• 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!

Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

Last edited:
Fisher said:
1.)So basically you have nothing. This is not comparable to separate but equal.
2.)If it gives you the exact same rights and privileges then it is exactly the same.
3.)The SCOTUS more or less just gave the SSM side of the argument a big black eye by allowing those 29 states that have banned gay marriage to keep their bans.
4.) Legal Precedence that you allege fights against it just established it today--this very day--and the ink is still drying........
Click to expand...

1.) except facts that prove they arent the same :shrug:
2.) again you are talking about something that doesnt exists
3.) you are free to have this opinion
4.) false twice, thats not the legal precedence i was talking about lol nor does it fight against it

sorry civil unions are not the same and they factually cant be
 
AGENT J said:
because you are talking about a made up fantasy that doesnt exists and spereate but equal is not equal, its factually impossible at the moment and history and legal precedence fights against it
Click to expand...

And you are creating a corrupt and false ideology of "equal despite being different", a false equivalence intended to force social engineering dictate.
 
Fisher said:
So basically you have nothing. This is not comparable to separate but equal. If it gives you the exact same rights and privileges then it is exactly the same. The SCOTUS more or less just gave the SSM side of the argument a big black eye by allowing those 29 states that have banned gay marriage to keep their bans. Legal Precedence that you allege fights against it just established it today--this very day--and the ink is still drying........
Click to expand...

No they didn't. Very few expected Prop 8 to have a sweeping ruling made on it. This is a win. Most people expected to have to send more cases up to the Court from those states where bans are firmly in place and will be defended by their governments. Those are what are likely to get the bans struck down, and it is likely to happen within the next decade, if not sooner.

And until then, same sex marriage will continue to be legalized. Even some of those states that currently have bans also have bills going up to have those bans voted on again in 2014 or 2016 because people recognize that voters change with time and same sex marriage support is only increasing. We have gone over the peak, same sex marriage is winning and will continue to win (there could be some minor setbacks, but they won't be anything compared to the victories).
 
Trip said:
And you are creating a corrupt and false ideology of "equal despite being different", a false equivalence intended to force social engineering dictate.
Click to expand...

again your opinion is meaningless to reality
you dont get to make up a definition of marriage and argue it as fact LOL thats the false ideology
 
Fisher said:
If calling it a civil union gives you all the rights of calling it marriage, how does it not work as well if rights are what you are interested in?
Click to expand...

That's the nail on the head. The $64,000 question is: what perceived right is bestowed on a SS union with marriage?
 
roguenuke said:
No they didn't. Very few expected Prop 8 to have a sweeping ruling made on it. This is a win. Most people expected to have to send more cases up to the Court from those states where bans are firmly in place and will be defended by their governments. Those are what are likely to get the bans struck down, and it is likely to happen within the next decade, if not sooner.

And until then, same sex marriage will continue to be legalized. Even some of those states that currently have bans also have bills going up to have those bans voted on again in 2014 or 2016 because people recognize that voters change with time and same sex marriage support is only increasing. We have gone over the peak, same sex marriage is winning and will continue to win (there could be some minor setbacks, but they won't be anything compared to the victories).
Click to expand...

Nope. Prop 8 was a state constitution issue. If the gays are going to win this fight they are going to have to do it state by state.
 
Trip said:
The definition of the word isn't 'changing', it is being changed, by legislative and judicial fiat, which involves the gross corruption of fundamental terms in the Constitution such as "rights", and "equal protection". This is not the terms of this country, which is a Republic and not an oligarchy.

Words cannot simply "change", and particularly not when they are tied to the fact of human biology, and recognition of definitive value to society as a whole, and they have not changed. They have been changed, but illegitimately changed by decree of a few.

Scalia wrote a scathing dissent which is unlike any other dissent ever produced, indicating that the majority was filled with venom and discord, essentially indicating that the Court had denigrated to a barroom brawl, not the rule of law, and this is the result of social engineering and progressive ideology, the dictate of a few, in disregard for that rule of law.

Scalia wrote that Kennedy and the majority regarded those in opposition as "enemies of the human race":

But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "disarage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.​

And this is from a Court Justice!

Quite obviously, neither the court, nor the federal government overall, were created for the purpose of "imposing change", but were rather instituted in the Constitution with limited powers to specifically prohibit any legitimacy to that sort of dictate.

Scalia even references the "majority" of Congress that voted for DOMA, and how the court is assuming the same enmity to the human race by them as well, despite the fact it was passed by 85–14 in the Senate, and 342–67 in the House, and signed by Clinton. Not only that, but Democratic Senators voted for the bill 32 to 14, and Democratic Representatives voted for it 118 to 65.

Scalia writes of the opinion,:

"Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament."​

The problem here is obviously what is being exhibited is not at all "judicial temperament", not at all judicial restraint, not thoughtful resolve, but rather the arrogant superiority of those who imagine they are entitled to dictate the terms of society, even when that authority is not provided them, not even this Court -- Liberal fascism.
Click to expand...

Scalia is a dick.
 
Did you need to quote any of that monstrosity?
 
cabse5 said:
That's the nail on the head. The $64,000 question is: what perceived right is bestowed on a SS union with marriage?
Click to expand...

Well the long and short of it is that they want to call it marriage instead of civil unions because they naively believe that people will suddenly magically accept them socially. People will or they will not accept gays, and "marriage" is irrelevant to that.
 
Fisher said:
Nope. Prop 8 was a state constitution issue. If the gays are going to win this fight they are going to have to do it state by state.
Click to expand...

No they won't. One ruling that holds that a restriction on marriage of any kind in a state violates the EPC will strike them all down, just as it did with race restrictions on marriage. There were at least two states that had constitutional amendments saying that marriage could be legally recognized when between people of the same race. Loving struck those down with the simple legal restrictions.
 
AGENT J said:
again your opinion is meaningless to reality
you dont get to make up a definition of marriage and argue it as fact LOL thats the false ideology
Click to expand...

But you do?
 
Fisher said:
Well the long and short of it is that they want to call it marriage instead of civil unions because they naively believe that people will suddenly magically accept them socially. People will or they will not accept gays, and "marriage" is irrelevant to that.
Click to expand...

There are still people who do not socially accept interracial relationships, I've met several. That is not needed for same sex couples to legally marry in this country. All that is needed is enough support to change the laws, either through legislative or judicial action or a combination of the two, which is what we are seeing.
 
Fisher said:
Well the long and short of it is that they want to call it marriage instead of civil unions because they naively believe that people will suddenly magically accept them socially. People will or they will not accept gays, and "marriage" is irrelevant to that.
Click to expand...

That's also been my suspicion. That's also funny. Twenty years ago, the SS movement was declaring how different they were than anyone else. Can they make up their minds?
 
roguenuke said:
There are still people who do not socially accept interracial relationships, I've met several. That is not needed for same sex couples to legally marry in this country. All that is needed is enough support to change the laws, either through legislative or judicial action or a combination of the two, which is what we are seeing.
Click to expand...

just basic common sense

there are people that still think women arent equal, minorities arent equal etc etc

the straw man you are addressing always fails, its about rights and equality
 
roguenuke said:
There are still people who do not socially accept interracial relationships, I've met several. That is not needed for same sex couples to legally marry in this country. All that is needed is enough support to change the laws, either through legislative or judicial action or a combination of the two, which is what we are seeing.
Click to expand...

Another ideologue who improperly uses an analogy. Probably for political sake. See, most people don't prevent SS couples from uniting... unlike, as you post, interracial relationships.
 
roguenuke said:
There are still people who do not socially accept interracial relationships, I've met several. That is not needed for same sex couples to legally marry in this country. All that is needed is enough support to change the laws, either through legislative or judicial action or a combination of the two, which is what we are seeing.
Click to expand...

No what you are seeing is that they are going to have to do it state by state legislatively. The SCOTUS just said gays can marry in CA but not in 29 other states.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) except facts that prove they arent the same :shrug:
2.) again you are talking about something that doesnt exists
3.) you are free to have this opinion
4.) false twice, thats not the legal precedence i was talking about lol nor does it fight against it

sorry civil unions are not the same and they factually cant be
Click to expand...

Facts proving they are not the same ...


Without any claim of my being Carnac the Magnificent, I can say with absolute certainty that you yourself are the product of a heterosexual relationship, and not at all the product of a gay union.

Either that makes me absolutely clairvoyant, or I am relying on real, hard facts that have been around for a long, long time, and aren't about to change.
 
roguenuke said:
No they won't. One ruling that holds that a restriction on marriage of any kind in a state violates the EPC will strike them all down, just as it did with race restrictions on marriage. There were at least two states that had constitutional amendments saying that marriage could be legally recognized when between people of the same race. Loving struck those down with the simple legal restrictions.
Click to expand...

BS. The SC just ruled ruled that 29 states can keep their anti-SSM laws in place.
 
Trip said:
1.)Facts proving they are not the same ...

2.)Without any claim of my being Carnac the Magnificent, I can say with absolute certainty that you yourself are the product of a heterosexual relationship, and not at all the product of a gay union.
3.) Either that makes me absolutely clairvoyant, or I am relying on real, hard facts that have been around for a long, long time, and aren't about to change.
Click to expand...

1.) correct, civil unions are not equal to marriage
2.) meaningless
3.) this makes no sense

let me know when you have something relevant to the topic
 
cabse5 said:
Another ideologue who improperly uses an analogy. Probably for political sake. See, most people don't prevent SS couples from uniting... unlike, as you post, interracial relationships.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, most know that they cannot prevent interracial couples from uniting but some would still seek to restrict them from legal marriages for the very same reasons that they wish to restrict same sex couples. In fact, many of those who wish to prevent same sex couples from getting married would gladly put back into place sodomy laws and enforce them against gays. So yours is the failed argument.
 
Fisher said:
BS. The SC just ruled ruled that 29 states can keep their anti-SSM laws in place.
Click to expand...

They didn't rule on any of those particular laws at all. They were not addressed.
 
Fisher said:
BS. The SC just ruled ruled that 29 states can keep their anti-SSM laws in place.
Click to expand...

The decision did, in fact, leave 29 states free to define marriage as man and woman. This was not an EPC issue insomuch as homosexuals having a right to be married because homosexuals can be married in all 50 states already. This was an issue of whether or not the federal government could treat some marriages different from other marriages and that's where "equal rights" came in. Why would people with certain marriages be treated differently from other people with equal marriages (according to the state). Well, they can't. This in no way was a statement by the Supreme Court that marriage must be redefined to include same sex unions. On the contrary, it was a decision upholding the state's rights to define marriage and that it wasn't the federal government's position to override that definition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom