this nation; and someday soon it is going to lead to our downfall.
Click to expand...

You don't have any discernible morals or values. To date you have not provided any philosophical or spiritual basis to explain your positions. It's almost sociopathic how you approach these discussions.
 
Tigger said:
Tolerance IS the problem. I was taught that the acceptance of an improper act makes one as much at fault as committing that act yourself. We are not so slowly destroying the morals and values that were the foundation of this nation; and someday soon it is going to lead to our downfall.
Click to expand...

By living in America, paying taxes, buying things here and paying sales tax, etc. you are supporting the TOLERANCE that America offers.
 
TheNextEra said:
Why? It's the same broken record with him.
Click to expand...

Not quite. I remember how back in the day he bragged how he would be the first to support it if the troops were fine with repealing DADT and Congress repealed it. Then when it was repealed he began ranting how wrong they all were and how the gays would form daisy chains and all hell was going to break loose. Fun times.
 
The 14th amendment has also been ruled to incorporate the bill of rights into the states.

States rights are less important than my rights.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely correct. The rights of the individual supercede the rights of the states in most cases. The question is one of perameters, as I stated earlier, and what your rights actually are and what they are not... because when something is an unalienable right for one individual, it has an affect on other individuals. There is some duty to ensure that the granting a new right (by interpreting the constitution, case law, or other precedent to expressly include it.. or by passing altogether new legislation) does not violate the rights of another. This is why I believe the requirements of state issued marriage licenses are better left to the states. There is no such thing as a federal marriage. The states issue the licenses and the states should determine whether they wish to offer them at all, and if so, to whom. It is not a federal issue. The fewer federal laws, the better. Kudos to Washington State. This is the way it should be done.
 
kamikaze483 said:
This is absolutely correct. The rights of the individual supercede the rights of the states in most cases. The question is one of perameters, as I stated earlier, and what your rights actually are and what they are not... because when something is an unalienable right for one individual, it has an affect on other individuals. There is some duty to ensure that the granting a new right (by interpreting the constitution, case law, or other precedent to expressly include it.. or by passing altogether new legislation) does not violate the rights of another. This is why I believe the requirements of state issued marriage licenses are better left to the states. There is no such thing as a federal marriage. The states issue the licenses and the states should determine whether they wish to offer them at all, and if so, to whom. It is not a federal issue. The fewer federal laws, the better. Kudos to Washington State. This is the way it should be done.
Click to expand...

So you would be for striking DOMA down, correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom