• 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]

prometeus said:
In other words you have nothing.

Don't look now but you can not.

I hardly needed help but clearly you do.

Because you say so?

Good, enough said then.

Not to you since it is you would would deny others their equality.

But it that recognition exactly that is at issue here and what you want to deny because you do not approve.
Click to expand...
No. Yes we can, yes you did and you can thank me, not just because I say so but because it is so, no ... you were still way off wrong about preclusion, there is sufficient equality in marriage currently, I and sufficient others so far are not for opening up a right to those who do not merit it... yes.
 
prometeus said:
You missed way too many civics classes and clearly are out of touch with what the majority wants.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you seem completely unaware of much of anything of which you speak. But I am interested, why don't you inform me of what the majority wants... and where you obtained your information on this majority and what it wants? Probably cannot really do any of that can ya? Nah, thought not.

Got anything you want to actually contribute to the conversation, or perhaps I am out of line asking and that might be just too much to ask?
 
Lursa said:
Yeah, to Hell with gays' right to the pursuit of happiness! They arent Americans, they dont get to have that. Oh wait...they are Americans...but so what? We dont like them, they are icky and make me feel funny.....let's punish them for exercising their rights. And then let's punish their kids too. They deserve it, because....oh wait....

Why do they deserve it? What are they doing wrong again? You havent explained that yet...remember?
Click to expand...
Gays can pursue happiness all they want, who is stopping them?

Wow, you really feel that way about gays, do you? Or do you just normally go around muttering caricatures of what it is you think is going on in other people's minds? Think that is a good debate tactic, or an illogical emotional release that just feels good?

I have explained it plenty of times. Everybody doesn't get everything they want. Lets say I want a million dollars, are you going to say I don't deserve it? I am an American, don't I just deserve it? Why, because of my views on gay marriage, you just don't like me, that why? What if I want to marry my sister, we are both Americans, you just don't like us, do you?

How about we get off the emotional merry-go-round here, huh?
 
prometeus said:
You keep repeating the same ignorant tripe.
Click to expand...
He only says it because its true. What exactly did they teach you in that Civics class of yours? See, there are three branches, the judicial, the executive and the legislative... in general the legislative makes the laws, the executive branch carries the laws out and the judicial branch settles disputes and determines if the laws the legislature make are Constitutional.

Pretty basic.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Gays can pursue happiness all they want, who is stopping them?

Wow, you really feel that way about gays, do you? Or do you just normally go around muttering caricatures of what it is you think is going on in other people's minds? Think that is a good debate tactic, or an illogical emotional release that just feels good?

I have explained it plenty of times. Everybody doesn't get everything they want. Lets say I want a million dollars, are you going to say I don't deserve it? I am an American, don't I just deserve it? Why, because of my views on gay marriage, you just don't like me, that why? What if I want to marry my sister, we are both Americans, you just don't like us, do you?

How about we get off the emotional merry-go-round here, huh?
Click to expand...

91 pages and 904 posts and your posts are still getting thier asses handed to them.

each fallacy and strawman you have presented has been destroyed its hilarious!

do you have ONE sound argument you cant back up with accurate facts or logic . . . . one

we are still waiting
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes I have. Have you read Madison? Maybe look up tyranny of the majority.

You may also look at all the protections for the minority in the Constitution.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...
Yes, have read Madison. Familiar also with the Federalist Papers as well as the Anti-Federalists, knowledgeable of the arguments and the minority protections [rights]. Have spoken of them on the thread already... ever hear of the Revolutionary War, the tyranny of the king we overthrew here in the USA [ example, tyranny of the minority ]...ever hear of majority rules/minority rights together, by chance? Ever hear of the concept, which is the truth, that the people only give our consent to be governed in a republic?

May want to ponder things a bit beyond what they taught you way back in school, yano?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
You can't pass a law against a right that is clearly written out in the constitution
Click to expand...

They do it all the time. Hence why we have courts that rule that laws are unconstitutional.

gay marriage does not rise to that level.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion. Given that you are not addressing the arguments of the actual ruling, it does not appear to be a very informed one. Here is the text of the ruling so you can actually understand the judge's argument and explain in clear terms why you disagree.

http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4220110321.PDF
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I just don't see the right to marry a member of the same sex here.
Click to expand...

14th amendment. Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Yes, have read Madison. Familiar also with the Federalist Papers as well as the Anti-Federalists, knowledgeable of the arguments and the minority protections [rights]. Have spoken of them on the thread already... ever hear of the Revolutionary War, the tyranny of the king we overthrew here in the USA [ example, tyranny of the minority ]...ever hear of majority rules/minority rights together, by chance? Ever hear of the concept, which is the truth, that the people only give our consent to be governed in a republic?

May want to ponder things a bit beyond what they taught you way back in school, yano?
Click to expand...
.


Oh, I've ponder enough. The one denying here is the perceived majority. You lose nothing by not denying. Your marriage stays the same. You are free to honor or degrade it as you see fit. Only those denying rights are being tyrants. Not those seeking equality.

And as you study, note the Constitution contains protections of the minority, and addresses equality.
 
roguenuke said:
Nope. Constitutionally protected under the EPC of the 14th Amendment. Otherwise, what exactly would the EPC protect because it doesn't specifically mention race at all.
Click to expand...
Everybody within US jurisdiction is Constitutionally protected under the 14th... so I would suppose same sex couples are protected under the 14th just about as much as two 12 year olds wanting to marry, especially if groups of 12 year olds and their advocates had been pushing this silliness as long as homosexuals have been pushing theirs.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Gays can pursue happiness all they want, who is stopping them?

Wow, you really feel that way about gays, do you? Or do you just normally go around muttering caricatures of what it is you think is going on in other people's minds? Think that is a good debate tactic, or an illogical emotional release that just feels good?

I have explained it plenty of times. Everybody doesn't get everything they want. Lets say I want a million dollars, are you going to say I don't deserve it? I am an American, don't I just deserve it? Why, because of my views on gay marriage, you just don't like me, that why? What if I want to marry my sister, we are both Americans, you just don't like us, do you?

How about we get off the emotional merry-go-round here, huh?
Click to expand...

Gays dont want MORE than anyone else...they want what anyone else...any straight couple...in American gets. And you have not shown any reason why they should be denied.

You most certainly are attempting to deny them one of the most important ways that American couples pursue happiness....thru marriage. You cant deny that.

Marriage is about an emotional bond....is it not? So of course it's an emotional issue. Marriage is about love and intimacy...

Does every other American get handed a million dollars by the state? No? OK, then you'll have to earn it and you have the same equal opportunity to do so as any other American...is anyone denying you that opportunity?

So...back to reality....what grounds to you have to deny gay Americans the right to pursue the happiness and equal privileges and protections of marriage?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Everybody within US jurisdiction is Constitutionally protected under the 14th... so I would suppose same sex couples are protected under the 14th just about as much as two 12 year olds wanting to marry, especially if groups of 12 year olds and their advocates had been pushing this silliness as long as homosexuals have been pushing theirs.
Click to expand...

Your deliberate ignorance of judicial scrutiny is noted.
 
Boo Radley said:
.


Oh, I've ponder enough. The one denying here is the perceived majority. You lose nothing by not denying. Your marriage stays the same. You are free to honor or degrade it as you see fit. Only those denying rights are being tyrants. Not those seeking equality.

And as you study, note the Constitution contains protections of the minority, and addresses equality.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that is just ridiculous. We are all denied things every day. That is NOT tyranny. How simplistic.

I know the Constitution, and its concepts, far better than others, it seems apparent. Why don't you inform me of where in the Constitution that the minority rules. Why don't you explain to us, if this is so, why there are all sorts of examples of majority rules within the Constitution itself... say for example, the majorities needed for amendments, and...oh, but you are right because the President is elected by a minority of electoral college votes...oh wait, no, that would be the majority, too... dang, maybe you can help me find a place in the Constitution where the minority wins... but I think you merely will find they, we, have rights in place so they, we, cannot be silenced and may, through those rights, potentially rise to the point of being the majority... which rules. ;)

Your turn.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Sorry, but that is just ridiculous. We are all denied things every day. That is NOT tyranny. How simplistic.

I know the Constitution, and its concepts, far better than others, it seems apparent. Why don't you inform me of where in the Constitution that the minority rules. Why don't you explain to us, if this is so, why there are all sorts of examples of majority rules within the Constitution itself... say for example, the majorities needed for amendments, and...oh, but you are right because the President is elected by a minority of electoral college votes...oh wait, no, that would be the majority, too... dang, maybe you can help me find a place in the Constitution where the minority wins... but I think you merely will find they, we, have rights in place so they, we, cannot be silenced and may, through those rights, potentially rise to the point of being the majority... which rules. ;)

Your turn.
Click to expand...

this is easy lol

heres a question i know that will never get answered

when it comes to equal rights for gays WHO is being silenced?

and bets on this NEVER being answered and getting dodged because the answer totally destroys the dishonesty in the quoted post.
 
Lursa said:
Gays dont want MORE than anyone else...they want what anyone else...any straight couple...in American gets. And you have not shown any reason why they should be denied.

You most certainly are attempting to deny them one of the most important ways that American couples pursue happiness....thru marriage. You cant deny that.

Marriage is about an emotional bond....is it not? So of course it's an emotional issue. Marriage is about love and intimacy...

Does every other American get handed a million dollars by the state? No? OK, then you'll have to earn it and you have the same equal opportunity to do so as any other American...is anyone denying you that opportunity?

So...back to reality....what grounds to you have to deny gay Americans the right to pursue the happiness and equal privileges and protections of marriage?
Click to expand...
Good lord, have you read the thread? For the same reason we deny all sorts of others who may demand they too be able to be married... polygamists, father- daughter, grandfather-grandson, there are all sorts of people we deny this privilege to as that is not what we want our culture to become, a messed up mixed up chaotic train wreck...and because we can... we, the majority, can make such decisions about what our culture is and will be... if you convince enough of us to become the majority, your way becomes the way we do things... at least until we regain the majority and change it back... got it now?

If you had taken the time to read the thread you would already have seen all this posted ad nauseum...
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Sorry, but that is just ridiculous. We are all denied things every day. That is NOT tyranny. How simplistic.

I know the Constitution, and its concepts, far better than others, it seems apparent. Why don't you inform me of where in the Constitution that the minority rules. Why don't you explain to us, if this is so, why there are all sorts of examples of majority rules within the Constitution itself... say for example, the majorities needed for amendments, and...oh, but you are right because the President is elected by a minority of electoral college votes...oh wait, no, that would be the majority, too... dang, maybe you can help me find a place in the Constitution where the minority wins... but I think you merely will find they, we, have rights in place so they, we, cannot be silenced and may, through those rights, potentially rise to the point of being the majority... which rules. ;)

Your turn.
Click to expand...

That is the easiest question you have ever asked. Article III of the Constitution that established the judicial branch. The judicial branch exists to protect INDIVIDUAL rights. That is the check the founders envisioned on the will of the majority. They respected it, but they knew it needed to be reasonable or it would be oppressive, so the judicial branch allows an individual to argue and defend their rights. Oddly enough, people like you who claim to value individual rights and to understand the Constitution know so little of its history. Start with Federalist Paper Number 10.

Bill of Rights Institute: Federalist Papers No. 10
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Good lord, have you read the thread? For the same reason we deny all sorts of others who may demand they too be able to be married... polygamists, father- daughter, grandfather-grandson, there are all sorts of people we deny this privilege to as that is not what we want our culture to become, a messed up mixed up chaotic train wreck...and because we can... we, the majority, can make such decisions about what our culture is and will be... if you convince enough of us to become the majority, your way becomes the way we do things... at least until we regain the majority and change it back... got it now?

If you had taken the time to read the thread you would already have seen all this posted ad nauseum...
Click to expand...

I dont esp. care if those other people are allowed marriage either. Please feel free to show how any of those groups is interested in getting married. Polygamists? Sure...let them make their case, I have nothing against it and dont see how it harms society either.

Just because you feel uncomfortable...that marriage of other couples equals chaos....that is YOUR hangup. You have not ONCE shown how SSM has or may harm society. A lack of control over YOUR personal environment...that is your problem, not the rest of America's.

If you cant prove any harm, any danger, anything wrong AT ALL...then it seems totally irrational to believe you should be able to enforce your unfounded paranoia on gays.
 
CriticalThought said:
Your deliberate ignorance of judicial scrutiny is noted.
Click to expand...
Your appreciation of judicial tyranny is also duly noted. We the People get to make the major decisions, our decisions, as to how our society will be, not a group of nine judges using some judicial jujitsu that could well go against the majority's will on far too important an issue.

Hardly ignorance, just putting it in its proper place in the pecking order, yano? :lamo
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Your appreciation of judicial tyranny is also duly noted. We the People get to make the major decisions, our decisions, as to how our society will be, not a group of nine judges using some judicial jujitsu that could well go against the majority's will on far too important an issue.

Hardly ignorance, just putting it in its proper place in the pecking order, yano? :lamo
Click to expand...

You had a majority. Past tense. You lost it. Even conservative pollsters have conceded that same sex marriage is demographically a dead issue. Too many young people support it from both ends of the political spectrum. The like of the National Organization of Marriage now refer to themselves as a minority.

Yeah, give me a country that protects individual rights against the mob and feel free to call it "judicial tyranny" if you want. I call it conservative principles, which you apparently have forgotten. You do nothing but spew populist rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
That is the easiest question you have ever asked. Article III of the Constitution that established the judicial branch. The judicial branch exists to protect INDIVIDUAL rights. That is the check the founders envisioned on the will of the majority. They respected it, but they knew it needed to be reasonable or it would be oppressive, so the judicial branch allows an individual to argue and defend their rights. Oddly enough, people like you who claim to value individual rights and to understand the Constitution know so little of its history. Start with Federalist Paper Number 10.

Bill of Rights Institute: Federalist Papers No. 10
Click to expand...
Have read #10...You should be well aware that the Federalist Papers are not the Constitution, lol. They were a part of the explanation and sales job of the Constitution to those individually sovereign 13 states. So, why not give this a look see as well, The Federalist #33 You will note that the Federal government was sold on the grounds that it would be limited to its enumerated powers... agreed by Hamilton that that the Federal government has bounds and should not go beyond its limited commission.

"If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify."

But in any event, you will notice...

Even with the court system its the majority that rules... when the SC makes a decision, is it the minority that wins the case, is it? With a jury its the minority that wins, huh?

Those bill of rights protections are what I just spoke of previously. They in no way assure that the minority view wins... that is simply ludicrous.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Have read #10...You should be well aware that the Federalist Papers are not the Constitution, lol. They were a part of the explanation and sales job of the Constitution to those individually sovereign 13 states. So, why not give this a look see as well, The Federalist #33 You will note that the Federal government was sold on the grounds that it would be limited to its enumerated powers... agreed by Hamilton that that the Federal government has bounds and should not go beyond its limited commission.

"If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify."

But in any event, you will notice...

Even with the court system its the majority that rules... when the SC makes a decision, is it the minority that wins the case, is it? With a jury its the minority that wins, huh?

Those bill of rights protections are what I just spoke of previously. They in no way assure that the minority view wins... that is simply ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Then individual rights are a joke. As an individual you have no rights. You are just a member of the mob and you hope that the mob does not turn on you. Quite a view for a conservative to take.
 
CriticalThought said:
You had a majority. Past tense. You lost it. Even conservative pollsters have conceded that same sex marriage is demographically a dead issue. Too many young people support it from both ends of the political spectrum. The like of the National Organization of Marriage now refer to themselves as a minority.

Yeah, give me a country that protects individual rights against the mob and feel free to call it "judicial tyranny" if you want. I call it conservative principles, which you apparently have forgotten. You do nothing but spew populist rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Supply sources for all the trash talking you are doing here, what a joke.

Polls are not sufficiently conclusive to spout such nonsense, unless they are elections polls ... give that some critical cogitation, if you will.
 
CriticalThought said:
Then individual rights are a joke. As an individual you have no rights. You are just a member of the mob and you hope that the mob does not turn on you. Quite a view for a conservative to take.
Click to expand...
That your little schtick now?

The view is of truth, my fellow citizen...if you can't handle the truth, to bad so sad...for you. I am fine with how well they, the founders, put it all together... they understood the unrestrained power of the few... and the Federal government.
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom