• 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!

Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

they would have not voted for letting women vote they certainly did not all condemn slavery the founding fathers are not right because their the founding fathers

they did not set up a government where people had to vote as they would

so what's it mater?

You realize that the democrats until the JFK/LBJ area were a bunch of racist pigs that hated woman and wanted to use blacks ever growing population a voting block?
 
You realize that the democrats until the JFK/LBJ area were a bunch of racist pigs that hated woman and wanted to use blacks ever growing population a voting block?

iv heard what's you point

also herd the republican party absorbed quite a few of those same people

not sure how that matter either unless your tying to point out that political party's are not always right to

in which case I agree with you
 
iv heard what's you point

also herd the republican party absorbed quite a few of those same people

not sure how that matter either unless your tying to point out that political party's are not always right to

in which case I agree with you

I'm not a republican or a democrat....

But why is being gay so "great?"

Because I like ***** is that supper great too?

There is certainly bias there....

People want to talk about bias and **** - well what the **** is up with this?

She's special for being a lesbian and I'm just some dude because I like kooters - wtf...
 
I'm not a republican or a democrat....

But why is being gay so "great?"

Because I like ***** is that supper great too?

There is certainly bias there....

People want to talk about bias and **** - well what the **** is up with this?

She's special for being a lesbian and I'm just some dude because I like kooters - wtf...

I agree there is an extreme bias why is it okay to have homosexual parades and I cant go out and have a heterosexual parade. or why can I go have a black Parade that people will call civil rights but if someone goes and has a white parade it is racist?
 
I agree there is an extreme bias why is it okay to have homosexual parades and I cant go out and have a heterosexual parade. or why can I go have a black Parade that people will call civil rights but if someone goes and has a white parade it is racist?

When people make laws that say someone can refuse to do business with you or even turn you away from public services that they provide for looking heterosexual, you can come complain about not being able to have a "heterosexual" parade (of course, you can have such a parade if you want, there is no law preventing you from this, if KKK members can walk down the street/have a parade, then there is no reason you can't have yours for being heterosexual, just don't plan on the same turnout or reception as homosexual parades, no one is required to give into childish attempts at attention).
 
Judges hold way more power than the state congress or governor.

The same goes for the Federal government with the SCOTUS over the congress and president.

I don't agree at all. One major limiting factor to the power of judges is the fact that a law must be challenged in court in order to be overturned. Plus, there are levels of judges that the law must work through in order to do this. On top of all this, there must be shown that someone is actually being harmed/affected by a law in order for a challenge to a law to even make it to court.

So, for example, those proposed laws in Idaho that are just chock full of discrimination toward gays cannot even be challenged should they be enacted until after they are used against someone, despite the fact that one of them was already basically ruled on as unconstitutional with the Romer decision.
 
Judges hold way more power than the state congress or governor.

The same goes for the Federal government with the SCOTUS over the congress and president.

Not at all. People ignore judges all the time. Judges have absolutely no power to back up anything they say or do. The executive branch actively ignores judge rulings regularly. If anything, they're the weakest branch of the government.
 
you don't have to get upset about me questioning your credibility, i simply saying check before you speak (type?) you said "ALL" when every survey out there in within the (as you said) margin of error. But however since this one is a few percentages in the opposite direction now you bring up the margin of error point. I find that very interesting for a person with a high amount of integrity, go from so sure to margin of error and going for ALL surveys to most. I will definitly say that ALL surverys are within the margin of error as a whole.

You are wrong. There are lots of polls that show that same sex marriage support is above the simple majority, somewhere around 53-57%, putting it outside the margin of error.

In U.S., 52% Back Law to Legalize Gay Marriage in 50 States

Heck, this one was done well over 6 months ago.

"If given the opportunity to vote on a law legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states, the slight majority of Americans, 52%, say they would cast their vote in favor, while 43% would vote against it."

"For results based on the samples of 972 national adults in Form A and 1,055 national adults in Form B, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points."

This one would be outside the margin of error applied to both sides negatively toward ssm support, because if you subtract 4% from 52%, you get 48%, and if you add 4% to 43%, you get 47%. Same sex marriage being legal still would win here.

So your last statement is false.
 
Alright Kiddo, you have to have a bit of logic...

can you be a "deist" without being religious? just because he was a deist doesn't mean he wasn't religious.

I'm actually close to being a deist myself. Deists do not follow the strict rules of a religion because they generally reject absolute authority of religious texts and/or organizations as a whole.
 
Last edited:
1.) thats not a problem its made up its 100% meaningless and bringing up religion in a discussion of legal marriage is a complete failed strawman.

Legal marriage factually has nothing to do with religion. this fact will never change

Unfortunately, religion is an issue with those who are adherents to it. And since we live in a representative democracy it becomes an issue. Wheter it is right or wrong is another issue of course.
2.) so like i said it wont be up to the states since that would violate rights

States determine on the rules of accessibility to marriage. SSM is an new idea and the Supreme Court may decide to allow the States to show a compelling State intrest on the restricting of marriage to opposite gender only. They may decide to require the States to accept it otherwise.

3.) still dodging the questions and not committing. This thread as a topic and its equal rights for gays so apply your concerns to that and give us real examples instead of dodges and meaningless generalizations.

We all know that there are Court decisions that were not based on Constitutional grounds and some which seem to be based on nothing more than what the Judge thought was right.

4.) what is " extra-constitutional reasoning" and whats an example of that pertaining to equal rights for gays

Anything reasoning not based on i the meaning of the Constitution which for the most part is written in plain language and should be easily to do so. The issue about SSM is that marriage has been between only between two people and opposite gender only and the question becomes, "Is there a compelling case for State interest to maintaining marriage as it is now or is there a compelling case that it is a violation of Rights to do the same?".

5.) see 4 what specifically would be forced on the states that applies to equal rights for gays
6.) see 5 and 4

please provide REAL answers

I am not going to go further in addressing statements that I made to others.
 
their are no legal religious connections to marriage In this nation though

That is true, no legal connections.

and its the moves to ban same sex marriage that have the problem with spurious reasoning

There are methods including the Courts to weed out bad law that might result. If the Courts do rule for SSM I hope that they make an air tight argument based on Constitutional Rights.
that combined with the discrimination and lack of equal protection under the law justifies forcing those states to allow them

So long as it is not just a "because we say so" ruling.

they can grumble about it all they like after

We do not want this becoming like the abortion controversy.
 
I'm not a republican or a democrat....

But why is being gay so "great?"

Because I like ***** is that supper great too?

There is certainly bias there....

People want to talk about bias and **** - well what the **** is up with this?

She's special for being a lesbian and I'm just some dude because I like kooters - wtf...

its suppose great when people don't give us **** for liking a certain gender or both in the case of bisexual people

if you want being gay to stop being a big deal then gay people need to be treated fairly and not have a big deal made out of them

it might be slow but the commotion will fade after that
 
I agree there is an extreme bias why is it okay to have homosexual parades and I cant go out and have a heterosexual parade. or why can I go have a black Parade that people will call civil rights but if someone goes and has a white parade it is racist?

cant you go out and do those things?
 
We do not want this becoming like the abortion controversy.

It won't. The abortion controversy is very different than same sex marriage. In all likelihood, we will see the same thing that happened with interracial marriage after the Loving ruling, it just became a non-issue to the vast majority of people.

The abortion issue involves an easily debatable question of the rights of (at least) two living beings, one inside the womb and the one who owns the womb (and possibly even the rights of a third party, depending on point of view). You can even easily bring up that measurable harm can be done to either of the two beings, depending on which one's rights are determined to be more important.

While the only people who really have a any rights being affected when it comes to same sex marriage is those who wish to be in a same sex marriage. Heterosexuals, religious people, opposite sex couples, children, society even, cannot be shown to be measurably harmed by allowing same sex couples to be married, just the same as when it was a restriction on race preventing some people from getting married. Marriage is about a private contract, not a question of literal life or death and questions about when life begins or medical privacy.
 
1.)Unfortunately, religion is an issue with those who are adherents to it. And since we live in a representative democracy it becomes an issue. Wheter it is right or wrong is another issue of course.
2.)States determine on the rules of accessibility to marriage. SSM is an new idea and the Supreme Court may decide to allow the States to show a compelling State intrest on the restricting of marriage to opposite gender only. They may decide to require the States to accept it otherwise.
3.)We all know that there are Court decisions that were not based on Constitutional grounds and some which seem to be based on nothing more than what the Judge thought was right.
4.)Anything reasoning not based on i the meaning of the Constitution which for the most part is written in plain language and should be easily to do so. The issue about SSM is that marriage has been between only between two people and opposite gender only and the question becomes, "Is there a compelling case for State interest to maintaining marriage as it is now or is there a compelling case that it is a violation of Rights to do the same?".
5.)I am not going to go further in addressing statements that I made to others.

1.) nothign unfortunate about it, religion is factually meaningless to this issue and anybody that disagrees doesnt understand the constitution and rights we have or how this country works. SO those caught up on religion are severely misguided because religious marriage factually has nothing to do with legal marriage.

2.) yes states can determine SOME grey area stuff but they can not infringe on rights, see loving vs virgina
so again like i said this part will not be up to the states they dont get to infringe on individual rights and thats what it is coming down too. THis wont be happening all the rulings that already exist are evidence.

3.) thanks for that random statement it doesnt change anything and you are STILL dodging the question which is VERY telling. This is MULTIPLE judges and many rulings.

I will ask you AGAIN, This thread as a topic and its equal rights for gays so apply your concerns to that and give us real examples instead of dodges and meaningless generalizations.

4.) again more double talk and no factual explanation why do you keep doing this it exposes how severely weak your position is.

so again answer the question DIRECTLY, what is " extra-constitutional reasoning" and whats an example of that pertaining to equal rights for gays

5.) translation: you have no factual answers or examples and will continue to dodge further exposing your failed position. Let us know when you can answer those questions and give factual examples. I accept your concession.
 
That is true, no legal connections.



There are methods including the Courts to weed out bad law that might result. If the Courts do rule for SSM I hope that they make an air tight argument based on Constitutional Rights.


So long as it is not just a "because we say so" ruling.



We do not want this becoming like the abortion controversy.

Have you read any of the rulings so far? How many times do I have to tell you to read them?
 
Well then it stands to reason then... that Benjamin Franklin along with the founding fathers were religious (religious not meaning "christian" but meaning a spiritual belief in a supreme being) and again the poll shows that nearly everyone who is "religious" disagrees with homosexual marriage. So seeing that most if not ALL the founding fathers were religious... they would have not voted for same sex marriage.

Absolutely true. I doubt that any of the founding fathers would have supported same sex marriage. Then again, most of them were slave owners. They also did not believe in women's rights. The thing is I really don't care much about what the founding fathers thought because we have amended the US Constitution to date because clearly, as they wrote it was not sufficient for what we want as a society today. In fact, we amended the Constitution with the 14 amendment, which includes the Equal Protection Clause, which states...

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Given that marriage is a law, and we are now talking about equal application of that law within the states, I think that is a better place to begin. I seriously doubt that any of the founding fathers would have supported the 14th amendment. So why do you think the vision of the founding fathers is even relevant to this discussion?
 
you don't have to get upset about me questioning your credibility, i simply saying check before you speak (type?) you said "ALL" when every survey out there in within the (as you said) margin of error. But however since this one is a few percentages in the opposite direction now you bring up the margin of error point. I find that very interesting for a person with a high amount of integrity, go from so sure to margin of error and going for ALL surveys to most. I will definitly say that ALL surverys are within the margin of error as a whole.

I figured that anyone would understand the margin of error issue when discussing statistics. If someone presents statistics that ignore margin of error, either they are one of the few who didn't know about it, or I would question THEIR integrity.

Btw... I never said "most", though I will concede that if someone polled all fundamental Christians, the poll would probably NOT show those folks in favor of SSM. Of course that particular poll would have no meaning in this discussion.
 
I figured that anyone would understand the margin of error issue when discussing statistics. If someone presents statistics that ignore margin of error, either they are one of the few who didn't know about it, or I would question THEIR integrity.

Btw... I never said "most", though I will concede that if someone polled all fundamental Christians, the poll would probably NOT show those folks in favor of SSM. Of course that particular poll would have no meaning in this discussion.

Of course, I would question the discussion in the first place. Whether 51% or 49% wants to vote away the rights of a minority group isn't terribly important to me.
 
Back
Top Bottom