• 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]

Name a predominantly same sex culture that has existed.

I have never claimed that homosexuality is a ever a majority of any culture. However, there is a difference between treating people who are attracted to those of the same sex equally and those who are attracted to the same sex being the majority. Pretty sure no culture has ever been predominantly gay. However, no culture has ever been predominantly geniuses or predominantly over 6 feet tall or predominantly left-handed either.

Actually all those people you mentioned would kill homosexuals (in all likelihood). So that would place them pretty fairly on your side. As for the founders, if they lived in our current society, the majority would be on my side. Freedom of the people was the mantra of the founders, including freedom from the whims of any majority.

Again, you keep contradicting yourself. I show you that the majority is on my side at this moment, and you say the majority doesn't matter. Then you go back to your same old mantra of you having the majority on your side. So which is it? Does the majority only matter when it is on your side or does it not matter at all, making your attempted view on being "oppressive" completely pointless?
None that I know of, so they mix, if allowed, with the dominant culture under their rules. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out.

There is no necessity nor requirement to allow the non norm, deviance, to be equated with the norm. It would be untrue to begin with. All those you mention, they don't get to have everything changed to accomodate them. There are standard car sizes and door sizes that the tall must adjust to, we don't make everybody right-handed write with their left, or start on the opposite side of the page so its easier to write. All those outside the norm adjust to the norm, not vice versa.

Yes indeed, these totalitarian stage liberals probably would kill homosexuals, another reason for homosexuals not to bite the hand of all that treat them so well.

Show me the votes, actual votes, where the majority of the country is on your side. Not polls conducted by who knows who, what the actual questions were, who they were choosing to poll, etc... How about we vote on it by state, that's reasonable. If a state wants SSM, thats up to them [ you seem to be ok with that ]. If a state doesn't want it, thats up to them [ you don't seem to be okay with that, don't states get equal protection under the law?].
 
Name a predominantly same sex culture that has existed.

I have never claimed that homosexuality is a ever a majority of any culture. However, there is a difference between treating people who are attracted to those of the same sex equally and those who are attracted to the same sex being the majority. Pretty sure no culture has ever been predominantly gay. However, no culture has ever been predominantly geniuses or predominantly over 6 feet tall or predominantly left-handed either.

Actually all those people you mentioned would kill homosexuals (in all likelihood). So that would place them pretty fairly on your side. As for the founders, if they lived in our current society, the majority would be on my side. Freedom of the people was the mantra of the founders, including freedom from the whims of any majority.

Again, you keep contradicting yourself. I show you that the majority is on my side at this moment, and you say the majority doesn't matter. Then you go back to your same old mantra of you having the majority on your side. So which is it? Does the majority only matter when it is on your side or does it not matter at all, making your attempted view on being "oppressive" completely pointless?
None that I know of, so they mix, if allowed, with the dominant culture under their rules. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out.

There is no necessity nor requirement to allow the non norm, deviance, to be equated with the norm. It would be a lie to begin with. All those you mention, they don't get to have everything changed to accommodate them. There are standard car sizes and door sizes that the tall must adjust to, we don't make everybody right-handed write with their left, or start on the opposite side of the page so its easier to write. All those outside the norm adjust to the norm, not vice versa.

Yes indeed, some of these totalitarian stage liberals probably would kill homosexuals, another reason for homosexuals not to bite the hand of all those that treat them so well. And you are flat out wrong in your assessment of the founders. Most were moral upstanding men, men who understood the need for regional differences, understood Federalism, many of whom understood the limits of a national government and the follies of a tyrannical court.

Show me the votes, actual votes, where the majority of the country is on your side. Not polls conducted by who knows who, what the actual questions were, who they were choosing to poll, etc... How about we vote on it by state, that's reasonable. If a state wants SSM, thats up to them [ you seem to be ok with that ]. If a state doesn't want it, thats up to them [ you don't seem to be okay with that, don't states get equal protection under the law?].
 
Hard to be overly oppressive if you have the majority on your side...

Tell that to the Jews. Having the majority on your side can create tyranny just as easily as the other way around. Probably easier.
 
Marriage is for adults to be protected from each other and from other adults. It has little to do directly with children. Children benefit because those protections put their parents in a better position of security.

If no one could have children, then there would be no need for marriage (although there would likely be few to actually get divorced if they were married) because we would be living in basically a "Children of Men" situation.
Help me out here. Can you see the contradiction in these two paragraphs?

And if that second paragraph is what you feel, then you agree that those who cannot procreate, as would be an impossibility of a same sex gender couple together, have no need for marriage, right?
 
There is no necessity nor requirement to allow the non norm, deviance, to be equated with the norm. It would be untrue to begin with. All those you mention, they don't get to have everything changed to accomodate them. There are standard car sizes and door sizes that the tall must adjust to, we don't make everybody right-handed write with their left, or start on the opposite side of the page so its easier to write. All those outside the norm adjust to the norm, not vice versa.
.

CONFORM OR SUFFER, WEAKLINGS

Listen to yourself, man. It's pretty freaky.
 
Let me fix your car door analogy, G-man. Because I'm not trying to make you change the size of your car door.

You want it to be illegal to make a different car door.
 
We are gaining support and we have the arguments that involve actual values established by the US Constitution, equal protection, fair treatment, individual rights, etc. You have nothing except attempting to maintain a faulty belief about homosexuality/same sex couples, discriminating against them without any legitimate legal reason for doing so, but rather simply because you don't like/approve of them being married.

The irony of your post here is that you were earlier arguing that you were in the majority.
You have no values as established by OUR common Constitution. They get equal protection under the existing laws, they don't get special privileges [marrying another gender was not a part of our laws ] under the laws as that would not be equal [ and please don't start with the state's legitimate interest stuff again, its a false equivalence...saying it three more times does not erase that. I have my vote and my opinion and that along with a minimum of 50 plus % and we maintain the status quo.

Same sex couples aren't hurt, they will live no doubt. If they were happy type people before, they will be after. If not a happy person, they will probably remain unhappy.

Go back and reread the posts. The majority assertion was in number of states with same sex bans/definitions of marriage being traditional, 34-16, and with the pew poll coming in at 46% opposed to SSM and 45% agreeing---with an article from pew itself indicating that polling understates opposition to SSM by about 5 to 7% I think the article says. Talk about faulty, you really should be able to read, comprehend and remember a bit better than that for your age.
 
There is no necessity nor requirement to allow the non norm, deviance, to be equated with the norm.
But is it really equating when one does not discriminate?

All those you mention, they don't get to have everything changed to accommodate them.
And what is changed in this case?

And you are flat out wrong in your assessment of the founders. Most were moral upstanding men, men who understood the need for regional differences, understood Federalism, many of whom understood the limits of a national government and the follies of a tyrannical court.
They also understood the possible tyranny of a majority and very wisely precluded that in our Constitution.

How about we vote on it by state, that's reasonable. If a state wants SSM, thats up to them [ you seem to be ok with that ].
So you are married in one state and not in another? Does that make any sense? How about if a state decides to vote divorce illegal?

If a state doesn't want it, thats up to them [ you don't seem to be okay with that, don't states get equal protection under the law?].
But states do not get to vote away people's rights.
 
Help me out here. Can you see the contradiction in these two paragraphs?

And if that second paragraph is what you feel, then you agree that those who cannot procreate, as would be an impossibility of a same sex gender couple together, have no need for marriage, right?

Do you apply this reasoning to elderly couples or the infertile? Should their marriages be prevented or annulled if already existing?
 
They get equal protection under the existing laws
Not when they are not allowed to do the same things other can do.

they don't get special privileges [marrying another gender was not a part of our laws ]
Why is not allowing to marry a person of the same gender part of it? Why should it remain so?

I have my vote and my opinion and that along with a minimum of 50 plus % and we maintain the status quo.
Apparently you do not understand how our society and Constitution work.

Same sex couples aren't hurt, they will live no doubt.
But they are denied what you take for granted and neither are you hurt in any way and you too will live.
 
You have no values as established by OUR common Constitution. They get equal protection under the existing laws, they don't get special privileges [marrying another gender was not a part of our laws ] under the laws as that would not be equal [ and please don't start with the state's legitimate interest stuff again, its a false equivalence...saying it three more times does not erase that. I have my vote and my opinion and that along with a minimum of 50 plus % and we maintain the status quo.
And no matter how many times you wish otherwise, equal protection works a certain way. SCOTUS created the system, and SCOTUS applies it. You think that's not how it should work, but your opinion on what should be isn't exactly relevant to those nine people.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding about the constitutional issues here. You're starting with the 51% vote, and you think that is definitive. It isn't. The states and the people are both bound by the constitution. The 9th and 10th amendments give the states a lot of leeway, but in every case the people and the states are still bound by the 14th amendment in the same way they are bound by the 2nd or the 13th. No number of votes, no state constitutional amendment, and no amount of votes of a legislative body can reinstate slavery because the US constitution prevents it with the 13th amendment.

The 14th works the same way. States have all sorts of power to implement laws, as do the people via ballot measure if their state allows it. But in every case this is bound by the 14th, so the only relevant question here is whether or not same-sex marriage bans violate the 14th amendment. You keep saying the 14th doesn't specifically mention state interests and whatnot. That's entirely true, but it doesn't matter, because the Supreme Court of the United States says that this is how it works.

And that's why you are about to lose this battle before the Supreme Court, and same-sex marriage will be legal nationwide. I predict middle of 2015, based on how SCOTUS' schedule works. Could theoretically be later this year, but I doubt it.

Same sex couples aren't hurt, they will live no doubt. If they were happy type people before, they will be after. If not a happy person, they will probably remain unhappy.
-Property inheritance problems
-Child custody problems
-Medical power of attorney
-Compelled testimony against spouse in civil or criminal cases
-Confiscated social security/other death benefits

These are measures of harm.
 
Yeah, well, that looks like kinda like a floater, not in that it is a valid premise, but, you know...

Just making fun of your ridiculous implications about historical "same sex cultures."

You didn't respond to my legitimate questions about that point, so I figured you'd given up on it. So what's the harm in a little lampooning?
 
So, tell me, what source would you prefer I show since you refuse to provide any of your own sources, ever?
That my dear, is a prevarication on your part. Want to amend, or would you rather me to prove this misstatement of truth?

Ah what the heck, might as well do it now anyhow, some of the pages/posts just from this thread wherein I posted/gave sources:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...rikes-down-michigans-ban-gay-marriage-27.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...rikes-down-michigans-ban-gay-marriage-28.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...igans-ban-gay-marriage-32.html#post1063065356

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...rikes-down-michigans-ban-gay-marriage-42.html

Lets see...
Provide something from a valid source... not like the Marriage Equality site please... I mean, can one not tell from which side of the bias fence that would be from...any guesses...

...Bueller...Bueller...
 
Yeah, well, that looks like kinda like a floater, not in that it is a valid premise, but, you know...

65 pages, have you posted one logical, accurate and factual reason that supports your fight against equal rights? one?

the answer is no and we all see it lol
let us know when you can
 
CONFORM OR SUFFER, WEAKLINGS

Listen to yourself, man. It's pretty freaky.
Yeah, damn us guys who want some semblance of order, are against complete chaos, who allow for personal liberty but not anything/everything goes, no matter how deviant, how gross, how pathetic, how sad. Damn those guys who want to keep America strong, preserve it for coming generations... why can't they just go along with the me me me... be hip and turn on, drop out... why can't they just promote the be less than you can be and expect the same from everybody else policies like the rest of us...

...blah blah blah...
 
Let me fix your car door analogy, G-man. Because I'm not trying to make you change the size of your car door.

You want it to be illegal to make a different car door.
That car door fix sounds a little squeaky, oh dang, the whole thing fell off... what shall we do, what shall we do... oh the humanity...
 
Yeah, damn us guys who want some semblance of order, are against complete chaos, who allow for personal liberty but not anything/everything goes, no matter how deviant, how gross, how pathetic, how sad. Damn those guys who want to keep America strong, preserve it for coming generations... why can't they just go along with the me me me... be hip and turn on, drop out... why can't they just promote the be less than you can be and expect the same from everybody else policies like the rest of us...

...blah blah blah...

Oh hey it's the straw man again!

You support interracial marriage, therefore you support complete chaos, everything/anything goes, no matter how deviant, or gross, or pathetic, or sad.

"Be less than you can be." What, you're saying gay people are less than you?
 
That car door fix sounds a little squeaky, oh dang, the whole thing fell off... what shall we do, what shall we do... oh the humanity...

exactly, nobody buys your the fake panic, fear and concern in your failed posts :shrug: glad you are learning
 
Yeah, damn us guys who want some semblance of order, are against complete chaos, who allow for personal liberty but not anything/everything goes, no matter how deviant, how gross, how pathetic, how sad. Damn those guys who want to keep America strong, preserve it for coming generations... why can't they just go along with the me me me... be hip and turn on, drop out... why can't they just promote the be less than you can be and expect the same from everybody else policies like the rest of us...

...blah blah blah...
Your idea of "keeping America strong" is no different then those that wanted interracial marriage banned.

Here's the facts in case you are not keeping score.

It is not illegal for gays to be a couple.
It is not illegal for gays to have sex.
It is not illegal for gays to raise children.
In some states, gays can now marry.

Now since NEITHER of those things are illegal, please tell me again why SSM should be?
 
But is it really equating when one does not discriminate?

And what is changed in this case?

They also understood the possible tyranny of a majority and very wisely precluded that in our Constitution.

So you are married in one state and not in another? Does that make any sense? How about if a state decides to vote divorce illegal?

But states do not get to vote away people's rights.
Huh? Explain.

What changed? The whole idea of marriage that we have had since prior to the founding of this nation.

Precluded? They did nothing of the sort in the Constitution. What they did do is give us all a bill of inalienable rights which include our protections of the minority, freedom of speech, press, relgion, to petition our govt for grievances and freedom to assemble with like minded people [ or whoever we want ]. That is what the founders provided... they did not want a tyranny of the minority again, either, having just fought against and rid themselves from the tyranny of George III.

Yeah, either that or no go at all on the SSM thing.

States have the power, reserved in the Constitution, to make such decisions about marriage, education, state taxes, blah blah blah... they are not taking away people's rights, they never had those rights in the first place to be taken away. Marriage is not a Constitutional right... if you think so, point out to me in the Constitution where you find it.
 
Only if they were of the same sex.

and thats why your criteria fails, its meaningless to marriage and you just proved it to me hypocritical and irrational also.
your post fails again
 
Back
Top Bottom