• 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:
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...

how come the lack of any sane reason to ban gay marriage means you have to let any one marry any thing no matter how insane or harmful that would be its silly
 
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...
that's bull ****

how is caring about equality? and helping family get the same legal status that other enjoy not caring about what matters? or braking down family's?

how is not fowling you make some one namby or pambie

legal same sex marge is not an attack on anything good it just purifies society of another pointless and petty evil
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
How about we give it the time for many of them to actually get older before we pronounce, eh? Good lord.
Click to expand...

im 28 been pro gay marriage for over 10 years when should I except the conservative impulse to jump in and what's its rational basis in this case?
 
roguenuke said:
The court does supersede the people on any issue where there is a violation of the Constitution, even if the people believe it is a cultural issue, construct, however you wish to try to present it. Segregation was a cultural thing. Banning interracial marriage, cultural thing. The will of the slight majority of the people is always superseded by the US Constitution, and that is where the Courts come in, to ensure the Constitution is being upheld when it comes to laws enacted.

You would be wrong. Polls from the 1970s show us that the majority (around 70%) of people in the US (not just the South) were against allowing interracial marriages. Even many non-whites were (and some are still) against interracial relationships.

You are the one here who is trying to use the "me me me-ness" on this issue since you still have yet to show in anyway how same sex couples being allowed to marry would legitimately affect you or society negatively. That means that your resistance to this is merely your personal dislike of same sex couples, homosexuality.

The last sentence has to be one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen posted. Wisdom of the ages is constantly being improved upon. Wisdom involves understanding, not simply believing something. For a long time the "wisdom of the ages" said that the sun revolved around the Earth and that demons caused people to get sick. And morals are relative. Most people share some very basic morals, but the more specific the moral question, the more people's morals diverge. As for being equivalent, in this case, that is completely subjective. Of course you are going to think your morals are better and worth more than someone's who disagrees with yours. That doesn't make you right.
Click to expand...
You are wrong on all accounts. The majority of the people, except in the Southern Democratically held states, were not for segregation... the Supreme Court, the Federal government in general, does not EVER, repeat EVER, supersede the will of the PEOPLE. You see, in our system, the PEOPLE are the sovereigns. NOT the majority of solely these nine human justices who are not free from their own personal biases. They are not our kings, they certainly are not our gods. We may let their incorrect decisions ride... or we may not... in any case, ultimately we are the in the real seat of power, we get to decide what our culture is.

Supply your sources regarding those polls, please? Also supply the wording of these polls to see if they properly address the actual question that you say with such definitiveness as to the percentages.

There are a myriad of examples of where no harm could be found except after the harm had occurred. One example you may believe in was in the use of the pesticide, DDT. I don't have to show how marriage between a man and a tree is harmful to the state either, to know that is not what we want for our society. It is just this sort of silliness that your side proposes, making a mockery of what is tremendously important and serious.

Yes, well your evaluative ability was to be questioned in any event, much prior to the issue of that silly statement. This idea promulgated by the new age, mainly liberals in our own realm, regarding the subjective equivalence of all cultures has and will continue to be silliness, deadly silliness. An easy example one might use to compare would be to the earthquakes happening in Haiti and to Chile. Chile's society, even though the earthquake was stronger there, was much better prepared than Haiti. Chile had, through superior cultural and its thus derived decisions, built structures, both physically and systemically, that allowed them to bear minimal damage to edifices and people. Many, tremendously more people were killed/injured in Haiti. So yes, we have no justifiable equivalency there, unless you think loss of life and property are inconsequential. There is, no doubt, to be a striving for improvement as man goes along... but to willy-nilly change, without rationality, when those who strive to create a new right that serves minimal purpose to those concerned and even less to the majority culture as a whole that is even less concerned, well that opens the doors up to a hydra-headed Pandora's box of future cassandras... sorry, we the people not only have the right, we have the duty, the obligation to our posterity to put this silliness in its proper place in the history books... an asterisk that indicates this meaningless idea once finding wrongheaded liberal popular approval was rationally laid aside in favor of wisdom and the long term better way for all of society and its future generations.

A victory for the thinking virtuous.
 
There are a myriad of examples of where no harm could be found except after the harm had occurred. One example you may believe in was in the use of the pesticide, DDT. I don't have to show how marriage between a man and a tree is harmful to the state either, to know that is not what we want for our society. It is just this sort of silliness that your side proposes, making a mockery of what is tremendously important and serious.
Click to expand...

Really, now? How many of these myriad examples were banned before the harm was found? We wait for data that shows harm, then restrict freedom. You really think this line of thinking is supporting your side? :lamo
 
roguenuke said:
You are wrong. Just as people very rarely change their mind back to thinking interracial marriages are wrong just because they become adults, so it goes with this issue. I am an adult myself, mid-thirties in fact. I've held the same beliefs on this issue since as long as I can remember (including arguing it in high school in the 90s). Even my Catholic mother is for same sex marriage, along with the majority of adults in my family.

The trends we have prove that everything I stated in the post you quoted me.

As for the last comments, there is much more strength to fight for others to be treated equally and change unfair laws then to try to keep laws in place that are only there for your personal beliefs.
Click to expand...
Yes, proving that there is always a way to justify silliness and silliness, once becoming popular, can lead all astray... the Pied Pipers of new liberalism doing their destructive best here as they have done elsewhere.

Lord help us all [ and I am not even a religious being ] overcome this infectious idiocy that afflicts entire peoples and brings so much misery and destruction.
 
roguenuke said:
The Constitution does not list a lot of things that we still have rights to.

You have no clue on constitutional law and how our laws work at all. That is obvious by your comments. I have actual law experts who can back up my assertions about the laws. Until you can show me where being a person who owes child support (Zablocki v Redhail) is a protected class (specifically mentioned in the Constitution), then you fail.
Click to expand...
Look at the 9th and 10th amendments, savor them as they delineate the proper lineage of just who has ownership of those rights/powers not listed in the Constitution and who gets to make those decisions.

YOU, on the contrary, have absolutely no idea of the history nor the foundation of thought underlying OUR Constitution. Don't try to tell me you are an authority on what it is and what should be... you are solely using the Constitution as a bludgeoning tool against us... and sorry, WE do not have to take it.

You have actual what? You have "actual law experts"? Are they on a retainer... or are you just paying them on a piecemeal basis as you answer each of my posts? What a CHUCKLE you have brought me.

Sorry again, you do not get to issue the terms of the debate in some side-tracked issue of child support. You specifically said there were protected classes in the Constitution, I have asked you name those classes and to support that erroneous statement with evidence... you have failed to provide such. So we must assume that you were WRONG. I will go beyond the assumption and FLAT OUT STATE YOU WERE/ARE WRONG.

If you are THAT WRONG on this simple Constitutional question requiring minimal knowledge of this fairly short document... how are we to be confident in ANYTHING further you have to say on the matter?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Yes, proving that there is always a way to justify silliness and silliness, once becoming popular, can lead all astray... the Pied Pipers of new liberalism doing their destructive best here as they have done elsewhere.

Lord help us all [ and I am not even a religious being ] overcome this infectious idiocy that afflicts entire peoples and brings so much misery and destruction.
Click to expand...

you think gay marriage means we have to let people marry kids and light posts and you lecture on silliness and idiocy?
 
roguenuke said:
It affects others. And it could potentially affect me in the future. You have no right to tell me that I cannot marry a woman just because you don't want me to marry a woman.

The rest of those things you mention I've already addressed. They must fight their own battles. I invite them to. They will still come down to the state's interest. That would be an argument for the state to make and they've been making it quite well. Can a 7 year old legally sign a contract? Can a horse legally sign a contract? The others are more complicated but still have state interests that the state is able to articulate when challenged (whether the courts view those interests as good enough is for a future challenge). Still has nothing to do with the fact that there is no legitimate state interest in not allowing a woman to marry a woman or a man to marry another man.
Click to expand...
No I individually don't, but our society can make such judgements if we so please.

You haven't answered much of anything on the matter. You cannot show how we would stop anything based on this foolish premise, this one size fits all device, this artless and rudimentary tool upon which you and selfish others are using to accomplish something simply unnecessary and potentially extremely harmful to the rest of society.

There is no legitimate interest in having to prove legitimate interest in silly, yet consequential and potentially very detrimental, cases.

PERIOD.

Sorry, nobody is stopping you from marrying who/what you want in your own mind. Just do not expect state sanction.
 
roguenuke said:
The law doesn't care about your beliefs or how society feels about certain things unless you are able to get enough people to deny them constitutionally unequal protection. Until that time, the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection of everyone enshrined within stands.
Click to expand...
Yeah yeah yeah... same thing can be said in return. Who said anything about undermining the 14 and equal protection... equal protection does not necessarily grant equality of all, and of everything, by the way. Nor should it.
 
roguenuke said:
Complain all you want, that is how our SCOTUS works.

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause



History of Equal Protection and the Levels of Review

Breakdown in the levels of scrutiny. - Free Online Library

You don't like the way our legal system and constitutional review works, tough. Attempt to change it. I doubt that will go far because most people either don't care or like it the way it is because it protects all of us.
Click to expand...
Show me where the concept of strict scrutiny is in the Constitution...or say, where in the Constitution is there the concept of interstate migration? Or gender, except maybe with the 19 amendment? I will await, perhaps eternity, for you to answer this question with examples from our Constitution.

This is silliness amplified.
 
roguenuke said:
We have. Or do you really believe that this issue just started in the last decade? This issue has existed for quite some time.
Click to expand...
Are you following what was being stated? We are talking about those who have been exposed to idea and new reality of SSM actually existing [ not the theory but the practice ] and how it fares with those now being shielded and propagandized from its purposes and effects, in the future and in real time.
 
chromium said:
Yeah nothing screams "stable, traditional" like my uncle's 5th marriage or Britney's 24hr "just for fun" marriage :roll:

You heteros have already done everything possible to ruin marriage on your own. Blaming the gays only makes ya'll seem like abusive neglectful husbands....which undoubtedly many complaining the loudest are.
Click to expand...
Yes, just another way that liberal ideas have placed another straw on the cultural camels back... so hey, got another load of manure covered straws you want to heap up there, dontcha, just dontcha...

One is forced to wonder just how puerile a statement can one make before it devolves to simply... goo goo, goo goo?

Who is blaming solely the gays? I am blaming the ideology which supports this and any other method to eat away at the stability of marriage and American traditional values.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Yeah yeah yeah... same thing can be said in return. Who said anything about undermining the 14 and equal protection... equal protection does not necessarily grant equality of all, and of everything, by the way. Nor should it.
Click to expand...

it should in this case 2 people are being denied the ability to enter into a contract with one another on the basis of gender alone and gender is not relevant to the contract
 
roguenuke said:
Doesn't matter when people started waking up to this issue and started supporting it in major numbers. What matters is that the trend clearly shows that as soon as people realized the issue itself and realized that others are being treated unfairly under the law for nothing more than personal beliefs about homosexuality, they started realizing the laws are wrong. Many still in fact believe personally that being homosexual or having same sex relationships is a sin, but they also feel that their beliefs have no place in our laws.
Click to expand...
Wrong, but hey, everyone is entitled to an opinion, no matter its merits or lack thereof... the rest of us do not have to be stupid enough to believe them, however.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Are you following what was being stated? We are talking about those who have been exposed to idea and new reality of SSM actually existing [ not the theory but the practice ] and how it fares with those now being shielded and propagandized from its purposes and effects, in the future and in real time.
Click to expand...

its purpose is to let people marry some 1 of the same gender if they choose to

how is that purpose being shielded from any one?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Yes, just another way that liberal ideas have placed another straw on the cultural camels back... so hey, got another load of manure covered straws you want to heap up there, dontcha, just dontcha...

One is forced to wonder just how puerile a statement can one make before it devolves to simply... goo goo, goo goo?

Who is blaming solely the gays? I am blaming the ideology which supports this and any other method to eat away at the stability of marriage and American traditional values.
Click to expand...

so how letting people marry harm the stability of marriage?

its traditional and hopefully American values that lend support to same sex marriage fairness, justice, equality, the pursuit of happiness, freedom
 
roguenuke said:
What you view as an "ill conceived purpose" is the problem. You are trying to justify your personal dislike by denying that reasonable considerations should matter when it comes to our laws and equal protection.
Click to expand...
Yes, and what is the reasonable reason that one cannot marry a tree again? What is your personal dislike of that, or do you just have enough smarts to understand that letting everyone do whatever they like is freedom to the point of chaos... or maybe some just don't have these smarts enough to know... beginning to seem to be the situation.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Wrong, but hey, everyone is entitled to an opinion, no matter its merits or lack thereof... the rest of us do not have to be stupid enough to believe them, however.
Click to expand...

how's it wrong or lack merit?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Yes, and what is the reasonable reason that one cannot marry a tree again? What is your personal dislike of that, or do you just have enough smarts to understand that letting everyone do whatever they like is freedom to the point of chaos... or maybe some just don't have these smarts enough to know... beginning to seem to be the situation.
Click to expand...

trees cant agree to it its been mentioned all ready stop playing ( hope its playing ) dumb
 
CriticalThought said:
It is the requirement for the lowest tier of scrutiny. It is asking simply whether or not there is a rational basis for infringing on a Constitutional right.
Click to expand...
That is something made up outside the 14th... it may or may not be valid, it may or may not be a useful tool in every instance... as stated before not all problems require the same tools for resolution... this one size fits all tool is suspect at the very least, perhaps harmful if applied mandatorily, as is instanced in zero tolerance policies applied without thought and mitigation.
 
blarg said:
how come the lack of any sane reason to ban gay marriage means you have to let any one marry any thing no matter how insane or harmful that would be its silly
Click to expand...
Prove the harm of me marrying a tree. I, and many on my side, think it is absolutely insane that people of the same gender need marry one another... and was unthinkable not that long ago... just shows how the left can make insanity mask for sanity...just that quick.
 
Deuce said:
Really, now? How many of these myriad examples were banned before the harm was found? We wait for data that shows harm, then restrict freedom. You really think this line of thinking is supporting your side? :lamo
Click to expand...
Logic would assist you... may want to try that if desiring to solve problems... we know that screen doors do not work on submarines prior to sending folks down in them with screen doors... see the logic there, by any chance?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
You are wrong on all accounts. The majority of the people, except in the Southern Democratically held states, were not for segregation... the Supreme Court, the Federal government in general, does not EVER, repeat EVER, supersede the will of the PEOPLE. You see, in our system, the PEOPLE are the sovereigns. NOT the majority of solely these nine human justices who are not free from their own personal biases. They are not our kings, they certainly are not our gods. We may let their incorrect decisions ride... or we may not... in any case, ultimately we are the in the real seat of power, we get to decide what our culture is.

Supply your sources regarding those polls, please? Also supply the wording of these polls to see if they properly address the actual question that you say with such definitiveness as to the percentages.

There are a myriad of examples of where no harm could be found except after the harm had occurred. One example you may believe in was in the use of the pesticide, DDT. I don't have to show how marriage between a man and a tree is harmful to the state either, to know that is not what we want for our society. It is just this sort of silliness that your side proposes, making a mockery of what is tremendously important and serious.

Yes, well your evaluative ability was to be questioned in any event, much prior to the issue of that silly statement. This idea promulgated by the new age, mainly liberals in our own realm, regarding the subjective equivalence of all cultures has and will continue to be silliness, deadly silliness. An easy example one might use to compare would be to the earthquakes happening in Haiti and to Chile. Chile's society, even though the earthquake was stronger there, was much better prepared than Haiti. Chile had, through superior cultural and its thus derived decisions, built structures, both physically and systemically, that allowed them to bear minimal damage to edifices and people. Many, tremendously more people were killed/injured in Haiti. So yes, we have no justifiable equivalency there, unless you think loss of life and property are inconsequential. There is, no doubt, to be a striving for improvement as man goes along... but to willy-nilly change, without rationality, when those who strive to create a new right that serves minimal purpose to those concerned and even less to the majority culture as a whole that is even less concerned, well that opens the doors up to a hydra-headed Pandora's box of future cassandras... sorry, we the people not only have the right, we have the duty, the obligation to our posterity to put this silliness in its proper place in the history books... an asterisk that indicates this meaningless idea once finding wrongheaded liberal popular approval was rationally laid aside in favor of wisdom and the long term better way for all of society and its future generations.

A victory for the thinking virtuous.
Click to expand...

The culture of the South was still a culture of the US. Denying that means that you do not even recognize that the same thing is happening today, acceptance of same sex marriage is pretty much a done-deal in much of the Northeast and on the West coast and even within most major cities throughout the country. Opposition to same sex marriage is only a cultural majority right now in the South, Midwest, Rocky-Mountain areas, and in general rural areas.

As for the interracial marriage thing, here you go.

Gay Marriage Has Twice the Support Today That Interracial Marriage Had When It Was Legalized in the 1960s  Pensito Review

"In 1968, the year after the “activist” Supremes legalized interracial marriage in its decision on Loving vs. Virginia, a Gallup poll found that the vast majority of Americans still opposed the idea that blacks and whites could marry — 72 percent to 20 percent. Just 10 20 years earlier, in the wake of a California Supreme Court decision that overturned newly minted anti-interracial marriage laws in the state, Gallup found that 94 percent of Americans opposed mixed-race marriages."

You cannot show harm done or even potential harm from same sex marriages. Until you can, you have nothing legally speaking.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Yes, and what is the reasonable reason that one cannot marry a tree again? What is your personal dislike of that, or do you just have enough smarts to understand that letting everyone do whatever they like is freedom to the point of chaos... or maybe some just don't have these smarts enough to know... beginning to seem to be the situation.
Click to expand...

Trees cannot sign contracts, they are not US citizens, they cannot communicate with humans. Laws apply to humans, not animals, plants, or inanimate objects. When a tree itself can legally sue someone, claim property rights, or be protected by the US Constitution, then we can talk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom