• 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!

Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

j-mac said:
IOW, it's a revenue grab.
Click to expand...

No. It is what people want. They want a way to be protected against other people when it comes to their relationships. Relationships are deemed important in our society so it is necessary to establish legal relationships so that there is some fairness/protection (because nothing is completely fair or protected) when it comes to various issues. Without recognition of kinship, who makes decisions for others when they can't and there are no documents? It makes it overall easier for society to have legal kin recognized for people.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Unable... or just unwilling?
Click to expand...

Your argument is that Constutional rights should be up for a vote. That is not how our system works. It falls on the state to justify why rights are being infringed. You cannot put forth a legitimate state interest that is advanced so you reject judicial authority and subsequently the entire Constitutional system. You are a straight up populist. You support mob rule.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Just where is this gender discrimination? All genders have the same rights, all, if they want to marry, have to marry one of the opposite sex... that is equal for all genders. What do you not get about that?
Click to expand...

Because marriage is a contract that affords people of different genders certain things however it denies one person in a relationship those things...*based on their gender*. Things like next of kin, inheritance, hospital visits, etc etc etc. (Reader's Digest version, I cant believe someone else hasnt already covered this for you).
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Yeah, right.

Maybe you can help me, and the rest of America, with all these folks wanting to ruin our culture with their ideas of forcing SSM on us then? I am sure you will be on board with that, right?
Click to expand...

You didnt tell me what rights of yours are being suppressed? You quoted something, but didnt answer it....just dodged. Try again.

And while you are at it, please tell me what harm you see to our culture? You even have examples, as many states have had SSM for awhile now. Please make your case.

Not only that, but gay families have ALWAYS been with us, only more public in the last decade or so. And they will always be with us, so legalization of their marriages wont change their existance....only make their relationships equal legally. So again: please demonstrate the harm. If you cannot, I suggest you stop lying about it.
 
Deuce said:
1. Anyone else notice he didn't actually name any effect?


2. We allowed interracial marriage, what's to stop pedphile marriage?


3. And there it is. Admission of support for sodomy laws and lynchings.


4. And again, legalizing same sex marriage doesn't force you to accept anything. You're the one whining here. "Waaah. Waaah. Someone else is going to get married, and I don't want them to! This harms me because I don't want them to get married! Waaaaah!"

See? Two can play that game.

5. Your "debate" is pathetic. You cannot name any manner in which same-sex marriage causes you harm. None at all. This is why you've already lost. Same-sex couples are going to be getting married, nationwide, soon. Probably mid 2015, judging by how the SCOTUS schedule works. It has already been legal in Massachusetts for a freaking decade, where's all this doom you keep predicting?
Click to expand...

1. I think if anyone takes the time to actually notice, they will notice I pretty much mirrored your statements/answers [ see, I really do play down to my competition ], same depth, just a little more umph in mine than yours. So if you want to complain, look in the mirror...ha ha ha. By the way, I, and probably others, do notice you are not owning up to the burden being on you folks desiring change, yano? Ya see, we like it the way it is, actually the way it used to be, in this category, even better.

2. We all also notice you have no answer to where and how to stop this if you open the floodgates... you most certainly left this answer hanging... so tell us, how will we stop anybody's marriage to anybody/thing? Pedophiles, siblings, parents-children, light-poles, yeah, the whole gamut...Ya see, Deuce, that's one of those "effects" you said I didn't give ya, yano?

3. I think the proper response in this instance, in retort to your disgusting allusion that I supported lynching, requires that you utilize a screwdriver as there is apparently some assembly, or maybe some disassembly, required... but in your use of that tool, make sure you wear safety glasses and don't break any of those sodomy laws, ya hear?

4. Yeah, as stated before, I have heard those promises before. We'll be expected to accept all as normal married couples, as if they are synonymous, which they most certainly aren't, sorry. But you folks will demand it. Folks on your side are not known for holding up to your side of the bargain.

5. Thanks so much for the compliment. If you can't handle it, well, its not really saying that much, however it is good to know that you folks are aware that your side cannot just get off doing/saying whatever and expect everybody to just go merrily down that same path of deviance along with you. We are not going to just roll over and allow this stinky dog manure to continue to pile up unabated.

Peace out, man. :lamo:peace
 
j-mac said:
Because progressive taxation promotes the idea that the money you earned is not really yours, and the need for all these exemptions therefore are needed to complicate the lives of families is a travesty....Taxes should be simple. Everyone owes a percentage, buy a stamp, and send it in.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Marriage recognition doesn't increase tax revenue. Quit trying to deflect the subject. Your "tax grab" comment was wrong.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
1. I think if anyone takes the time to actually notice, they will notice I pretty much mirrored your statements/answers [ see, I really do play down to my competition ], same depth, just a little more umph in mine than yours. So if you want to complain, look in the mirror...ha ha ha. By the way, I, and probably others, do notice you are not owning up to the burden being on you folks desiring change, yano? Ya see, we like it the way it is, actually the way it used to be, in this category, even better.
Click to expand...
Still not naming any effect. It's not on me to disprove harm, it's on you to prove it.

2. We all also notice you have no answer to where and how to stop this if you open the floodgates... you most certainly left this answer hanging... so tell us, how will we stop anybody's marriage to anybody/thing? Pedophiles, siblings, parents-children, light-poles, yeah, the whole gamut...Ya see, Deuce, that's one of those "effects" you said I didn't give ya, yano?
Click to expand...
I've answered this many times. Children and animals and objects cannot sign legal contracts, the latter two because they aren't people. Sufficient state interest exists to prevent children from signing legal contracts, as they lack the capacity to make informed decisions regarding something like this.

Your turn.

3. I think the proper response in this instance, in retort to your disgusting allusion that I supported lynching, requires that you utilize a screwdriver as there is apparently some assembly, or maybe some disassembly, required... but in your use of that tool, make sure you wear safety glasses and don't break any of those sodomy laws, ya hear?
Click to expand...
Oh, so just the sodomy laws then. My apologies. You support the government deciding what can go on in our bedrooms.

4. Yeah, as stated before, I have heard those promises before. We'll be expected to accept all as normal married couples, as if they are synonymous, which they most certainly aren't, sorry. But you folks will demand it. Folks on your side are not known for holding up to your side of the bargain.
Click to expand...
That's a social issue, not a legal one. You will still get to hate gay people all you want, you have that right. And I have the right to call you out for your hate.

5. Thanks so much for the compliment. If you can't handle it, well, its not really saying that much, however it is good to know that you folks are aware that your side cannot just get off doing/saying whatever and expect everybody to just go merrily down that same path of deviance along with you. We are not going to just roll over and allow this stinky dog manure to continue to pile up unabated.
Click to expand...
You still can't identify any way in which this affects you.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
1. I think if anyone takes the time to actually notice, they will notice I pretty much mirrored your statements/answers [ see, I really do play down to my competition ], same depth, just a little more umph in mine than yours. So if you want to complain, look in the mirror...ha ha ha. By the way, I, and probably others, do notice you are not owning up to the burden being on you folks desiring change, yano? Ya see, we like it the way it is, actually the way it used to be, in this category, even better.

2. We all also notice you have no answer to where and how to stop this if you open the floodgates... you most certainly left this answer hanging... so tell us, how will we stop anybody's marriage to anybody/thing? Pedophiles, siblings, parents-children, light-poles, yeah, the whole gamut...Ya see, Deuce, that's one of those "effects" you said I didn't give ya, yano?

3. I think the proper response in this instance, in retort to your disgusting allusion that I supported lynching, requires that you utilize a screwdriver as there is apparently some assembly, or maybe some disassembly, required... but in your use of that tool, make sure you wear safety glasses and don't break any of those sodomy laws, ya hear?

4. Yeah, as stated before, I have heard those promises before. We'll be expected to accept all as normal married couples, as if they are synonymous, which they most certainly aren't, sorry. But you folks will demand it. Folks on your side are not known for holding up to your side of the bargain.

5. Thanks so much for the compliment. If you can't handle it, well, its not really saying that much, however it is good to know that you folks are aware that your side cannot just get off doing/saying whatever and expect everybody to just go merrily down that same path of deviance along with you. We are not going to just roll over and allow this stinky dog manure to continue to pile up unabated.

Peace out, man. :lamo:peace
Click to expand...

State interest. That is what allows for restrictions within laws to be made.

Restrictions are completely allowed, when the state can show that those restrictions further a legitimate state interest. And they must be able to back it up. Age restrictions for any laws are justified by citing a state interest in protecting children because we can show that children do not make rational, informed decisions and lack maturity to act in the same way as adults. They are also easily manipulated by adults and even older children. We can show these things to be true via valid research. We, as rational adults, can see how children, minors are not, in general, like adults. With age, comes maturity (for most). Restrictions on marriage to anything other than another person is easy, those things do not possess the capability of entering into any contract, or even to consent to any legal act. They do not possess recognizable communication skills or even consciousness. They are not granted rights as people at all. You are attempting a slippery slope argument. What prevents people from marriage to anybody/thing right now, without same sex marriages completely legal? State interests.
 
roguenuke said:
No. It is what people want. They want a way to be protected against other people when it comes to their relationships. Relationships are deemed important in our society so it is necessary to establish legal relationships so that there is some fairness/protection (because nothing is completely fair or protected) when it comes to various issues. Without recognition of kinship, who makes decisions for others when they can't and there are no documents? It makes it overall easier for society to have legal kin recognized for people.
Click to expand...

Ok, and that is a valid point. My "support" if you want to call it that for gay people able to be married is exactly rooted in this....I remember when I first learned that a gay couple didn't have any rights to be consulted when their partner was in the hospital, or the unfairness of a family coming into long term couples and basically looting the estate after passing, was wrong to me....So, my feeling is that it is more a live, and let live kind of mindset. I don't care what they do in their own home, just like they don't care what I do in mine...So, I really don't care if they get married, in fact let them. Let them enjoy the cost and pain of divorce too.

The complaint I have is that this board is over run with gay marriage threads, Hell last month there were 4 of them at one point on page 1 of the forum. It's spam. We don't need to have the same argument every time a county seat determines that they are going to allow people to get married do we?
 
j-mac said:
1.)Who talks like this? Look J, I am not looking to get into a pissing match with you
2.) where you proclaim everything you write down as "fact"
3.) and dismiss everything the person talking with you says.
4.)All I was saying is that there are more important things going on today, than to worry about who wants to marry who...I couldn't care less.
5.) And what I am saying, is that I really don't think anyone other than hardcore activists on the issue really care a whole lot what gay people want to do.
6.) Hell, just make it legal and get it over with already, I am sick and tired of seeing thread after thread on every little thing concerning it...
7.)I'm just sayin'.... I really don't care.
Click to expand...

1.) there is no pissing match, Your statement was factually wrong
2.) i didnt proclaim anything to be a fact it simply is. What i called a fact is. If you disagree by all means simply prove otherwise. I LOVE to read it.
3.) this deflection will never work and nobody honest will buy it, again if you think the thing i called fact was wrong PROVE IT lol
4.) nope that is FACTUALLY not what you said, this is what you added latter on to try and save your original FACTUALLY wrong statement. SHall i qoute you and prove this FACT?
5.) and this would be ANOTHER back pedal and reframe from your original FACTUALLY wrong OP and its also wrong.
6.) thanks for sharing your feelings but your OP was still factually wrong
7.) so far there no evidence of that

your op that i quoted was FACTUALLY wrong as me and others pointed out :shrug:
 
j-mac said:
Ok, and that is a valid point. My "support" if you want to call it that for gay people able to be married is exactly rooted in this....I remember when I first learned that a gay couple didn't have any rights to be consulted when their partner was in the hospital, or the unfairness of a family coming into long term couples and basically looting the estate after passing, was wrong to me....So, my feeling is that it is more a live, and let live kind of mindset. I don't care what they do in their own home, just like they don't care what I do in mine...So, I really don't care if they get married, in fact let them. Let them enjoy the cost and pain of divorce too.

The complaint I have is that this board is over run with gay marriage threads, Hell last month there were 4 of them at one point on page 1 of the forum. It's spam. We don't need to have the same argument every time a county seat determines that they are going to allow people to get married do we?
Click to expand...

We also don't have to have a discussion on gun control every time someone makes a justified or unjustified use of a firearm in self-defense, but people fall all over themselves to post those stories. We don't have to have comments every time someone gets stabbed about "SOUNDS LIKE TIME FOR KNIFE CONTROL RIGHT LIBRULS HURR HURR"

But we have those discussions.

We don't have to a have a discussion about the IRS every time any scandal comes up.

But we have those discussions.
 
Deuce said:
Race is not gender, but both are protected classifications.


That's not how America works. I don't get to decide that your free speech is unacceptable. I don't get to decide that your religion is unacceptable. And I don't get to decide that your marriage is unacceptable. My personal opinion is not good enough to deny those things to you. 51% of the population's opinion is not enough to deny those things to you.


We've responded to this a dozen times. The logic was rejected with Loving v Virginia.



I don't think 51% of the population gets to vote that Christianity is outlawed, no.


Fun fact: Opponents of same-sex marriage are no longer a majority. Your whole argument rests upon this "will of the people" schtick but you don't even have that anymore.
Click to expand...
Protected classes don't get carte blanche. If they think they do, or if it even came close, we would need a wholesale recalibration society, a reset at normal. We are getting to the point of complete ridiculousness here, this is like a comedy show.

Your description is not how America works, its how you are breaking it. The way things work have worked through 238 years. Proven system that you and your side are, for some self-destructive reason, are attempting to destroy. And we have had about enough of it. Our traditions have held us in good stead. And sure 51% of the population, if that is what they decide [ that's about how many voted for the boob-ama, and I accepted it ] its what will happen.

They cannot take away my inalienable rights, those are not even on the table. They can limit, or increase, things that governments can limit or increase... drinking age, voting, marriage, education, size of military, space program the list goes on and on. Marriage and its definition should be left up to the individual states to decide without interference from the activists courts.

Plessy v Ferguson was decided, too, was it? You want that one court case to decide things for all time, do you? What a joke. See, this is comedy you are spouting. Sorry, its gonna be a battle and its going to continue to be a battle.

No, religious freedom is a first amendment right [ why do you pick such bad examples? ]... you would have to amend the constitution to accomplish that, a bit more effort than just getting the 51%.

As regards your funny fact: This side has 2/3s of the states [ known in common parlance as a super-majority ] currently with amendments banning SSM or defining marriage as one man one woman. Your side sure doesn't have the majority... so you will have to do a bit, oops, I mean a lot better if you want to change things.

And think you will change things for all times? Another joke.
 
roguenuke said:
If we did not allow the Courts to decide issues about the Constitution, then the Constitution would be pointless. We would still have laws against interracial marriages, Jim Crow laws, segregation in schools (which is actually still on the books in some states), sodomy laws, laws that ban everyone from owning guns in some places, laws that restrict some religions from being practiced in certain areas, laws that allow some people to enforce their religious rules upon others, laws that do not allow people in jail to marry, laws that do not allow those behind on their child support to marry, laws that place certain children as more important than others even in the absence of a will, and many more.

Minorities are protected without having to persuade enough people to vote for them. That isn't how our country works. It is "tough beans" for you that we have a US Constitution that protects us, via the Courts, from votes of the majority. Constitutional republic, not direct democracy. That is where you live.

Everyone has morals. Our morals do not agree. The fact that you do not understand that this is a difference in morality is telling on yourself.
Click to expand...

Of course the courts have their place... they do not, however, supersede the will of the people on fundamental cultural constructs. They can tinker at the edges, at least until they become a roadblock to the will of the people. They, because of their position, do not become the new kings who make the people's will inferior.

I would say all those laws you indicated that we would still have, and in some cases still have, did not have the majority supporting them when they were pushed to the side. There are lines to be drawn, red lines that folks do want adhered to, not the boobama style red lines. And even with all that history of injustice, that does not mean your side is right because we overcame injustice, real injustice, in the past. This is merely silliness, me me me-ness, that will fade as rapidly as it came up.

Just because you are in the minority does not in any way mean you get to make the decisions for the rest of us... that is foolishness. The Constitution, nor the courts, were meant to do that, they were meant to protect your individual rights and allow you the freedom to say what you want, not to just do anything you want. That is simply an absurd analysis of our governing framework.

One person's morals are not necessarily equivalent to another's. Newbie smarts rarely equates to the wisdom of the ages.
 
roguenuke said:
Then what were you talking about? Because we are talking about a constitutional issue here since judges are ruling that same sex marriage bans, even those written into state constitutions, violate the US Constitution. This means that if the SCOTUS agrees and rules that those bans violate the US Constitution (as they very likely will), then that means the only way to override that is via another US Constitutional Amendment. Nothing else will do. It doesn't matter how many states have voted (in the past) to have amendments for their own constitutions banning same sex marriage. Votes from the past mean little in a world that changes like ours does. Every day more and more people change their mind in support of same sex marriage being legal everywhere. Every day older people (those most likely to currently be against same sex marriage) die. Every day young people (those most likely to support same sex marriage) become old enough to vote. Unfortunately, the political process works slower than the courts in some places. Heck, some things can only be voted on every 2 or even 4 years in accordance with state constitutions.
Click to expand...
Counting your turkeys way before they are hatched.

As those younger currently thinking SSM is okay become adults they start thinking more clearly, like adults. They generally become more conservative. Especially after they realize the line of bull they have been force fed in school, in media and now by government... and should that not happen, wow, what a wonderfully mixed up and predictably war torn world this is soon to become. Once family stability breaks down here completely, once nobody cares much about anything worth caring about anymore, once the weakness that your side's termites are constantly eating away at our foundations to create becomes apparent to the predators out there in the world... and they are out there, waiting... well, we will see if you get to keep your cherished SSM then.

Once you have chased all the strong away, nursed the rest into being namby pambies, the nation will be ripe for the picking. Yes, no doubt in your lifetime... if the quickening pace that is apparent in just this lifetime does not slow down. That would be unfortunate, yet poetic justice.
 
roguenuke said:
The Constitution itself is about ensuring our rights our protected against the government. It doesn't need to expand rights because those are rights we already have that simply are being enshrined within the Constitution to ensure they are protected.

You obviously have no idea what equal protection under the law means. It means that you cannot treat people differently based on random characteristics of those people, even some things that can be changed, without showing how that difference in treatment furthers a legitimate state interest.

For instance, a state cannot randomly say that during the ages of 45-50 a person cannot have a driver's license because there is no way they could justify (with evidence/information we have now anyway) that this restriction would further any legitimate state interest. Age limits are in fact legal, when they are justified (ever wonder why no state says people who reach a certain age are not allowed to own a driver's license). Hair color is not a constitutionally protected specifically right. However, it would violate equal protection to make a law that restricted red heads from obtaining business licenses (even if it allowed for them to change their hair color in order to obtain that license). There would simply be no legitimate state interest being furthered in that law. When it comes to marriage, a state could not legitimately limit marriages to those who have IQs within 20 points of each other. IQ is not a protected class (specifically) within the Constitution, yet people are still protected by the Constitution from having their IQ, or their age, or their hair color, or their gender used to treat them differently than other people, even when it is being used in a way that is simply relative to a characteristic of another person, unless the state can show that such treatment furthers a legitimate state interest. Judicial precedence is part of a laws and has been for some time.
Click to expand...
That is simply an absurd and pretty naive interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution is a framework for governing.

While I appreciate your efforts, why don't you give me a list of the protected classes and where exactly those protected classes are listed as protected (specifically) in the Constitution.
 
roguenuke said:
No, same sex marriage does not legitimately affect you. And I am heterosexual. I support same sex marriage. The majority of the supporters of same sex marriage are heterosexuals.

And the burden is always on the state to show a legitimate state interest is furthered whenever a person can show that the law treats them differently than someone else. The law treats men and women differently based on their gender/sex. A man cannot marry a man, but a woman can. A woman cannot marry a woman, but a man can. Why? Because of their gender/sex.
Click to expand...
Similarly, same sex marriage does not legitimately affect you either. Their not having it also does not affect you.

What would be the legitimate state interest in not allowing a 40 year old to marry a 7 year old? Besides your prejudices regarding age, what would be the legitimate state interest? If I wanted to marry a tree, what would be the legitimate state interest in not allowing that? What if I wanted to marry an adult chicken, or a rooster for that matter, what would be the legitimate state interest there? I can marry a woman, you want to allow me to marry a man, why cannot I marry a horse? Why not all three? What is the legitimate state interest? Matter of fact, I want to marry 73 other people all at the same time, two of them my siblings, one my parent, what would be the legitimate state interest in stopping me?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Similarly, same sex marriage does not legitimately affect you either. Their not having it also does not affect you.
Click to expand...

I think it does affect the thousands of children raised by same sex couples in the state of Michigan.

What would be the legitimate state interest in not allowing a 40 year old to marry a 7 year old? Besides your prejudices regarding age, what would be the legitimate state interest? If I wanted to marry a tree, what would be the legitimate state interest in not allowing that? What if I wanted to marry an adult chicken, or a rooster for that matter, what would be the legitimate state interest there? I can marry a woman, you want to allow me to marry a man, why cannot I marry a horse? Why not all three? What is the legitimate state interest? Matter of fact, I want to marry 73 other people all at the same time, two of them my siblings, one my parent, what would be the legitimate state interest in stopping me?
Click to expand...

The problem with making these kinds of arguments is it throws your personal morality and ability to reason into question. You are basically saying the only argument YOU can make against those situations are "gays can't do it".

Children cannot consent to sexual activity with an adult and for all the same reasons we would not allow children to serve on a jury, drive a car, enter a contract, buy alcohol, and any other number of reasons that relate to their ability to make decisions, we will not allow them to marry. But the fact that you clearly did not understand that yourself, makes you look pretty...bad.

But please continue to make arguments like those. It does help the gay rights movement quite a bit when people see the level of reasoning your side is capable.
 
roguenuke said:
A man can marry a woman but a woman cannot marry a woman. That is gender discrimination. A person cannot do something another can based solely on their gender. The same as it would be religious discrimination if the law said a Catholic can marry a Catholic but a Methodist cannot marry a Catholic. A person cannot do something another person can based solely on their religion.
Click to expand...
Oh, I understand what you are saying, but you see, as a society we, many of us, don't want that kind of nothing matters above anything else sort of world. Some things aren't equal, are not meant to be equal, some things just should not be. Maybe we, as a nation, will at some point agree to allow this outrage, but not while we have the strength to support a strong nation.

Not while I can help it. ;) :peace
 
roguenuke said:
The only difference it makes that race and gender are different is in what kind of interest a state has to show is being furthered and/or how that trait is related to that interest. It doesn't change that they are both protected against unequal protection of the laws/unequal treatment.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that is just flat-assed silly. That is why a court system with precedent eventually must break down, it no longer stands for anything but the sublimely bizarre, a template for the circus you folks are turning this country into.

One could laugh if it weren't so sad. And you think you are doing good, what an irony.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Protected classes don't get carte blanche. If they think they do, or if it even came close, we would need a wholesale recalibration society, a reset at normal. We are getting to the point of complete ridiculousness here, this is like a comedy show.
Click to expand...
And, for the 600th time, I will explain that no, a protected classification isn't carte blanche and nobody is suggesting it is. But it does bring up the test, and this is not a test that same-sex marriage can pass. Stop extrapolating everything to absolutes and this discussion will confuse you far, far less.

Your description is not how America works, its how you are breaking it. The way things work have worked through 238 years. Proven system that you and your side are, for some self-destructive reason, are attempting to destroy. And we have had about enough of it. Our traditions have held us in good stead. And sure 51% of the population, if that is what they decide [ that's about how many voted for the boob-ama, and I accepted it ] its what will happen.
Click to expand...
Wow. So America is ruined if you aren't allowed to impose your religion on others. Hilarious.

They cannot take away my inalienable rights, those are not even on the table. They can limit, or increase, things that governments can limit or increase... drinking age, voting, marriage, education, size of military, space program the list goes on and on. Marriage and its definition should be left up to the individual states to decide without interference from the activists courts.
Click to expand...
Marriage is a "basic civil right." Says SCOTUS.
Plessy v Ferguson was decided, too, was it? You want that one court case to decide things for all time, do you? What a joke. See, this is comedy you are spouting. Sorry, its gonna be a battle and its going to continue to be a battle.
Click to expand...
It's going to go to SCOTUS, probably in the middle of next year. After that, you'll never see it in court again.

No, religious freedom is a first amendment right [ why do you pick such bad examples? ]... you would have to amend the constitution to accomplish that, a bit more effort than just getting the 51%.
Click to expand...
Marriage is a basic civil right.
As regards your funny fact: This side has 2/3s of the states [ known in common parlance as a super-majority ] currently with amendments banning SSM or defining marriage as one man one woman. Your side sure doesn't have the majority... so you will have to do a bit, oops, I mean a lot better if you want to change things.
Click to expand...
A situation that arose a decade ago. Opinions are radically different now.

And think you will change things for all times? Another joke.
Click to expand...
The trend towards increasing support for marriage equality is as clear as day. Even in Texas now, polls show an opposition to same-sex marriage down to 49%, no longer a majority. (48% support) And every year it leans towards support, in every state. Young people support marriage equality by a large margin, and they are a growing percentage of the electorate while those who oppose are shrinking. (literally dying off)

There will always be the fanatics. There will always be that small percentage of people who just wont let go of the hate. However, all of the arguments against same-sex marriage were used against interracial marriage. Every single one. It's unnatural. It's against the will of God. It's against the will of the people. Everyone has the same rights already. It's a state decision. And so on. All of the arguments were made, and all of them failed. And the majority let go of the hate. The majority no longer have a problem with it, and that's never going to change back. No, my friend, you will never be in the majority again. You can hold onto your hate for as long as you like, but it's healthier to let go.

Just admit it: You cannot identify a way in which same-sex marriage affects you. You refused to answer my question on the grounds that I hadn't answered your slippery slope. I did that now, and you still wont give a manner in which this affects you. Because there isn't one. You are fighting over... what, exactly?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Counting your turkeys way before they are hatched.

As those younger currently thinking SSM is okay become adults they start thinking more clearly, like adults. They generally become more conservative. Especially after they realize the line of bull they have been force fed in school, in media and now by government... and should that not happen, wow, what a wonderfully mixed up and predictably war torn world this is soon to become. Once family stability breaks down here completely, once nobody cares much about anything worth caring about anymore, once the weakness that your side's termites are constantly eating away at our foundations to create becomes apparent to the predators out there in the world... and they are out there, waiting... well, we will see if you get to keep your cherished SSM then.

Once you have chased all the strong away, nursed the rest into being namby pambies, the nation will be ripe for the picking. Yes, no doubt in your lifetime... if the quickening pace that is apparent in just this lifetime does not slow down. That would be unfortunate, yet poetic justice.
Click to expand...

People sometimes become more conservative as they get older, but this is not an issue that reflects that.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Similarly, same sex marriage does not legitimately affect you either. Their not having it also does not affect you.

What would be the legitimate state interest in not allowing a 40 year old to marry a 7 year old? Besides your prejudices regarding age, what would be the legitimate state interest? If I wanted to marry a tree, what would be the legitimate state interest in not allowing that? What if I wanted to marry an adult chicken, or a rooster for that matter, what would be the legitimate state interest there? I can marry a woman, you want to allow me to marry a man, why cannot I marry a horse? Why not all three? What is the legitimate state interest? Matter of fact, I want to marry 73 other people all at the same time, two of them my siblings, one my parent, what would be the legitimate state interest in stopping me?
Click to expand...

This was already answered. Read the responses to your posts or just stop posting entirely.

And same-sex marriage bans do affect me. They prevent me from marrying a man. That I do not choose to exercise such a right is irrelevant. Much in the way a gun ban affects me despite my not owning a gun.
 
CriticalThought said:
Your argument is that Constutional rights should be up for a vote.
Click to expand...
Please point out where I said anything of the sort.

Rights guaranteed in the Constitution, while they may certainly be amended in some cases, though not the inalienable ones, are not up for a vote. I will ask you to mention which rights that you feel that I would think should be up for a vote.

Ones not mentioned in the Constitution most certainly can be voted upon. Marriage? Definitely.

CriticalThought said:
That is not how our system works. It falls on the state to justify why rights are being infringed. You cannot put forth a legitimate state interest that is advanced so you reject judicial authority and subsequently the entire Constitutional system. You are a straight up populist. You support mob rule.
Click to expand...
While you are looking for where I might have said what you say I said, might you also show me where I would find that [ in red above ] in our beloved Constitution? I am curious, point me in the right direction, please.
 
Deuce said:
Still not naming any effect. It's not on me to disprove harm, it's on you to prove it.


I've answered this many times. Children and animals and objects cannot sign legal contracts, the latter two because they aren't people. Sufficient state interest exists to prevent children from signing legal contracts, as they lack the capacity to make informed decisions regarding something like this.

Your turn.


Oh, so just the sodomy laws then. My apologies. You support the government deciding what can go on in our bedrooms.


That's a social issue, not a legal one. You will still get to hate gay people all you want, you have that right. And I have the right to call you out for your hate.


You still can't identify any way in which this affects you.
Click to expand...
You can play the game to your perceived advantage all you want, I will play it to mine as well. I don't have to prove anything, I like the system as it is currently. We will work diligently to remove SSM from the offending states as we go forward, returning all to status normal.

Oh yes, but all that can be changed by whim of man. Children can be given the right of consent, by law. What about child prodigies? They might even be smarter than you. Age is just a number, some never really grown up. And if you do not think all of this can change, even rather suddenly, shockingly suddenly, ask the people who would never even have imagined that the idea of SSM would ever go anywhere just 20, just 10 years ago. So you cannot rest your empty laurels upon such a flimsy premise. There is no legitimate state interest in stopping someone from marrying a horse, a house, a light pole, the Eiffel Tower or all 4 at the same time. Would it harm you if they did, huh? How does it hurt you if entire groups of people wanted to marry icebergs? Are you some low down icebergaphobe, are ya?

As regards sodomy laws, I haven't formed a solid opinion. But maybe it would be best to leave it up to each state, perhaps even the local community to set their own standards, sure. And yeah, despite your maybe wanting to murder someone in your bedroom, no, we are not letting you off just cause you did it there, sorry. Laws follow us all wherever the crime goes.

Aren't you just the overly presumptuous one? I don't hate gay people. I detest what they are attempting, what harm they are willing to inflict on society...do not want to even wander close to thinking about what it is they do in their spare time... but keep your offensive misjudgements about another's character to yourself, please.

Yeah, you cannot identify in any way how it will affect you either...and again remember, we are not base running here.:lamo :peace
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
I detest what they are attempting, what harm they are willing to inflict on society...do not want to even wander close to thinking about what it is they do in their spare time... but keep your offensive
Click to expand...

Harm you cannot explain to anyone. Harm you cannot specify at all.

You know what I call harm that nobody can identify, detect, or measure? Delusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom