• 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!

SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

roguenuke said:
You can't compare different cultures and claim there was shift. They were different cultures. The major shift in the culture to distinguish it from another in itself is going to be such a big influence that it causes problems in the comparison. It would be much more difficult now for a single person or small group to gain enough power over a nation now to cause such a huge shift in culture that leads to less acceptance.

You must look at the reason for when changes occur and why exactly they will occur to determine if they are likely to occur for us. From what we know, homosexuality is only going to become more accepted in our culture unless some huge cultural shift itself occurs, making more people convert to a religion that discriminates against homosexuals/same sex relationships.

Along with this, over time, it has been shown that people, as a group, tend to age comparable to how a person ages. It is like our species, the older it gets, the wiser it gets. The more it learns to think for itself. The more knowledge we acquire, the less willing we are to maintain old prejudices. We learn what makes us different. We connect more with those who are different and discover that those differences aren't all that important. These things are taught to our children.
Click to expand...

Why, yes, I can. I said "throughout history" not "throughout recent American history".
 
yobarnacle said:
I remember in the 60s, homosexuals wanted to be left alone, they weren't hurting anybody.

Now, they don't want to be left alone. They want EVERYBODY they can get on their side!

they are NOT content to live quietly, but want to remake society to suit themselves.

They ARE a danger to traditional American society and values, and subverting our youth.

deny these statements if you can!
Click to expand...

They were being incarcerated and involuntarily committed and in some places lobotomized for just being attracted to someone of the same sex. Of course they wanted to be just left alone back then, but that doesn't mean they didn't also want to be considered equal. The not being put in jail or a looney bin or having your brain cut is much more important than equal rights when you wanting to be in a consensual, intimate relationship with another adult is considered a crime and/or a mental illness.

What is being fought for now is equality. They don't care if some don't like them or disapprove of their relationships, just like interracial couples don't generally care if others disapprove of them, but that doesn't mean they are going to sit back and let others deprive them of equality just due to that disapproval of their relationships.
 
mac said:
Why, yes, I can. I said "throughout history" not "throughout recent American history".
Click to expand...

And the things that caused those changes in "acceptance" in history was major cultural and power shifts, not simply changing attitudes of the population on one issue.
 
roguenuke said:
And the things that caused those changes in "acceptance" in history was major cultural and power shifts, not simply changing attitudes of the population on one issue.
Click to expand...

In modern democratic history, changing attitudes on an issue are major cultural and power shifts.
 
Guy Incognito said:
A person would have to be truly ignorant of history to dispute the well known fact that attitudes towards same sex unions have changed throughout history and varied from culture to culture.
Click to expand...

I've come to realize that people's understanding of history is generally fairly superficial.
 
mac said:
Yeah, no-one changes their views as they age...
Click to expand...

Not on things like this, no they don't. Just like the younger generation during the civil rights era didn't become racist as they aged, my generation won't become homophobic as we age.

You can try to say that since people tend to join a church later in life that they will become anti-gay, but that won't be the case. The church will have to change, my generation will not be apart of religions/church that are anti-gay. If the church wants to stay relevant, they will have to change, which won't be that hard, because they've been doing that forever.

LGBT people will have equal rights, very soon, and it will stay that way. Best to get used to the idea.
 
mac said:
In modern democratic history, changing attitudes on an issue are major cultural and power shifts.
Click to expand...

No they aren't. A major cultural shift includes a lot of changes to laws at a time in relation to a change in a power structure and the foundation of the rules of a society.

In all likelihood, without a major change in how we view marriage, why people get married, rights of the sexes, and/or some major power gain by a particular religion (which is highly unlikely given current trends), we will not see the shift you think is coming. It simply isn't likely. Unless you want to also claim a similar shift is just as likely in something like interracial marriage or interfaith marriage is likely, since these too have went from accepted to unaccepted and back with changing cultures in history.

Overall though, this current acceptance of homosexuality and same sex relationships goes with several things that are brand new, including a better understanding of sexuality overall, a view of marriage being for the people in the relationship and their mutual attraction to each other, not children nor the family nor the man alone, women having more rights, and an idea of society based on rights being protected by laws/a Constitution. These are all major things that have not existed before, and certainly not together.
 
mac said:
Yeah, no-one changes their views as they age...
Click to expand...

Very few change their views on social issues like this as they age, at least not to being against certain groups. There aren't a whole lot of people who become racist later in life, particularly if they were those fighting for civil rights at a younger age. This issue is very similar to rights for races or women's rights.
 
Your Star said:
Not on things like this, no they don't. Just like the younger generation during the civil rights era didn't become racist as they aged, my generation won't become homophobic as we age.

You can try to say that since people tend to join a church later in life that they will become anti-gay, but that won't be the case. The church will have to change, my generation will not be apart of religions/church that are anti-gay. If the church wants to stay relevant, they will have to change, which won't be that hard, because they've been doing that forever.

LGBT people will have equal rights, very soon, and it will stay that way. Best to get used to the idea.
Click to expand...

Yes, they do. Look at abortion. Views shift.
 
A bad time is coming.
a government powerful enough to give you the things you want, is powerful enough to take the things it wants.

ya'll are digging your graves and eventually will lament it.
 
yobarnacle said:
A bad time is coming.
a government powerful enough to give you the things you want, is powerful enough to take the things it wants.

ya'll are digging your graves and eventually will lament it.
Click to expand...

Government already did take federal recognition of marriage from gays in 1996, DOMA. People fought back though and got their rights back.
 
mac said:
Yes, they do. Look at abortion. Views shift.
Click to expand...

Abortion is a very different subject. There are two identifiable parties (at least) that are measurably affected negatively on either side of the abortion issue in every case, and that is just taking into account the mother and the unborn child. Two parties (at least) have their rights involved and it is a question of which one's rights should be protected above the other person's. It is actually similar to the Death Penalty issue, at least much more than restrictions on marriage.

This issue is not like abortion or the DP. It is like interracial marriage. When people enter into marriage, they are entering into a personal contract that is granted benefits and rights by the government due to the nature of the relationship. Only one side legitimately has their rights in question when just considering restrictions on marriage based on race, religion, or sex/gender (not the laws that may go with it pertaining to all marriages/people).
 
mac said:
Yes, they do. Look at abortion. Views shift.
Click to expand...

People who were for civil rights when they were young, did not shift their views when they were older. LGBT rights will not lessen in the future, and religious support for denying LGBT rights will wane. This is a fact you will have to get used too.
 
Last edited:
Just as Joe McCarthy warned in the 50s, the socialists have taken over the education and media.

No wonder so many folks took their kids out of public schools.

In addition, the estimated homeschooling rate?the percentage of the school-age population that was being homeschooled?increased from 1.7 percent in 1999 to 2.2 percent in 2003 (not shown in tables or figures).

Still looking for CURRENT rates.

these are kids you DIDN"T get to brainwash.

And there are millions more in fundamentalist church affiliated schools, (not parochial) who ALSO avoided liberal/socialist brainwashing.

Most of these children are being taught self reliance and respect for traditional values.

The right is NOT a dying breed.

The left is self destructive. They create non-sustainable government.

So which cities are going to be without electricity, when Obama shuts down the coal fired power plants?
 

Attachments

  • map-usa-rural-suburban-city-locales-2003-660px.jpg
    map-usa-rural-suburban-city-locales-2003-660px.jpg
    90.4 KB · Views: 49
  • 220px-2008_US_electricity_generation_by_source_v2.jpg
    220px-2008_US_electricity_generation_by_source_v2.jpg
    29.8 KB · Views: 49
mac said:
Perhaps, it may also decrease over time.
Click to expand...

Rather doubtful. Support has been steadily increasing for the last two decades and as I've said the youth strongly support SSM and they will still be around in 30 years when many of the opponents of SSM won't.
 
Gaius46 said:
Rather doubtful. Support has been steadily increasing for the last two decades and as I've said the youth strongly support SSM and they will still be around in 30 years when many of the opponents of SSM won't.
Click to expand...

What is the point of SSM, other than the obvious benefits one might gain?
 
yobarnacle said:
Just as Joe McCarthy warned in the 50s, the socialists have taken over the education and media.

No wonder so many folks took their kids out of public schools.

In addition, the estimated homeschooling rate?the percentage of the school-age population that was being homeschooled?increased from 1.7 percent in 1999 to 2.2 percent in 2003 (not shown in tables or figures).

Still looking for CURRENT rates.

these are kids you DIDN"T get to brainwash.

And there are millions more in fundamentalist church affiliated schools, (not parochial) who ALSO avoided liberal/socialist brainwashing.
Click to expand...

Ahhh so its not brainwashing if you agree with it?
 
AlabamaPaul said:
What is the point of SSM, other than the obvious benefits one might gain?
Click to expand...

One could easily ask the same of heterosexual couples.

Yes homosexual couples cannot procreate in the normal fashion but so what? Is marriage solely about children?
 
Gaius46 said:
One could easily ask the same of heterosexual couples.

Yes homosexual couples cannot procreate in the normal fashion but so what? Is marriage solely about children?
Click to expand...

What does procreation have to do with the question I asked you?
 
Gaius46 said:
Ahhh so its not brainwashing if you agree with it?
Click to expand...

Parents training THEIR kids in family values and traditions and religious beliefs is NOT brainwashing.

it's what parents are SUPPOSED to do.

Hired teachers, supposedly 'public" servants enforcing THEIR political ideaologies on OUR children, is something they are supposed NOT to do.

I'd willingly horsewhip and face brand any teacher I caught trying to brainwash my children.

They'd DESERVE it!
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Unfortunately, that is all too likely true, but has little to do with democracy (other than who gets to appoint the SCOTUS justices). The constitution is quite clear about defining the method for its meaning to be changed - using the amendment process. Simply because the constitution (or an amendment) mentions red, blue and green does not mean that it really meant any color that one can think of, just as we have an ongoing battle over the subtle differences between shall not be infringed and shall not be abridged or denied.
Click to expand...

A useless theory of interpretation, since we even have to interpret the parts that tell us how to interpret it (and your interpretation isn't valid, by the way). We are stuck interpreting this text in the position of where we are now, not on speculation about what one or more ratifiers of the Constitution might or might not think (even assuming they all thought the same thing, which they clearly didn't). Channeling dead people is a poor way to interpret the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom