• 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]

Gaugingcatenate said:
Well, since we are going for silliness... how would you then apply the 14th, or even decide whether it is applicable? Lets say to something that does not exist, or does not yet exist. Or perhaps you may apply to the empty space that exists between the planets... or maybe the space left unused between some folks' ears?

Its definitely a quandary, eh? But go ahead, give us an example... I am not unreasonable, convince me.
Click to expand...

Courts do not decide the constitutionality of any law until a person actually is able to show the courts that they are in fact affected by said law in some way. That means if a law doesn't exist (or is not being enforced), it cannot be challenged.
 
Ontologuy said:
Neither the 14th amendment or anything else in the U.S. constitution supports the oxymoronic "gay marriage" any more than it supports forcing dog owners to let cat-owners enter their cats in a dog show.

What the constitution supports is preventing dog-owners from banning cat-owners from having cat shows, and, analogously likewise, preventing states from not allowing same-sex domestic partnership civil unions called "homarriage" or the like for same-sex couples as states have allowed opposite-sex domestic partnership civil unions called "marriage".

You misunderstand the entire issue.
Click to expand...

The problem with this comparison is that you are comparing two different species. The last time I check, we are all of the same species. The exception being that some of us are purebred and others are simply mutts not elligible for the show.
 
Deuce said:
It affects them. It affects individual liberty. And the burden is on you, not me. Tie goes to personal freedom.

It wasn't a fair question. There isn't an answer, and I knew that when I asked it. It doesn't affect you. When asked this question straight-up, even the lawyers hired to defend Prop 8 couldn't identify any harm caused by same-sex marriage. They couldn't explain how marriage or society was being eroded or harmed. They had nothing. And their job was to have that answer. Why should I expect you to have one?

I apologize for asking. I knew you couldn't answer, it wasn't fair.
Click to expand...
It affects all of us [there are a heck of a lot more of us heteros ], it affects me [ cannot help this sinking feeling about America, the ill-omened paths it is being directed down ]. So, there absolutely is no tie, besides this isn't baseball, we aren't base running. The burden is not on the side that is content with the way things are... it is on you, those who want the change things, those who will benefit.

There are a million paper cuts, assaults on American culture and the American spirit, that are destroying what was once a strong and proud country... the injury with SSM is one of the larger, this being a deep cut, the wound directly to the strength of America, its traditional family stability, slicing constantly deeper. We know this is not where it will stop... this is but the cliff where the cascading will begin. You tell me, using the 14th after this, what will be a good reason to stop anybody from marrying just about anybody or anything? Give me a logic end point to that...

Then, when what was strong all collapses from the weaknesses inflicted by all these constant assaults of failed liberal ideology, where then does one go to seek OUR remedy... from you, perhaps? No. All will be equally lost just because We could never say no to anything.

Looking back we should have never compromised, never said we would tolerate such conduct in the first place... our toleration has not been met with any appreciation, much less reciprocal toleration, just the desire for more and more and then more...

Waaah wah wah...Quit with the crocodile tears. You are not hurt by SSM not being accepted, loves are in no way discontinued just because two are unable to marry in the eyes of the law... many heteros in fact prefer it that way. So lets get over the idea of grievous injury, its silly and overly maudlin. Have your own ceremony if desired, live together, do as you please just don't ask the rest of us to accept, to be forced to accept, that which we loathe to even think very much about in any detail.

Sorry, saying its normal just does not make it so... will not make it all better and we cannot be just forced into accepting something we do not accept. Case closed.
 
roguenuke said:
We, the people, include people like me, whether you like that fact or not. People who support legalizing same sex marriages because you nor people like you have any real state interest being served by restricting people of the same sex from getting married. And it includes those "rickety courts" ensuring that the rights of the minority (especially a minority that is only a "minority" due to a vote from years ago and the slow way that politics works in general) are upheld over the whims and moral judgements of a majority at any given time.
Click to expand...
Well, then let WE the people decide... not the courts saying We the people can only decide in the way the court will allow...right? You cannot deny that, can you? Not and maintain any degree of intellectual honesty, you can't. You and your people will just have to abide by what me and my people have to say in concert with all the rest of those concerned and unconcerned.

So, get off your high horse and start using your minority rights, speech, press, assembly, petition... and persuade us. And if We remain unconvinced and you don't like our decision, tough beans. If the decision goes the other way, tough beans for my side... but we won't stop and, if there is a country worth living in to be salvaged, we won't lose.

Your position against morals and moral judgements is a telling one for the future...who needs them right? We can live with lying, cheating, stealing... all morals are passe', no longer fashionable and were just silliness on the part of the upstanding...
 
Lursa said:
Well you can blame the Constitution for that. Gender discrimination is a no-no. And that is what the courts are determining that denying SSM is.
Click to expand...
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?
 
roguenuke said:
You do not have a majority of states, no matter what you may believe, not for a US Constitutional Amendment.

First of all, you would need not just the states but also Congress unless you can get a Constitutional Convention setup (which is highly unlikely just for same sex marriage/FMA). And Bush tried in 2004/2006 and failed to get two through Congress then. Do you really think there are more in support of a Federal Marriage Amendment now?

Federal Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Second, most of the votes for those state amendments banning same sex marriage were taken more than 6 years ago. Since that time, marriage for same sex couples has been voted in by popular vote of three states and could easily pass in more (especially most of those that already have it legal through other means). But, the people don't vote directly for Constitutional Amendments, but rather the state legislatures do. That means it would come down to their makeup. They are about evenly spread, but they certainly do not have enough for 75% (the number really needed to pass a Constitutional Amendment). This means that you would need 38 (possibly 37, not sure if they round up or not) to pass.

Laurence Watts: Could a Constitutional Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage Be Passed?

https://www.statescape.com/resources/partysplits/partysplits.aspx

You don't have the votes and with most Democrats and Independents and even some Republicans supporting same sex marriage, a Federal Marriage Amendment is not likely to happen.
Click to expand...
Wasn't talking US Constitutional Amendment.

And its 38 states needed, the ERA only got 35 and was defeated by not obtaining the necessary 3 additional. Thanks for all the effort anyhow, maybe someone else out there might learn from it. I have taught these things, so am aware.
 
roguenuke said:
Courts do not decide the constitutionality of any law until a person actually is able to show the courts that they are in fact affected by said law in some way. That means if a law doesn't exist (or is not being enforced), it cannot be challenged.
Click to expand...
Again, I am totally familiar with the concept...need to explain it to the other guy. The 14th was not in its being an expansion of rights, it guaranteed equal protection under the laws.
 
Lursa said:
Kal'Stang said:
Sure you can. As long as you don't try to suppress other peoples Rights. Just like its always been.



Good. Just let us know when your rights are being suppressed and we will fight for that too.
Click to expand...
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...
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Lursa 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...

So exactly when did they turn in a mandate that everyone must marry someone of the same gender?
Click to expand...
 
Lonely Eternity said:
Gaugingcatenate said:
So exactly when did they turn in a mandate that everyone must marry someone of the same gender?
Click to expand...
Well, now that is generally called a straw-man argument...

I NEVER said that "... everyone must marry someone of the same gender". If you are out of the loop as regards the push for allowance/acceptance of SSM in the United States, perhaps you might read up.

If your reading comprehension is so challagened as to leave you with the impression that which you have here stated to be the sum total of what your actual understanding of what I said to be, well... one might sincerely suggest that you take that up with your local educational resources for additional assistance. ;) :peace
Click to expand...
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
To endorse the people to act like Nero seems ill fated to me. Taxpayers should be furious about their will being countermanded by a tyranny of the few.

We had a revolution about that.
Click to expand...


Hitler Ate Sugar





Adolf Hitler liked dogs. He was evil. Therefore, liking dogs is evil. Q.E.D.


"You know, I shouldn't have to explain this, but sharing one attribute with Nazis doesn't make you one!"
— Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

A logical fallacy that assumes that anything done or liked by a bad person must be bad itself, taking Not So Different to absurd levels.
The premise seems to be that bad people must have a way to tell if something is evil. Either that, or bad people are repulsed by anything that isn't at least as evil as they are. Whatever the reason, bad people magically will only associate with things that are bad. Therefore people claim a thing is bad because bad people associate with it.
This is a concept called The Association Fallacy, which often overlaps with Godwin's Law, due to how often Hitler is used for this (also known as Reductio ad Hitlerum).
After all, Hitler has gained the reputation for being the very embodiment of darkest evil, who oozed "pure liquid malevolence" right out of his pores. So, he supposedly would only do/like/own things that are as evil as him. Things like sitting on a chair, wearing clothes, eating, taking a walk, and breathing. Hitler did those things, but that doesn't make them bad. Hitler is not a reason things are bad.
We don't think mass murder is bad because Hitler, Stalin, or other bad people did them. We think those people are bad because they committed mass murder. In other words, this trope is backwards. A thing being bad stands on its own as bad.

Main/Hitler Ate Sugar - Television Tropes & Idioms
 
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...

This is the dumbest argument I see from your side. I love conservatives who want the government to tell you who you can love.
 
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...

ya just like when we had bans on interracial marriage

black and white people could all get married just to other black and white people

no rights were taken from individuals in interracial couples you see because the rules that discriminated against them were also applied to people that were not effected by it

o wait that's the exact same kind of stupid evil bull**** in both cases whoops
 
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...


Commonwealth of Virginia, circa 1966:

Blacks can marry blacks

White can marry whites​

Paraphrasing their argument before the Courts in Loving v. Virginia: "Just where is this race discrimination? All races have the same rights, all, if they want to marry, have to marry one of the race... that is equal for all races. What do you not get about that?"

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...


Please identify the defining characteristic under the law which determines in the below set, who can and cannot Civilly Marry:

Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal



>>>>
 
>


Well looks like the morning crew is check the boards with their coffee.


>>>>
 
blarg said:
Hitler Ate Sugar
Click to expand...
I am not anywhere near a purest on Godwin's Law, but when a post as inane as this comes up in a discussion, seemingly without the slightest genuine desire to engage in anything resembling an open discussion/debate...

well then, a good time to invoke the law...Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe when those who have something of actual value that they want to discuss, they can make other attempts. Good luck :peace
 
blarg said:
ya just like when we had bans on interracial marriage

black and white people could all get married just to other black and white people

no rights were taken from individuals in interracial couples you see because the rules that discriminated against them were also applied to people that were not effected by it

o wait that's the exact same kind of stupid evil bull**** in both cases whoops
Click to expand...
Read the thread... this part of the topic has already been broached.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
I am not anywhere near a purest on Godwin's Law, but when a post as inane as this comes up in a discussion, seemingly without the slightest genuine desire to engage in anything resembling an open discussion/debate...

well then, a good time to invoke the law...Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe when those who have something of actual value that they want to discuss, they can make other attempts. Good luck :peace
Click to expand...

your the one trying to pretend that gay marriage is bad because of Nero did you even read the post?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
To endorse the people to act like Nero seems ill fated to me. Taxpayers should be furious about their will being countermanded by a tyranny of the few.

We had a revolution about that.
Click to expand...

A logical fallacy that assumes that anything done or liked by a bad person must be bad itself, taking Not So Different to absurd levels.
The premise seems to be that bad people must have a way to tell if something is evil. Either that, or bad people are repulsed by anything that isn't at least as evil as they are. Whatever the reason, bad people magically will only associate with things that are bad. Therefore people claim a thing is bad because bad people associate with it.
This is a concept called The Association Fallacy, which often overlaps with Godwin's Law, due to how often Hitler is used for this (also known as Reductio ad Hitlerum).
After all, Hitler has gained the reputation for being the very embodiment of darkest evil, who oozed "pure liquid malevolence" right out of his pores. So, he supposedly would only do/like/own things that are as evil as him. Things like sitting on a chair, wearing clothes, eating, taking a walk, and breathing. Hitler did those things, but that doesn't make them bad. Hitler is not a reason things are bad.
We don't think mass murder is bad because Hitler, Stalin, or other bad people did them. We think those people are bad because they committed mass murder. In other words, this trope is backwards. A thing being bad stands on its own as bad.
 
Sababa said:
This is the dumbest argument I see from your side. I love conservatives who want the government to tell you who you can love.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... can you point out exactly who on this side EVER said anything like what you are saying we say? No. People can love whoever they want, who could even stop them if they wanted?

Polite people call that being blatantly disingenuous. Others have less gracious terms for misrepresenting [ not telling the truth about ] another person's views...just how might you label it, Sababa?
 
it would be scary if the courts ruled you could castrate people and force them to marry you but that doesn't seem to be happening
 
WorldWatcher said:
Commonwealth of Virginia, circa 1966:

Blacks can marry blacks

White can marry whites​

Paraphrasing their argument before the Courts in Loving v. Virginia: "Just where is this race discrimination? All races have the same rights, all, if they want to marry, have to marry one of the race... that is equal for all races. What do you not get about that?"




Please identify the defining characteristic under the law which determines in the below set, who can and cannot Civilly Marry:

Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal



>>>>
Click to expand...
Race is not gender, so what do you not get about that, eh? Skin color is nothing similar to the differences in anatomy, the functions of that anatomy, the value rendered to society of these differences, blah blah blah. You can structure your arguments similarly, but you cannot get around the fact that male and female structures are very different. So, way way way different argument.

In addition to that, a society may decide what it will and will not accept. Hanging your hopes on the technicalities of similarly structured cases does not make your case [ I thought we had previously gone over this ].

Now, thanks for all the typing to get to: What do you not get about all genders being equally able to marry someone of the opposite sex? That is what we require. That is what we SHOULD require.

You don't think a society can make its own rules? You think that every minority that so desires can use this, and similar arguments, to force any of its ways upon the rest of society? That We, society, can have no say in our own society? That is what you are advocating?
 
blarg said:
A logical fallacy that assumes that anything done or liked by a bad person must be bad itself, taking Not So Different to absurd levels.
The premise seems to be that bad people must have a way to tell if something is evil. Either that, or bad people are repulsed by anything that isn't at least as evil as they are. Whatever the reason, bad people magically will only associate with things that are bad. Therefore people claim a thing is bad because bad people associate with it.
This is a concept called The Association Fallacy, which often overlaps with Godwin's Law, due to how often Hitler is used for this (also known as Reductio ad Hitlerum).
After all, Hitler has gained the reputation for being the very embodiment of darkest evil, who oozed "pure liquid malevolence" right out of his pores. So, he supposedly would only do/like/own things that are as evil as him. Things like sitting on a chair, wearing clothes, eating, taking a walk, and breathing. Hitler did those things, but that doesn't make them bad. Hitler is not a reason things are bad.
We don't think mass murder is bad because Hitler, Stalin, or other bad people did them. We think those people are bad because they committed mass murder. In other words, this trope is backwards. A thing being bad stands on its own as bad.
Click to expand...
Whoa... I would say perhaps someone is on their way to writing the next manifesto...

If you want to take on what I meant by the Nero reference, if you want to counter my assertion of tyranny by the few, have at it. But please refrain from gobbledygook like that above. If I need to employ a strainer to get a few useful nuggets [ I could find none in what you wrote] then its fairly useless to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom