• 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!

Minnesota Senate debating SSM bill

Waiting on bated breath. Come on, Minnesota. Make us known for something other than Michelle Bachmann and snow.
 
Waiting on bated breath. Come on, Minnesota. Make us known for something other than Michelle Bachmann and snow.

Allowing SSM is just one more nail in the coffin that has for years been attacking and debasing normal marriage with various forms of do good legislation. It demands that people ignore what is self-evidently natures most productive form of bonding, establishing the most ideal way to rear children. It requires that in free societies, we must come to accept all attempts to instill and install laws that govern the reverse of what is self evident. We will be known as the generation that destroyed itself, or at least began the process.


Tim-
 
Allowing SSM is just one more nail in the coffin that has for years been attacking and debasing normal marriage with various forms of do good legislation. It demands that people ignore what is self-evidently natures most productive form of bonding, establishing the most ideal way to rear children. It requires that in free societies, we must come to accept all attempts to instill and install laws that govern the reverse of what is self evident. We will be known as the generation that destroyed itself, or at least began the process.


Tim-

How do gays debase your marriage?
 
Allowing SSM is just one more nail in the coffin that has for years been attacking and debasing normal marriage with various forms of do good legislation. It demands that people ignore what is self-evidently natures most productive form of bonding, establishing the most ideal way to rear children. It requires that in free societies, we must come to accept all attempts to instill and install laws that govern the reverse of what is self evident. We will be known as the generation that destroyed itself, or at least began the process.


Tim-

Well, your narrow minded "self evident truths" are contradicted by both reality and the dictates of civil rights. So frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. You're simply on the wrong side of history.
 
How do gays debase your marriage?

Not my marriage, marriage in general. I thought I made it pretty clear. Two homosexuals attaining the same status as my marriage by itself means nothing. Two homosexuals pretending to be husband and wife and raising children is self evidently illegitimate. In spite of how the social scientists will try and redefine what constitutes a healthy environment for children, the best is both a mother and a father to imprint upon them their gender specific attributes, experiences, and interpretations of the world around them. Allowing SSM and parenting will not destroy the human species, but over time I do believe that it will, along with other laws ignoring the marriage contract, and religious expression, debase the concept of marriage entirely. Children will ultimately become merely a product of sex, and ideas of themselves one day meeting an opposite sex partner to settle down with and form a family will have lost all incentive. Simply to produce a child will become known as the success in the evolutionary process. Settling down and forming a nuclear family will become the minority option, and future legislation will afford no privileges to those that do, and THAT is a shame!


Tim-
 
Not my marriage, marriage in general. I thought I made it pretty clear. Two homosexuals attaining the same status as my marriage by itself means nothing. Two homosexuals pretending to be husband and wife and raising children is self evidently illegitimate. In spite of how the social scientists will try and redefine what constitutes a healthy environment for children, the best is both a mother and a father to imprint upon them their gender specific attributes, experiences, and interpretations of the world around them. Allowing SSM and parenting will not destroy the human species, but over time I do believe that it will, along with other laws ignoring the marriage contract, and religious expression, debase the concept of marriage entirely. Children will ultimately become merely a product of sex, and ideas of themselves one day meeting an opposite sex partner to settle down with and form a family will have lost all incentive. Simply to produce a child will become known as the success in the evolutionary process. Settling down and forming a nuclear family will become the minority option, and future legislation will afford no privileges to those that do, and THAT is a shame!


Tim-

I know a couple of gay couples raising children. They're as well-behaved, and more well adjusted than my children. While I agree that a man and a woman is optimal, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Gay parents is better than no parents. Ask my kids what no parents is like, they'll tell you it sucks unequivocably.
 
I find it interesting how many states that uphold traditional marriage do so via state constitutional amendments voted on by people. States that legalize SSM appear to like doing so at the legislative level without having the people vote on it.
 
I find it interesting how many states that uphold traditional marriage do so via state constitutional amendments voted on by people. States that legalize SSM appear to like doing so at the legislative level without having the people vote on it.

They tried one of those Amendments here last year. It went before the people and was defeated by almost 6 points.

Edit: An amendment to ban it.
 
They tried one of those Amendments here last year. It went before the people and was defeated by almost 6 points.

An amendment upholding traditional marriage or legalizing SSM?
 
Well, your narrow minded "self evident truths" are contradicted by both reality and the dictates of civil rights. So frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. You're simply on the wrong side of history.

Depends on what you mean by wrong side. You're entitled to your opinion as am I, but if it isn't self evident to you what constitutes the most successful family type in the history of the Earth and encompassing all species that lives and has ever lived, then apparently it isn't as self evident. :)


By the way... In this context and your apparent refusal to accept what is self evident, I'd say you're the one being narrow minded. Do you feel any guilt? Is it why you're so open to the idea of destroying marriage further? In Sweden a once vibrant family culture, the intact families are in the minority already. In 10 YEARS, they have become the minority in favor of out of wedlock child births.


SSM is only a reason to avoid such a future for ourselves. Tell me, what is the upside to gay marriage?

Tim-
 
I find it interesting how many states that uphold traditional marriage do so via state constitutional amendments voted on by people. States that legalize SSM appear to like doing so at the legislative level without having the people vote on it.

As it should be. Democracy needs to be limited in its scope. You shouldn't have the masses vote on civil rights.
 
As it should be. Democracy needs to be limited in its scope. You shouldn't have the masses vote on civil rights.

But it should at least reflect the views of the population. I'm fine with amendments and popular voting on issues as well.
 
The proposed amendment that failed would have banned SSM.

That's fine. States should be able to do what they want. If MN wants to legalize SSM let them. If in the future people chose to change that they should be free to do so as well.
 
If the folks in Minnesota want SSM, it's their state.
 
Depends on what you mean by wrong side. You're entitled to your opinion as am I, but if it isn't self evident to you what constitutes the most successful family type in the history of the Earth and encompassing all species that lives and has ever lived, then apparently it isn't as self evident. :)


By the way... In this context and your apparent refusal to accept what is self evident, I'd say you're the one being narrow minded. Do you feel any guilt? Is it why you're so open to the idea of destroying marriage further? In Sweden a once vibrant family culture, the intact families are in the minority already. In 10 YEARS, they have become the minority in favor of out of wedlock child births.


SSM is only a reason to avoid such a future for ourselves. Tell me, what is the upside to gay marriage?

Tim-

If you're actually concerned about out of wedlock childbirths, the obvious upside to SSM is more married couples raising children. Also, y'know, not discriminating against people, but that's clearly not much of a priority for you.
 
But it should at least reflect the views of the population. I'm fine with amendments and popular voting on issues as well.

It does, so to speak. Equality before law, minority rights, and so forth are views of the population. If minorities constantly sought to get approval for equality by the masses, you would rarely get it. These matters usually require going above the people to improve the lives of Americans. This is where aristocracy and oligarchy have an advantage over democracy.
 
That's fine. States should be able to do what they want. If MN wants to legalize SSM let them. If in the future people chose to change that they should be free to do so as well.

But that's the point. You wanted an amendment legalizing it, and one that banned it failed 6 months ago. Leaving the issue to the legislature to decide.
 
Allowing SSM is just one more nail in the coffin that has for years been attacking and debasing normal marriage with various forms of do good legislation. It demands that people ignore what is self-evidently natures most productive form of bonding, establishing the most ideal way to rear children. It requires that in free societies, we must come to accept all attempts to instill and install laws that govern the reverse of what is self evident. We will be known as the generation that destroyed itself, or at least began the process.


Tim-

Why are you so anti-freedom and equality?
 
It does, so to speak. Equality before law, minority rights, and so forth are views of the population. If minorities constantly sought to get approval for equality by the masses, you would rarely get it. These matters usually require going above the people to improve the lives for Americans.

It may just reflect how we fundamentally disagree on the issue. I do not view SSM as a minority rights issue. I do not believe that homosexuals are entitled to force the state to recognize their unions as legal marriage and as a social issue in which states set policy I think it's completely within the means of the state to allow the general population to vote on it and amend state constitutions. I do not believe it is unlawful discrimination to uphold traditional marriage and to not force changes to a new marriage definition.

But that's the point. You wanted an amendment legalizing it, and one that banned it failed 6 months ago. Leaving the issue to the legislature to decide.

I never said I wanted it, I just noted that I find it interesting how the states that legalize SSM do not do so on the constitutional level like most states that legalize/uphold traditional marriage do so. I've always supported a state's right to define marriage for their state. I don't like it though when that decision is made by politicians when that doesn't reflect popular opinion (which is what I feared here).
 
That's fine. States should be able to do what they want. If MN wants to legalize SSM let them. If in the future people chose to change that they should be free to do so as well.

States should be able to do what they want? Should states be able to ban inter-racial marriage? Afterall...states should be able to do what they want, right? Should states be allowed to say that marriage is restricted to those who can prove fertility? Should states be allowed to say that marriage is only between "Christians"?

Or....should States only be able to do what they want when it comes to the limited category of same sex marriage?
 
It may just reflect how we fundamentally disagree on the issue. I do not view SSM as a minority rights issue. I do not believe that homosexuals are entitled to force the state to recognize their unions as legal marriage and as a social issue in which states set policy I think it's completely within the means of the state to allow the general population to vote on it and amend state constitutions. I do not believe it is unlawful discrimination to uphold traditional marriage and to not force changes to a new marriage definition.

It is within the state's purview to do such a thing. The trick is in making sure that you do not let the people get that opportunity. The more often that happens with minority matters, the better. Democracy is dangerous for the rights of the few.
 
But it should at least reflect the views of the population. I'm fine with amendments and popular voting on issues as well.

There are many issues in which government policies should not reflect the views of the population. Civil rights is most definately the most important aspect in which the majority should not be able to restict the rights of people. The majority should never be able to say that blue eyed people are not allowed to drive when all other people with non blue coloured eyes can.

The tyranny of the majority can be horrrible issue in democratic states that do not have a strong legal system supporting civil rights. I would suggest that in Egypt the tyranny of the majority is going to be the biggest problem facing individual rights going foward.
 
It is within the state's purview to do such a thing. The trick is in making sure that you do not let the people get that opportunity. The more often that happens with minority matters, the better. Democracy is dangerous for the rights of the few.

Like the old saying "democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."
 
Back
Top Bottom