• 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]

No, not when it comes to fundamental changes in our culture we don't. You can, you do, because its been structured to go the wrong way here, the way you would like it to go. We do not have to stand for that as a culture. If its wrong and we do not want it, no court tricks are gonna make it happen.

PLease explain how it is 'wrong' and how their culture is any different. (It's not different....their lifestyles are exactly the same: PTA, dinner as a family, vacations, going to work, taking kids to soccer, piano lessons, dance class, gardening, taking out the garbage, mowing the lawn, community service, going to church, paying their bills, paying taxes, etc.)

Any chance you could tell us how they will change our culture when their lives are exactly the same?
 
Exactly, what is considered wrong is up to the People to determine, especially on anything doing with the fundamental restructuring of our society.

WE GET TO DETERMINE THAT SUBJECTIVE RIGHT OR WRONG.

Show me where these specific designs in the Constitution are that are able to override the majority will. Does not the Constitution allow us, we the people out here in the states, to hold conventions out here and be ratified by conventions out here... all by super-majority... sound awful majority oriented, doesn't it? How would the Constitution stop that majority again?

Unless the majority of the country is insane, you have to base what is wrong on some kind of harm....to others, to themselves even, or to society.

You have yet to demonstrate any harm.
 
You cannot prove any reason why homosexuality or SSM are wrong....not a single thing NOT based on your religion...and even you know you may not base law on that.

Please....let us know when you can show the harm to society that you would base a change in law on....besides "I get icky feelings when I think about them.". (I'm still relaxing and relishing, so no hurry....you've had over 70 pages).
Has it passed yet, hope you holding your breath, should be soon now, eh?
 
Unless the majority of the country is insane, you have to base what is wrong on some kind of harm....to others, to themselves even, or to society.

You have yet to demonstrate any harm.
We the people don't have to have that standard... we can just pass an amendment should we so choose.
 
Except you aren't even in the majority on this issue, despite what you believe. I have shown you this. And you continue to post as if you are speaking for the majority, or worse, all the citizens of the US, since that is who the "we" are in "we the people".
Nor is your side, so what is your point? You have already voted in all 50 states, SSM is now official... ? Absurd silliness you are promoting now.

You have shown me absolutely nothing of any lasting value in this regard...have you?

Have you?
 
Exactly, what is considered wrong is up to the People to determine, especially on anything doing with the fundamental restructuring of our society.

WE GET TO DETERMINE THAT SUBJECTIVE RIGHT OR WRONG.

Show me where these specific designs in the Constitution are that are able to override the majority will. Does not the Constitution allow us, we the people out here in the states, to hold conventions out here and be ratified by conventions out here... all by super-majority... sound awful majority oriented, doesn't it? How would the Constitution stop that majority again?

The main thing to base what is considered "wrong" off of is the US Constitution.

When you get a supermajority to put into place a ban on same sex marriages, or an Amendment that allows for you to ban same sex marriage without violating the equal protection guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, then you can have your way. Til then, equal protection overrides the will of the simple (50%) majority. A good percentage of those who support same sex marriage are heterosexual.
 
Hey, bro.

You're an ingrate and a collectivist, so there's no point arguing the main thread with you, but I'd like to show you something.

.. well that opens the doors up to a hydra-headed Pandora's box of future cassandras

This is one of the most abominable, most abysmal, most utterly asininely ****ing retarded things I've ever read. Have you ever heard of a 'mixed metaphor'? It's what happens when you use two unrelated metaphors at once and confuse the message. You've just used three in one sentence fragment, and the only relation between them is that they're all derived from Greek mythology.
 
Nor is your side, so what is your point? You have already voted in all 50 states, SSM is now official... ? Absurd silliness you are promoting now.

You have shown me absolutely nothing of any lasting value in this regard...have you?

Have you?

And some places have had multiple votes, including one where the vote overturned a previous vote, showing that public opinion on this issue changes fast so it is best to simply revert to the fact that the bans violate the US Constitution and have them all struck down at once.
 
No we are discussing marriage laws. Cultures change all the time, including ours.

You can jump up and down and scream "we won't stand for this" to your hearts desire, while the rest of us sit back and laugh at such antics because they are completely foolish and are not going to accomplish anything.
Whoa, that sounded awfully deep... oops, nope, sorry, meant shallow.
 
We the people don't have to have that standard... we can just pass an amendment should we so choose.

Requires a supermajority vote of both Congress and the states. You don't have that amount of support. It wasn't even there in 2004/2006 when the US Congress then attempted to get Amendments that would specifically state that marriage was between a man and a woman into the Constitution. It failed. Didn't get a supermajority (needed) vote in the House and didn't even make it to a vote in the Senate.

Federal Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But hey, they're trying again (futilely).

Actions - H.J.Res.51 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Ted Cruz Introduces Anti-Gay Marriage Bill

You don't even have the support in the states because the state legislatures vote on US Constitution Amendments, not the people directly.
 
Has it passed yet, hope you holding your breath, should be soon now, eh?

It did in my state....we voted for it.

I hope you really dont believe it will not become the law of the land? Seriously? And that it would be repealed where legal? :lamo


OH...and did you forget...again....to tell us the harm SSM does? Can do?
 
We the people don't have to have that standard... we can just pass an amendment should we so choose.

Yes you do. You cant just create a law for NO REASON.

If you have a reason, what is it? I'd love to see a law based on 'we just dont like it, it makes us feel icky because we cant keep our minds out of their bedrooms.'

I mean...they're not having sex on the sidewalks, are they?

I love it! Please give us a reason! Otherwise you claim a majority of your other Americans are just preparing for a big temper tantrum, "I dont have to have a reason, I just dont like it!" :lamo
 
My response was apt. Deuce destroyed your argument, and rather than address it you say "nice try." You should take your own advice.

The truly funny thing though is that your arguments, terrible as they are, are just as bad as the ones presented in court.
You, per usual, do not even have a clue as to what you are actually talking about. So, what's new?

But just for kicks, since you seem so blissfully confident... why don't you recount my destruction... a little bit of work never hurt the...wait a minute, what? You consider yourself Very Conservative...when and how did that happen...in what ways?

Anyhow, it is asserted ahead of time that we certainly understand you are no Sherlock Holmes when it comes to sleuthing, not to mention an abysmal record regarding powers of accurate deduction...

But no, go ahead, I am interested in your viewing first hand your manner of thinking, just how you deduce, how you arrive at your misconceptions.
 
I refuse to celebrate liberal activist judges running rough shod over the will of the people.

Okay. I prefer to uphold the US Constitution and the rights of all citizens, not just those in a simple majority who wish to suppress/control others based solely on their personal beliefs.
 
I know, lets celebrate liberal activist judges overruling the will of the people. :roll:

"The will of the people" changes. As of last year, 56% of Michiganians wanted to overturn the ban.


Quite frankly, conservatives who are so fond of pointing out that "this is a republic, not a democracy" should extend that to this issue, also - "The People" do not exist as a single organism; their hive mind is not worthy of respect; and an educated elite is preferable to an uneducated rabble. An 'activist judge' is far more attractive a hero than a sans-culotte, especially if the shoeless fellow comes bearing a crucifix.
 
Okay. I prefer to uphold the US Constitution and the rights of all citizens, not just those in a simple majority who wish to suppress/control others based solely on their personal beliefs.

You are correct, the right to marry for gays is clearly spelled out in the constitution.:roll:
 
The main thing to base what is considered "wrong" off of is the US Constitution.

When you get a supermajority to put into place a ban on same sex marriages, or an Amendment that allows for you to ban same sex marriage without violating the equal protection guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, then you can have your way. Til then, equal protection overrides the will of the simple (50%) majority. A good percentage of those who support same sex marriage are heterosexual.
Our constitution is mainly just a framework for governing, not the answers... remember, you could not give me references to your protected classes...

The new amendment would override the 14th in whichever areas it chose to, you cannot limit it.... the 21st amendment repealed, overrode the 18th... that is how it works.

And sorry, EP only trumps if the court uses your, and its, silly calculus to arrive at a bad answer.
 
"The will of the people" changes. As of last year, 56% of Michiganians wanted to overturn the ban.


Quite frankly, conservatives who are so fond of pointing out that "this is a republic, not a democracy" should extend that to this issue, also - "The People" do not exist as a single organism; their hive mind is not worthy of respect; and an educated elite is preferable to an uneducated rabble. An 'activist judge' is far more attractive a hero than a sans-culotte, especially if the shoeless fellow comes bearing a crucifix.

So only the uneducated rabble are against gay marriage huh. Typical elitist attitude.
 
There's nothing wrong with judicial activism.

Is every voter educated on the nuances of Constitutional law?

No.

Is every voter up-to-date on the latest in political philosophy? Or well-versed in the classics of the genre?

No.

The average voter is a moron who imagines oil to be created ex nihilo in the ground, who thinks a Jewish sky-daddy killed Himself to save them from Himself, and that the universe has existed for less time than it has taken light to travel to Earth from the nearest star.

The average voter is a rube. "The People" are a mass of morons.

This is a republic, after all, and not a democracy.
 
You are correct, the right to marry for gays is clearly spelled out in the constitution.:roll:

Under equal protection of the laws, just as the right for inmates to marry without needing permission from their warden (Turner v Safley), the right for those who owe child support to marry (Zablocki v Redhail), and even the right for interracial couples to marry (Loving v VA).
 
So only the uneducated rabble are against gay marriage huh. Typical elitist attitude.

Absolutely. And I'll go one step further in the direction of elitism, surely further than any of our egalitarian left-liberals will go: the very life of a single educated elite is objectively more valuable than the lives of ten or a hundred West Virginian Southern Baptists.

That's elitist. I don't care. 'Elitism' is not a dirty word. Conservatives of old understood this - and supported the elite.
 
Back
Top Bottom