• 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!

On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

ttwtt78640 said:
Likely because a gay man is still a man and is treated exactly like any other man, a gay woman is still a woman and is treated exactly like any other woman. ;)
Click to expand...

Correct. And any man has the option to marry any other woman and any woman has the option to marry any other man. Fair and equal application.
 
LuckyLarry said:
Interesting that you use as your authority on the matter an entity that has yet to define the "right" of marriage to be extended to same sex couples. What could be taking them so long?
Click to expand...


California was the first state to have it's anti-miscegenation law overturned by court action via the California Supreme Court in 1948. The SCOTUS Loving decision wasn't until 1968.

The Goodridge v. Department of Public Health case in Massachusetts, the first State to allow Same-sex Civil Marriage was in 2004. It took 20 years for the SCOTUS to address bans on interracial marriage because they wanted to see more states take action before they did. Using that time line, the SCOTUS will be putting off a direct case for another 4-5 years so that more states can have marriage equality.



>>>>
 
LuckyLarry said:
Correct. And any man has the option to marry any other woman and any woman has the option to marry any other man. Fair and equal application.
Click to expand...


That same logic was presented in the Loving case by the Commonwealth of Virginia (to paraphrase: Negros can marry Negros, White can marry Whites), how well did that work?


>>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
California was the first state to have it's anti-miscegenation law overturned by court action via the California Supreme Court in 1948. The SCOTUS Loving decision wasn't until 1968.

The Goodridge v. Department of Public Health case in Massachusetts, the first State to allow Same-sex Civil Marriage was in 2004. It took 20 years for the SCOTUS to address bans on interracial marriage because they wanted to see more states take action before they did. Using that time line, the SCOTUS will be putting off a direct case for another 4-5 years so that more states can have marriage equality.



>>>>
Click to expand...

Perhaps. I'm sure polygamists, proponents of incest, proponents of beastiality, and even NAMBLA are hoping for a favorable timeline as well.
 
AGENT J said:
that's a nice opinion of what you think has been said but its meaningless to the facts, but please feel free to make up more lies and strawmen.
Facts destroy your failed post
and as always if you disagree PLEASE show us any FACTS equal rights being granted to gays leading to a slippery slope of something else, we cant wait to read it!
Click to expand...

No, the FACTS are as I've outlined them and you have not shown where any US court has the grant to determine "fundamental rights" (which are a matter of belief and opinion, NOT a matter of Constitution). And again, equal rights and gay marriage are not the same issue. As long as the regulation is applied equally to the population it comports with constitutional equal rights.

As for the slippery slope argument, your argument seems to be wanting a crystal ball gazing component. In your opinion allowing gay marriage will not lead to allowing polygamous marriage. Other opinions vary. Only time will tell if we do indeed slip farther down that slope. That you call your prediction that it won't slide further fact is just plain silly.
 
WorldWatcher said:
California was the first state to have it's anti-miscegenation law overturned by court action via the California Supreme Court in 1948. The SCOTUS Loving decision wasn't until 1968.

The Goodridge v. Department of Public Health case in Massachusetts, the first State to allow Same-sex Civil Marriage was in 2004. It took 20 years for the SCOTUS to address bans on interracial marriage because they wanted to see more states take action before they did. Using that time line, the SCOTUS will be putting off a direct case for another 4-5 years so that more states can have marriage equality.



>>>>
Click to expand...

Care to provide a source for that bold assertion?
 
clownboy said:
1.)No, the FACTS are as I've outlined them and you have not shown where any US court has the grant to determine "fundamental rights" (which are a matter of belief and opinion, NOT a matter of Constitution). And again, equal rights and gay marriage are not the same issue. As long as the regulation is applied equally to the population it comports with constitutional equal rights.

2.) As for the slippery slope argument, your argument seems to be wanting a crystal ball gazing component. In your opinion allowing gay marriage will not lead to allowing polygamous marriage. Other opinions vary. Only time will tell if we do indeed slip farther down that slope. That you call your prediction that it won't slide further fact is just plain silly.
Click to expand...

1.) oh you are just stating random fcts that werent begin discussed and you think that fools somebody?
yep nothign you sated changes ANYTHING i said, NOTHING

2.) doesnt need s cyrstal ball there factually is no connection in law and precedence that can be used

so everything stated just as i said it was
that's a nice opinion of what you think has been said but its meaningless to the facts, but please feel free to make up more lies and strawmen.
Facts destroy your failed post
and as always if you disagree PLEASE show us any FACTS equal rights being granted to gays leading to a slippery slope of something else, we cant wait to read it!
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Care to provide a source for that bold assertion?
Click to expand...


That fact that it took 20 years is a matter of history. The rest is my opinion but the SCOTUS will often decline cases to allow a situation to "mature" or "ripen" until they feel it is time to take action by selecting the "proper case".


>>>>
 
AGENT J said:
1.) oh you are just stating random fcts that werent begin discussed and you think that fools somebody?
yep nothign you sated changes ANYTHING i said, NOTHING

2.) doesnt need s cyrstal ball there factually is no connection in law and precedence that can be used

so everything stayed just as i said it was
that's a nice opinion of what you think has been said but its meaningless to the facts, but please feel free to make up more lies and strawmen.
Facts destroy your failed post
and as always if you disagree PLEASE show us any FACTS equal rights being granted to gays leading to a slippery slope of something else, we cant wait to read it!
Click to expand...

See post #805, standard answer whenever you alter my posts.
 
WorldWatcher said:
That fact that it took 20 years is a matter of history. The rest is my opinion but the SCOTUS will often decline cases to allow a situation to "mature" or "ripen" until they feel it is time to take action by selecting the "proper case".


>>>>
Click to expand...

So you feel that popularity alone now changes the meaning of the constitution?
 
clownboy said:
See post #805, standard answer whenever you alter my posts.
Click to expand...

exaxtly! thats what i thought you got nothing
I told you this deflection will fail every time and heres my standard answer back to you

just a reminder of what i said last time you tried this deflection and derailment

"I like it, its a convenient and courteous method to assure a poster know exactly what im responding for and it creates less confusion.
If you do not sorry but the solution is easy, simply dont respond to me"

and just a friendly DP participant FYI in case you missed it a mod commented on your concerns
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-stirs-little-public-outcry-nm-w-95-a-10.html


Facts destroy your failed post
and as always if you disagree PLEASE show us any FACTS equal rights being granted to gays leading to a slippery slope of something else, we cant wait to read it!
 
ttwtt78640 said:
So you feel that popularity alone now changes the meaning of the constitution?
Click to expand...


Not in the least.


The Constitution clearly says in the 14th Amendment that ALL persons shall be afforded the equal protection of the law and due process and that no state shall abridge the privileges and immunities of it's citizen, and the common understanding is that such abridgement, when needful, must be based on a compelling government interest and not simply capricious and invidious actions against it's citizens.


It was there all the time (since the passage of the 14th Amendment), however it took men time to have the courage to address it. In 1948 there wasn't the national will to see anti-miscegenation law overturned. The overturning occurred in 1968, doesn't mean that they weren't still unconstitutional in 1948.



>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
Not in the least.


The Constitution clearly says in the 14th Amendment that ALL persons shall be afforded the equal protection of the law and due process and that no state shall abridge the privileges and immunities of it's citizen, and the common understanding is that such abridgement, when needful, must be based on a compelling government interest and not simply capricious and invidious actions against it's citizens.


It was there all the time (since the passage of the 14th Amendment), however it took men time to have the courage to address it. In 1948 there wasn't the national will to see anti-miscegenation law overturned. The overturning occurred in 1968, doesn't mean that they weren't still unconstitutional in 1948.



>>>>
Click to expand...

Yet a strong personal desire cannot become a reason to require a compelling state interest to deny its consideration or all manner of laws would have to be abandoned. Many wish to buy/sell beer on Sunday (or at 3 AM) - what compelling state interest can be said to exist to deny that strong personal desire?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yet a strong personal desire cannot become a reason to require a compelling state interest to deny its consideration or all manner of laws would have to be abandoned. Many wish to buy/sell beer on Sunday (or at 3 AM) - what compelling state interest can be said to exist to deny that strong personal desire?
Click to expand...


Since the such laws are general in nature and do not target a specific group, then the standard is much, MUCH lower and would fall under the 10th Amendment power of the state to regulate commerce. On the other hand if a Blue Law that said that Men can buy beer on Sunday but women can't, in such a case women could challenge the law and force the state to articulate why there was a compelling interest.


>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
Since the such laws are general in nature and do not target a specific group, then the standard is much, MUCH lower and would fall under the 10th Amendment power of the state to regulate commerce. On the other hand if a Blue Law that said that Men can buy beer on Sunday but women can't, in such a case women could challenge the law and force the state to articulate why there was a compelling interest.


>>>>
Click to expand...

Marriage laws target no group since sex is not required of marriage, sex can be had (or not had) in or out of a marital relationship. The beer sales law targets a group - those that work odd shifts.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Marriage laws target no group since sex is not required of marriage, sex can be had (or not had) in or out of a marital relationship. The beer sales law targets a group - those that work odd shifts.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you are trying to say.


#1 - You are correct, entry into Civil Marriage does not require, as a condition of entering into Civil Marriage that the participants conduct a sex act. Denying sex through, at least in the past, has been grounds for divorce - but that is a different issue.

#2 - Where have you been for the last 20 years? The laws were specifically written to target a group, the laws were written based on gender with the express purpose of denying Civil Marriage to same-sex couples.

#3 - Odd shift workers are not denied the ability to buy beer, they can buy it before shift or they can buy it after the time restriction. No different then State that mandate that businesses the sell alcohol must end sales at midnight, or one o'clock, or two o'clock.

>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
I'm not sure what you are trying to say.


#1 - You are correct, entry into Civil Marriage does not require, as a condition of entering into Civil Marriage that the participants conduct a sex act. Denying sex through, at least in the past, has been grounds for divorce - but that is a different issue.

#2 - Where have you been for the last 20 years? The laws were specifically written to target a group, the laws were written based on gender with the express purpose of denying Civil Marriage to same-sex couples.

#3 - Odd shift workers are not denied the ability to buy beer, they can buy it before shift or they can buy it after the time restriction. No different then State that mandate that businesses the sell alcohol must end sales at midnight, or one o'clock, or two o'clock.

>>>>
Click to expand...

My point about shift workers was that going to the bar is normally an after work activity, allowing ample time to sober up before your next shift. If you work the 4 to midnight shift then you are not going to find many bars open.
 
vesper said:
And your argument is one used by one who is blind in one eye and can't see out of the other. There are such things as slippery slopes.
Click to expand...

No there isn't. Slippery Slope is an illogical argument used by fear mongers to describe a chain of events that may or may not occur. They don't seem to understand that the "may not" part is just as likely, if not more so, than the "may" part. That is the illogical disconnect and hence their fear. They blast others with their blithering blather that we can't allow or do X for fear that that will automatically lead to Y. They are wrong.

And if you are blind in one eye and can't see out the other doesn't that make you blind in two eyes? Seriously... WTF? :roll:

Thank you so much for bringing validity to my argument with these words. You such a strong advocate for gay rights/marriage and now we are learning you advocate incest too.
Click to expand...

Sarcasm is lost on many that lack a basic common sense... .
 
Bronson said:
Gay "Marriage" is an inferior form of pretend marriage. It's a sham. It doesn't deserve to be in the same discussion as the tradition of marriage, which brings the opposite sexes together to form one union. From this union, new life is created with unique DNA, formed from the DNA of that child's biological parents. This all has significant social and economic purposes that are unique to this institution. Not the Frankenstein experiments that the LGBT community has to engage in to try and pass themselves off as "normal".

If that hurts your feelings I don't care. Live with it.
Click to expand...

Wow, such bigoted ignorance! I am always astounded, alarmed and a bit shocked that people that are allowed to vote, eat cereal and drive cars have opinions that are so cave man like.

Marriage between a man and a woman that results in beatings, torture, child molestation, abortion, emotional and psychological abuse and all other forms of crap aren't a sham as long as they create unique DNA then, I guess? And SSM that results in two loving and caring partners that raise a child in a healthy caring environment, etc. is a "sham"? Man, you can't make this ****ing **** up! :lol:
 
Bodhisattva said:
Marriage between a man and a woman that results in beatings, torture, child molestation, abortion, emotional and psychological abuse and all other forms of crap aren't a sham as long as they create unique DNA then, I guess? And SSM that results in two loving and caring partners that raise a child in a healthy caring environment, etc. is a "sham"? Man, you can't make this ****ing **** up! :lol:
Click to expand...

Why do you try to characterize marriage as resulting in "beatings, torture, child molestation, abortion, emotional and psychological abuse and all other forms of crap" if its between a man and a women and "two loving and caring partners that raise a child in a healthy caring environment, etc." when it's between two people with the same parts? This is some ridiculous spin.

Most studies and articles I've come across reveal higher rates of "beatings, torture, child molestation, abortion, emotional and psychological abuse and all other forms of crap" among homosexual relationships. Even the most politically spun articles claim there is no difference in rates of these types of things between hetero's and homo's relationships. I've never read an article/study that indicates that heterosexuals have higher rates of happy well adjusted relationships or lower rates of "
beatings, torture, child molestation, abortion, emotional and psychological abuse and all other forms of crap"

This hyperbole of yours is bizarre. It's a fabricated attempt to mischaracterize.
 
LuckyLarry said:
Most studies and articles I've come across reveal higher rates of "beatings, torture, child molestation, abortion, emotional and psychological abuse and all other forms of crap" among homosexual relationships.
Click to expand...

THAT IS ABSOLUTE BULL! One thing I know inside and out is peer reviewed literature on same sex parenting and I will literally inundate this thread with hundreds of studies on this topic unless you back up your baseless bullcrap statement by posting these "studies and articles" you claim to have read.

THAT was a bald faced LIE you made. And if you have to LIE you do not have a good argument.
 
Last edited:
LuckyLarry said:
Why do you try to characterize marriage as resulting in "beatings, torture, child molestation, abortion, emotional and psychological abuse and all other forms of crap" if its between a man and a women and "two loving and caring partners that raise a child in a healthy caring environment, etc." when it's between two people with the same parts? This is some ridiculous spin.
Click to expand...

No. It is posting scenarios to show that his logic is flawed. The two scenarios can obviously be reversed... :roll:

This hyperbole of yours is bizarre. It's a fabricated attempt to mischaracterize.
Click to expand...

You are new so I will give you the benefit of the doubt that online debating might be new to you as well...

Most studies and articles I've come across reveal higher rates of "beatings, torture, child molestation, abortion, emotional and psychological abuse and all other forms of crap" among homosexual relationships. Even the most politically spun articles claim there is no difference in rates of these types of things between hetero's and homo's relationships. I've never read an article/study that indicates that heterosexuals have higher rates of happy well adjusted relationships or lower rates of "
beatings, torture, child molestation, abortion, emotional and psychological abuse and all other forms of crap"
Click to expand...

Here is a study result that just came out recently...

"Evidence from a decades long study conducted by Tim Rogers from the Centre For Sexual Deviancy reveal that heterosexual couples engage in more deviant and destructive behaviour, up to and including beatings, torture, child molestation, abortion, emotional and psychological abuse, than homosexual couples. Over 1,800 couples were consulted from 2002 - 2012 from 29 states.

Centre For Sexual Deviancy
 
CriticalThought said:
THAT IS ABSOLUTE BULL! One thing I know inside and out is peer reviewed literature on same sex parenting and I will literally inundate this thread with hundreds of studies on this topic unless you back up your baseless bullcrap statement by posting these "studies and articles" you claim to have read.

THAT was a bald faced LIE you made. And if you have to LIE you do not have a good argument.
Click to expand...

Absolutely... Opinions such as this are generally made by people that have never known a homosexual couple, much less many... My source of information that I base all my decisions on is this TV Show called Cops. About 99.9% of the idiots being chased and arrested appear to be super heterosexuals...
 
LuckyLarry said:
Why do you try to characterize marriage as resulting in "beatings, torture, child molestation, abortion, emotional and psychological abuse and all other forms of crap" if its between a man and a women and "two loving and caring partners that raise a child in a healthy caring environment, etc." when it's between two people with the same parts? This is some ridiculous spin.

Most studies and articles I've come across reveal higher rates of "beatings, torture, child molestation, abortion, emotional and psychological abuse and all other forms of crap" among homosexual relationships. Even the most politically spun articles claim there is no difference in rates of these types of things between hetero's and homo's relationships. I've never read an article/study that indicates that heterosexuals have higher rates of happy well adjusted relationships or lower rates of "
beatings, torture, child molestation, abortion, emotional and psychological abuse and all other forms of crap"

This hyperbole of yours is bizarre. It's a fabricated attempt to mischaracterize.
Click to expand...

WOW
dishonesty like this is sure to get your post destroyed by facts. You are funny.
 
AGENT J said:
WOW
dishonesty like this is sure to get your post destroyed by facts. You are funny.
Click to expand...

Actually Lucky Larry is on to something. There are ample studies pointing to absolute bogus studies to show a favor in the promotion of homosexual unions. Unfortunately the bogus studies play a big role in making Law in this country when introduced in a court of law.

Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility, Say APA Insiders
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom