• 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!

To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

roguenuke said:
Then no one was being denied their right to marry when it came to interracial marriage bans. If they were a black person, they could marry a black person. If they were a white person, they could marry a white person. So if you are of any race, you had the right to marry. Some simply wanted extra rights to marry outside of their race. They wanted to change the definition of marriage. It was about some people using the judicial system to comply with a minority's (interracial couples') wishes. The state of Virginia and South Carolina and Alabama and many more voted to keep marriage the same, no interracial couples, and a few judges overturned the will of the people.

See how horrible that argument is.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with your argument is that marriage is between a man and a woman, No one wanted to change that. They wanted to ban certain marriages, and did for a while with the help of the courts. They wanted to narrow the definition of marriage and limit it to within races. That was an attack on the definition of marriage.

Marriage between a man and a woman has been attacked again, and again aided by the courts.
 
Anthony60 said:
What's wrong with your argument is that marriage is between a man and a woman, No one wanted to change that. They wanted to ban certain marriages, and did for a while with the help of the courts. They wanted to narrow the definition of marriage and limit it to within races. That was an attack on the definition of marriage.

Marriage between a man and a woman has been attacked again, and again aided by the courts.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. It easily accommodates two men or two women. Your personal definition of marriage means nothing in our laws. What matters is how marriage laws functions, and they aren't gender dependent.
 
Lot's of reasonable discussions on this thread. basically if you don't agree with the left's views on gay marriage you are the moral equivalent of a southern sheriff from the 60's spraying black people with fire hoses. not....very.....reasonable. and makes it quite hard to have a real debate with real exchange of ideas.
 
roguenuke said:
No, it isn't. It easily accommodates two men or two women. Your personal definition of marriage means nothing in our laws. What matters is how marriage laws functions, and they aren't gender dependent.
Click to expand...

See, now you are just making things up. That's a bad argument
 
Anthony60 said:
What's wrong with your argument is that marriage is between a man and a woman,
Click to expand...
Says who?

Anthony60 said:
No one wanted to change that.
Click to expand...
Says who?Do you speak for everyone?
Anthony60 said:
They wanted to ban certain marriages, and did for a while with the help of the courts. They wanted to narrow the definition of marriage and limit it to within races. That was an attack on the definition of marriage.
Click to expand...
Who is this "They" you are talking about?This kind of sound like some "tinfoil hat' bs to me.
Anthony60 said:
Marriage between a man and a woman has been attacked again, and again aided by the courts.
Click to expand...
I'm married to a woman.Do you care to explain to me how me and my wife of many years are being "attacked"?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I'm pretty sure that those who have opposition to SSM is primarily due to their bigoted views of homosexuals.
Click to expand...

Dude,that's not cool.If that is your OPINION,then that is your OPINION.Over generalizing like this is not pretty no matter what political lean does it.
 
Anthony60 said:
See, now you are just making things up. That's a bad argument
Click to expand...

Legally and even socially, marriage accommodates two people of the same sex. There is no need to make things up because it does. You don't agree, then show me a rational argument why legally marriage does not allow for two people of the same sex. This would mean showing laws that are gender specific in the US and would prevent a woman from becoming another woman's spouse. Show me a rational argument why socially marriage does not allow for two people of the same sex. This means that showing men that most people would never accept a man being in love and in a relationship with another man.
 
Verax said:
LoL. Its funny because it actually works as a rebuttal.

History repeats itself, same old story over and over. Every time we make progress the conservatives roll around in fits claiming its the end of the world and its wrong, wrong, wrong!!! 50 years later its the status quo and the conservatives say they were the ones fighting against tyranny, haha.
Click to expand...

What is "Progress" ?
What you describe as a battle for progress through history between Progressives and Conservatives seems to me to be simply the Truth finding it's equilibrium. The nature of things in this world is always to return to the Truth.
If you want to learn something from history, study the points in a given societies rise and fall and look where homosexuality becomes an accepted norm in the progress of that state.

Conservatives do tend to fight against Tyranny, while Progressives tend to promote Tyranny through the consolidation of power to the Government, although in most cases it may be inadvertent. But this is off topic.
 
Cable said:
Conservatives do tend to fight against Tyranny, while Progressives tend to promote Tyranny through the consolidation of power to the Government, although in most cases it may be inadvertent. But this is off topic.
Click to expand...

and extremely silly. Don't forget that.
 
Verthaine said:
Dude,that's not cool.If that is your OPINION,then that is your OPINION.Over generalizing like this is not pretty no matter what political lean does it.
Click to expand...
I know, it is terrible of me to suggest in any way shape or manner that discrimination towards homosexuals....could be explained by bigotry!


The vapors!.... where are the smelling salts?!?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I know, it is terrible of me to suggest in any way shape or manner that discrimination towards homosexuals....could be explained by bigotry!


The vapors!.... where are the smelling salts?!?
Click to expand...

"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."

But having said that..are not gay people Bigots for not accepting the Ant-Gay point of view??
 
wolfie said:
"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."

But having said that..are not gay people Bigots for not accepting the Ant-Gay point of view??
Click to expand...

Nobody is attempting to suppress the rights of "anti-gay" people. That's the ultimate reason you have a losing argument: two dudes getting married does not negatively impact you or society in any way. Your personal moral disapproval is not sufficient grounds to deny rights to another person. There's a reason I never got to vote my approval or disapproval of your marriage choice.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I know, it is terrible of me to suggest in any way shape or manner that discrimination towards homosexuals....could be explained by bigotry!

The vapors!.... where are the smelling salts?!?
Click to expand...

Certainly some could be explained thus, but to insinuate this on every dissenting opinion would be, well, terrible.
 
Cable said:
Certainly some could be explained thus, but to insinuate this on every dissenting opinion would be, well, terrible.
Click to expand...

Promoting discrimination solely because of your own moral disapproval of someone makes you a bigot. Sorry if this is offensive to you.

Maybe you don't think that's the only reason. Maybe you think there's some sort of harm done to other people, yourself, or to society if two dudes get married. If so, please articulate that harm, because it would radically alter my perception of the "pro family" crowd.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Nobody is attempting to suppress the rights of "anti-gay" people. That's the ultimate reason you have a losing argument: two dudes getting married does not negatively impact you or society in any way.

Your personal moral disapproval is not sufficient grounds to deny rights to another person. There's a reason I never got to vote my approval or disapproval of your marriage choice.
Click to expand...

Your statement would seem to indicate some factual proofs. Do you have any?

In both agree and disagree with the second statement you make, regarding voting your morals. On the one hand, if I can vote your marriage illegal, then theoretically you can also vote mine illegal. It's just a matter of numbers. On the other hand, all of our laws are based on ethical questions. In effect, we do vote on what we allow society to do based on ethical preference.

In a Godless world "right" seems to boil down to what most folks believe is good. Logically, there appears no absolute authority except the belief of the majority.
 
wolfie said:
"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."

But having said that..are not gay people Bigots for not accepting the Ant-Gay point of view??
Click to expand...

No. We don't accept the "anti-gay point of view" out of logic and reason, not an attempt to harm or take rights away from those who do not agree with same sex marriage.
 
Deuce said:
Nobody is attempting to suppress the rights of "anti-gay" people. That's the ultimate reason you have a losing argument: two dudes getting married does not negatively impact you or society in any way. Your personal moral disapproval is not sufficient grounds to deny rights to another person. There's a reason I never got to vote my approval or disapproval of your marriage choice.
Click to expand...

That would be because when I married it was a holy and personal experience between a man and a woman..

I didn't say gay people getting married would negatively impact my life actually..

I just wish they would conduct themselves in a more seemly manner.......

They have the law behind them..big deal..

Even the law can't stop people thinking!!
 
winston53660 said:
no

............
Click to expand...

And why would that be..

Bigotry..

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of sexual preferences/race/ etc..
 
Cable said:
Your statement would seem to indicate some factual proofs. Do you have any?
Click to expand...

It is not up to me to disprove the existence of harm. Even if it were, I cannot prove a negative. You have to prove the positive.

You have to show a reason why someone else's rights should be restricted. The Prop 8 supporters had a chance to do this on a national stage before the Supreme Court. They failed. Asked directly what harm was caused by two dudes getting married, their lawyer was unable to articulate a reason.

In both agree and disagree with the second statement you make, regarding voting your morals. On the one hand, if I can vote your marriage illegal, then theoretically you can also vote mine illegal. It's just a matter of numbers. On the other hand, all of our laws are based on ethical questions. In effect, we do vote on what we allow society to do based on ethical preference.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true. In the United States, our constitutional framework is designed specifically to prevent a "tyranny of the majority."

In a Godless world "right" seems to boil down to what most folks believe is good. Logically, there appears no absolute authority except the belief of the majority.
Click to expand...
Not really relevant. We live in America, not this theoretical construct of yours.
 
Cable said:
Your statement would seem to indicate some factual proofs. Do you have any?

In both agree and disagree with the second statement you make, regarding voting your morals. On the one hand, if I can vote your marriage illegal, then theoretically you can also vote mine illegal. It's just a matter of numbers. On the other hand, all of our laws are based on ethical questions. In effect, we do vote on what we allow society to do based on ethical preference.

In a Godless world "right" seems to boil down to what most folks believe is good. Logically, there appears no absolute authority except the belief of the majority.
Click to expand...

Actually, in our country, the beliefs of the supermajority are truly the authority on any issue. If an issue is strong enough to win the support of the supermajority to get a Constitutional Amendment put into place, then that belief comes to being part of our most protected laws. This is why our Constitution has generally been used to expand the rights of individuals, not suppress them, because our most largely held beliefs revolve around individual freedom and rights to not be suppressed by the government, aka the simple majority. It hasn't gone well when our nation made basic morality a part of that law. Prohibition was one of the biggest mistakes in our country and there was nothing anyone could do about it because it was in our Constitution. So until the supermajority agreed that Prohibition was wrong, the law of the land was Prohibition.
 
wolfie said:
That would be because when I married it was a holy and personal experience between a man and a woman..

I didn't say gay people getting married would negatively impact my life actually..

I just wish they would conduct themselves in a more seemly manner.......

They have the law behind them..big deal..

Even the law can't stop people thinking!!
Click to expand...

So you support the right of homosexuals to marry?


wolfie said:
And why would that be..

Bigotry..

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of sexual preferences/race/ etc..
Click to expand...

Is quibbling over semantics your idea of a compelling argument for denying people rights?
 
Deuce said:
Promoting discrimination solely because of your own moral disapproval of someone makes you a bigot. Sorry if this is offensive to you.

Maybe you don't think that's the only reason. Maybe you think there's some sort of harm done to other people, yourself, or to society if two dudes get married. If so, please articulate that harm, because it would radically alter my perception of the "pro family" crowd.
Click to expand...

We all promote discrimination of others based on our personal moral code. This is how we create any law. You seem to assume that those who would vote against a man marrying a man are somehow bigoted.

I don't speak for the pro family crowd, just myself. I do believe that same sex choices harm the individual, and society, but that is my opinion. To articulate that harm would take considerable time. You can begin to search it yourself. If you haven't, it would seem incumbent on you to do so prior to your voting it either way.
There are a thousand legal things people can do that harm themselves and society.
It's just the way it is. God gave us free will. Let the circus begin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom