• 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

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.

I think it's dangerous to remove people's rights to vote on issues or remove their representation and try and circumvent lawful changes to laws because politicians don't want that to happen.

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?

If I had a dollar for every time the "inter-racial marriage" straw man gets flung around I could probably donate enough to DP to keep it running for the year.

Can't discriminate based on religion or race, it's lawful to define marriage as one man one woman nor is that unlawful gender discrimination to say a woman cannot be a husband or man a wife.
 
I think it's dangerous to remove people's rights to vote on issues or remove their representation and try and circumvent lawful changes to laws because politicians don't want that to happen.

Your right to vote ought not extend to determining what rights I shall be granted, when the many cannot understand the needs of the few, or tends to disregard them entirely. One right is more necessary than the other.
 
Your right to vote ought not extend to determining what rights I shall be granted, when the many cannot understand the needs of the few, or disregard them entirely. One right is more necessary than the other.

The word "rights" should not be tossed around so liberally. SSM is a policy issue typically addressing the legal definition of marriage. Unless the court or a state constitution rules otherwise there is no right for homosexuals or their supporters to force all states to redefine marriage or prevent people from democratically upholding their views. In my mind such oppression is tyranny. There is a right to vote, there is a legal framework for states to enact laws or amend their state constitutions. It is not unlawful to uphold traditional marriage and as such the right to vote should be preserved for the issue. The violation of rights comes in when people are barred from having their lawful opinions reflected in law or prevented from directly voting on the issue with all things being lawful.
 
The word "rights" should not be tossed around so liberally. SSM is a policy issue typically addressing the legal definition of marriage. Unless the court or a state constitution rules otherwise there is no right for homosexuals or their supporters to force all states to redefine marriage or prevent people from democratically upholding their views. In my mind such oppression is tyranny. There is a right to vote, there is a legal framework for states to enact laws or amend their state constitutions. It is not unlawful to uphold traditional marriage and as such the right to vote should be preserved for the issue. The violation of rights comes in when people are barred from having their lawful opinions reflected in law or prevented from directly voting on the issue with all things being lawful.

It is hardly liberal when marriage comes with newly granted rights.

Unless the court or a state constitution rules otherwise there is no right for homosexuals or their supporters to force all states to redefine marriage or prevent people from democratically upholding their views. In my mind such oppression is tyranny.

The democrat's version of tyranny is the restraint from being able to use the mob to accomplish their ends of removing a minority's quality of life, whenever they please? How awful.
 
And here they come, the tolerant liberals.. :)


Tim-
 
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).

The difference is the laws in force. Most laws that are against SSM are not Amendments, so you don't need an amendment to change that. That's why they don't do an amendment. Passing the amendment raises the laws against to a constitutional level.

I think that's why you see that is that people are voting it into the Constitution when it wasn't there before. But you don't need an amendment to change a law unless that law is in the Constitution.
 
It is hardly liberal when marriage comes with newly granted rights.

The democrat's version of tyranny is the restraint from being able to use the mob to accomplish their ends, whenever they please? How awful.

Using the mob? It's a public policy issue, the population who disagree or agree on an issue are not a mob. It is tyranny to silence opinion, prevent people from having their beliefs reflected in law, and not allowing a population to lawfully enact laws that do not violate the Constitution.
 
I think it's dangerous to remove people's rights to vote on issues or remove their representation and try and circumvent lawful changes to laws because politicians don't want that to happen.



If I had a dollar for every time the "inter-racial marriage" straw man gets flung around I could probably donate enough to DP to keep it running for the year.

Can't discriminate based on religion or race, it's lawful to define marriage as one man one woman nor is that unlawful gender discrimination to say a woman cannot be a husband or man a wife.

You can't discriminate based on religion/race because they have been held to be Constitutionally protected. The same would be true if the Court rules in favor of SSM. You are engaging in circular reasoning Digs.
 
Using the mob? It's a public policy issue, the population who disagree or agree on an issue are not a mob. It is tyranny to silence opinion, prevent people from having their beliefs reflected in law, and not allowing a population to lawfully enact laws that do not violate the Constitution.

Yes, they are. It's a legitimized mob. If the issues that I am personally affected by were voted away in the general or interim election cycles, I guarantee you, almost none of the protections I and many other minority groups were granted through aristocratic and oligarchic means would be in force. If anything, the resulting tyranny would be worse. All you have to do is whip up a frenzy before thousands of people, who will not be personally affected by such rights or removals of such rights, will vote to strip or bar entry.

We have legislatures and a court system, to hopefully (and even this is not without potential for oppression) remove the power of the masses from being able to determine that such and such minority do not deserve equal protection under the law in cases X, Y, Z.

In the past, the masses were a hurdle for most civil rights causes, but sometimes the political nature of their struggle meant that they had to overcome them. If you were to ask any leading women's suffragist who they would rather face: their legislature or the masses, they would have said the legislature, in a heart beat.
 
Last edited:
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'm sure you do.. You're missing the point of my opinion. You, in order to understand my opinion must look at the consequences of NOT just gay marriage, but the destruction of marriage over the last 50 years. Gay marriage doesn't help traditional marriage, it can only serve to hurt it further by illegitimating it even more.


Tim-
 
I'm sure you do.. You're missing the point of my opinion. You, in order to understand my opinion must look at the consequences of NOT just gay marriage, but the destruction of marriage over the last 50 years. Gay marriage doesn't help traditional marriage, it can only serve to hurt it further by illegitimating it even more.


Tim-

Promoting a two-parent household, which we know through social science, increases educational and life outcomes for children-is now bad because it's two daddies or two mommies, rather than the time and effort they can afford to spend guiding their children?
 
I'm sure you do.. You're missing the point of my opinion. You, in order to understand my opinion must look at the consequences of NOT just gay marriage, but the destruction of marriage over the last 50 years. Gay marriage doesn't help traditional marriage, it can only serve to hurt it further by illegitimating it even more.


Tim-

That destruction's already occurred. Without the help of gay people, I might add. Straights did it all by themselves. I fail to see how gay marriage weakens it further.
 
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.

Why would they need to be married? Moreover, despite the fact that heterosexual marriages are at an all time high in divorce, we already know that homosexual relationships are even more at risk of dissolving within the first 5 years. No upside, and discriminating isn't a convincing argument coming from your side. We ALL discriminate buddy, whether it makes you feel comfortable or not admitting that is not my cause.


Tim-
 
Promoting a two-parent household, which we know through social science, increases educational and life outcomes for children-is now bad because it's two daddies or two mommies, rather than the time and effort they can afford to spend guiding their children?

We do NOT know that a two parent household is the best. What we do KNOW is that a home with both an involved mother and father is what's best for children. Just recently the holy grail of research studies on gay parenting by Judith Stacey was blown to hell with her recent views on marriage and parenting in general. She LOST ALL CRED with her statements, and only served to disqualify her from the legitimate debate. I am NOT going to sit here and argue that study Vs. this study, as they are ALL flawed methodologically to the point of being completely useless is assessing the data. And that goes for both camps by the way. What I do know is that in both the Netherlands and Sweden, nuclear families are the minority where just 10 years ago they were by far the majority. In these societies, their legislatures have virtually done away with any incentives for married couples raising children. Other than two peoples commitment to stay together no matter what comes their way, it has become too easy to just end a marriage. Watch what happens here in the US when divorced Dad's represent a significant voting block. Family courts will change the way they do business just like they have in those nations. Mom's don't get the kids by default in those nations like they do here. It's already happening here in the US. Mom gets the kids isn't always the solution where once you'd pretty much need to catch them with a needle in their arm for her to lose them in a custody settlement. Now, if Dad lives in the same school district he gets to share the kids unless it can be shown that insodoing material harm would come to the children, but the burden of proof is on the one bringing the claim.

Getting off topic, but the point is that I have no crystal ball, but I'm convinced that at the very least the intact family will be a thing of the past, there will be no incentive both morally, or socially to raise your children together, and I can't see how that would be a good thing. Is it all due to SSM? No, but it doesn't help AT ALL! Since I'm of the opinion that this isn't a constitutional matter, nor is it a civil rights issue I prefer that we as a society err on the side of caution.


Tim-
 
Why would they need to be married? Moreover, despite the fact that heterosexual marriages are at an all time high in divorce, we already know that homosexual relationships are even more at risk of dissolving within the first 5 years. No upside, and discriminating isn't a convincing argument coming from your side. We ALL discriminate buddy, whether it makes you feel comfortable or not admitting that is not my cause.

In your last post you voiced concern that more people were having children out of wedlock, and now you claim not to care about whether or not people are getting married? That makes zero sense. And no, we don't know that homosexual relationships are more at risk of dissolving within the first five years, because currently there's no relationship parity federally, and those states that have legalized SSM have done so too recently for solid info to exist about that. Way to run with the bad assumptions, though.

And whether or not the government discriminates on the basis of gender/sexual orientation with respect to a fundamental right is a big deal. Reducing such a thing is inherently desirable. I'm not sure what that has to do either with my comfort or your admission of discriminatory behavior.
 
By the way, it passed the Senate vote (not a surprise to most I'm sure), 37-30. In a few days, after the governor signs the bill, it will make 12 states.
 
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-

Actually, homosexuals and "two spirits" raising children had always been quite common in a lot of cultures. Modern studies on gay parents in the west show their children are just as well adjusted as those with straight parents. Wrong again.

And I don't care about marriage. I care about stable homes. Marriage doesn't guarantee a stable home. Sweden has a lot fewer broken families than we do.
 
Last edited:
By the way, it passed the Senate vote (not a surprise to most I'm sure), 37-30. In a few days, after the governor signs the bill, it will make 12 states.

Bust out the champagne, MN. :)
 
I think it's dangerous to remove people's rights to vote on issues or remove their representation and try and circumvent lawful changes to laws because politicians don't want that to happen.



If I had a dollar for every time the "inter-racial marriage" straw man gets flung around I could probably donate enough to DP to keep it running for the year.

Can't discriminate based on religion or race, it's lawful to define marriage as one man one woman nor is that unlawful gender discrimination to say a woman cannot be a husband or man a wife.

Wouldn't you agree that gender is also a protected classification?
 
380859_483286561737852_880975568_n.png
 
Gaypocalypse Report:
Gay marriage has completed 66% of the process towards legalization, yet oddly I am only 3% more gay than before. Being within the margin of error, I cannot identify a statistically significant trend at this time.
No observed radical changes in atmospheric temperature or sulfur content.
One possible zombie sighted. Might have been a drunk.
Bedsheets still intact. Cannot confirm any fabric-related problems.
No husband assigned yet. Presume this will wait until the governor signs the bill.
Lion-on-Christian violence appears to remain unchanged. Local zoo being monitored carefully.
 
Last edited:
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.

Yeah, it is interesting how many people there are in this country who don't care to uphold the constitution for people who aren't just like them. And only people who are actually trained in matters of law and constitution seem to know how it actually works. Civil rights are not up for voting.

I think it's dangerous to remove people's rights to vote on issues or remove their representation and try and circumvent lawful changes to laws because politicians don't want that to happen.

I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if it were your rights being voted on.

If I had a dollar for every time the "inter-racial marriage" straw man gets flung around I could probably donate enough to DP to keep it running for the year.

Can't discriminate based on religion or race, it's lawful to define marriage as one man one woman nor is that unlawful gender discrimination to say a woman cannot be a husband or man a wife.

It's not a strawman. It's the controlling precedent.

Using the mob? It's a public policy issue, the population who disagree or agree on an issue are not a mob. It is tyranny to silence opinion, prevent people from having their beliefs reflected in law, and not allowing a population to lawfully enact laws that do not violate the Constitution.

Silence opinion? Yes. Beliefs reflected in law? No. Facts are reflected in laws, not beliefs. Enact laws that don't violate the constitution? Yeah, but SSM bans do.

I'm sure you do.. You're missing the point of my opinion. You, in order to understand my opinion must look at the consequences of NOT just gay marriage, but the destruction of marriage over the last 50 years. Gay marriage doesn't help traditional marriage, it can only serve to hurt it further by illegitimating it even more.

Considering how the traditions of marriage mostly centered around women being chattel to be bought, sold, and raped, I'm not seeing how this is a bad thing.

Frankly kids, this is an open and shut issue already. The SSM battle is already over. The tide is only going one way. It's now just a matter of time, and I don't think it will take very long.
 
I think it's dangerous to remove people's rights to vote on issues or remove their representation and try and circumvent lawful changes to laws because politicians don't want that to happen.

I think it's dangerous to allow people to vote on the rights of other people.
Can't discriminate based on religion or race, it's lawful to define marriage as one man one woman nor is that unlawful gender discrimination to say a woman cannot be a husband or man a wife.

Isn't it? I cannot marry a man because I am also a man. If not gender, what is this classification based on?
 
I am thinking the ultimate test for the 'will of the people' crowd would be to subject their own marriage to a vote. For example, a vote to ban hicup or digsbe specifically from marrying. Maybe then they will understand the kind of hate they are advocating.
 
Back
Top Bottom