• 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:
Why not prove that... because you cannot, you have neither the skill or the knowledge, besides which, tellingly and most importantly, you are flat out wrong.
Click to expand...
Yes you keep saying that and not much else.

Debate is not won by disparagement, fellow citizen.
Click to expand...
Neither is it won by denial, bigoted statements or irrelevant tripe, fellow citizen.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
You see, it starts to get to the height of ridiculousness to think that society may not just establish certain lines and maintain them for the reasons they see fit.
Click to expand...

You have not yet explained the reasons to deny SSM. Beyond, 'a bunch of us dont like it. It will change our culture.'

You have not explained how and you have given no reason. And you think you know what the height of ridiculousness is? How about not being able to produce legitimate reasons to deny Americans their civil rights?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
You think nine justices have the right to just turn an entire culture topsy-turvy without the consent of the people? Based on some methodology that perhaps worked in previous cases... but is not a one size fits all, all must be locked into this silly gambit styled deal. Just program it in and the court, like a computer spits out the ruling without any understanding of the culture, the people's will or any understanding of what havoc it may well wreak?

If you do, I would consider that the ideology of anarchy.
Click to expand...

Hmmm....any chance you are ready to tell us how our 'culture' will change? How the 'gay' culture is different than 'straight' culture? Anarchy? Do you see gays running amok? Behaving outside the law? Seems like they want the same laws that apply to straight couples to apply to them....that is the opposite of anarchy.

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

Any chance you could tell us how they will change our culture when their lives are exactly the same?
Click to expand...

Please.....tell us what 'havoc it will wreak.' This is a big deal for you.....you repeat the sentiment over and over. Use your words, tell us what will happen??? You wish to deny a minority their civil rights, surely there are solid, EXPLAINABLE reasons to do so.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
You think nine justices have the right to just turn an entire culture topsy-turvy without the consent of the people? Based on some methodology that perhaps worked in previous cases... but is not a one size fits all, all must be locked into this silly gambit styled deal. Just program it in and the court, like a computer spits out the ruling without any understanding of the culture, the people's will or any understanding of what havoc it may well wreak?

If you do, I would consider that the ideology of anarchy.
Click to expand...

I would consider that the ideology of the US constitution. But you are grossly overestimating your belief's impact on our culture. States have implemented same-sex marriage and nothing remotely resembling "havoc" nor "topsy-turvy" has occurred.

Yes, absolutely, those nine people have the right to overturn your unconstitutional law.
 
Deuce said:
I would consider that the ideology of the US constitution. But you are grossly overestimating your belief's impact on our culture. States have implemented same-sex marriage and nothing remotely resembling "havoc" nor "topsy-turvy" has occurred.

Yes, absolutely, those nine people have the right to overturn your unconstitutional law.
Click to expand...

It really has nothing to do with any 'concern for society and our culture.' Because legally married or not, gay couples and gay families are not going to go away. And if he actually cared about society, he'd care that the children of those unions had the protections of the law.

But when questioned, he already said (basically) "tough titties, those gays shouldnt have had them anyway."

And he thinks 'the majority of Americans' are going to jump on that boat with him to prevent SSM? lol
 
j-mac said:
So then express it, your opinion is noted. That doesn't mean everyone must agree.
Click to expand...

Has anyone said anything about anyone must agree with anything. However, reality is what it is whether you agree or not. ;)
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Why not prove that... because you cannot, you have neither the skill or the knowledge, besides which, tellingly and most importantly, you are flat out wrong.

Debate is not won by disparagement, fellow citizen. At minimum you should have something to argue, some point of reasoning to put forth. But...nothing??
Click to expand...

to answer your question this thread proves that 10 fold, its been proven many times by many psts and then reinforced by your very own posts lol
You claim you have a sound argument against equal rights for gays and this ruling but you havent provided one single one that doesnt fail and get destroyed.
This court cases along with many others and laws and rights all go against you. Since thats the case you now need to provide ONE solid, accurate and factual argument that goes against all those things.
Nobody including laws, rights and court cases care about your "feelings" nor do they care about the laughable conspiracy theory of rogue liberal tyranny judges etc.

All we need is ONE sound argument presented that goes against this ruling/gay rights . . . . one, this has yet to be done.
 
Boo Radley said:
Has anyone said anything about anyone must agree with anything. However, reality is what it is whether you agree or not. ;)
Click to expand...

Wow! That's profound. You must be the smartest guy in the world. :roll:
 
j-mac said:
Wow! That's profound. You must be the smartest guy in the world. :roll:
Click to expand...

Nope. And made such claim. But you gave little to work with. I mean, just read your comment. :shrug::shrug:
 
Some are desperately holding on the belief that their way of thinking on SSM is still the majority opinion in America. Almost every Supreme Court ruling has a dissenting opinion. Some, as of yet, have not come to the realization that their opinion will forever be the dissenting opinion on SSM.
 
prometeus said:
If that is the best you can do you are scraping the bottom of the barrel...
Click to expand...
Just responding in kind to the silliness that was expressed... that's fair game. ;):mrgreen::lamo

So, you think Hamilton wrong in his sales job/assessment that if the people find that the government oversteps its bounds that the people may then take proper remedy... do you agree we are the masters and the government our servant...or do you think we are just slaves to government?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Just responding in kind to the silliness that was expressed... that's fair game. ;):mrgreen::lamo

So, you think Hamilton wrong in his sales job/assessment that if the people find that the government oversteps its bounds that the people may then take proper remedy... do you agree we are the masters and the government our servant...or do you think we are just slaves to government?
Click to expand...

the federal government isnt overstepping, this is why all your posts fail and get destroyed by multiple posters

whats going on is the state is overstepping its bounds and the fed is fixing it :)

your post fails again
 
roguenuke said:
IF the majority did not approve of the way our courts do business when it comes to constitutional law, including judicial review and/or scrutiny in relation to the 14th Amendment, then they are free to change that through Amendment. Until that point, then the people either don't care enough or agree with how it is done.

We don't treat everyone the same, and that is the point. In how you are trying to use the 14th, without states being able to justify treating 16 year olds different than 18 year olds, then they would have to be treated the same. Why aren't they? Why are states allowed to treat 17/15/16 year olds differently than 18 year olds? Please enlighten us all because it is obvious that they are allowed to do so.

Your claim is that it is the will of the majority that allows this, but that is not true. It is because the will of the majority in this mattered is justified by furthering a legitimate state interest in establishing an "age of majority". The will of the majority would be invalid if it tried for treating different ages differently, such as saying that a 36 year old could not get married but anyone 18-35 and 37 and older could.
Click to expand...
Your wording is somewhat ambiguous, so I cannot really tell if you are recognizing that different states DO get to treat 16/17/18 year olds differently by state. For instance, in the area of legal sexual consent, the states are all over the place on the issue with many allowing it at 16, many at 17 with about 2/3s having it at age 18 and above...so what is the difference... and if you move from a state that allows for consent at 16 to as state that only allows 18+, would your mental abilities to judge circumstances just automatically diminish by simply crossing the state line?

Alcohol consumption is generally 21, but South Carolina allows the possession and consumption of alcohol by adults 18 to 20 years of age... so this is not uniform across the nation, nor should it be.

Local and state communities indeed should be able to determine what is allowable and what is not in their state and their communities... that has been one of the geniuses of our system of Federalism, power sharing/division between state and national government.

The Federal government has simply and obviously overstepped its proper boundaries, based on the promises upon which our framework for governing, our Constitution, was sold to the states. Further, upon which these states voluntarily gave up their independence, and only a portion of their sovereignty, based on this Constitutionally established system of power sharing/power division with the Federal government limited to only the enumerated and with minimal necessary additional powers to carry these out these specific powers, curbed with extremely reasonable limitations as to how far they could go [ as there was a lot of prescient doubt that the Federal government would stay within its agreed bounds ]... and so, as predicted, the Feds have gone too far.

The 14th, while necessary, well meaning and attempting to help a nation heal/adjust from a major war within itself, was surely never meant for what it is now being warped to intend. The 14th needs a whole lot of scrutiny, fine-tuning/correction as to meaning... certainly limits in place so it does not get to the outrageously absurd.

The current situation is a prime example.
 
WorldWatcher said:
Now you are moving the goal posts, your original statement was "Nobody here, despite the alleged invalidity of our side's arguments, has been able to prove your side's point". As I pointed out, the reply wasn't in regard to "Nobody here" as it is unlikely that anyone here will change your individual opinion. However the case has been proven to dozens of judges (when you count state, state appeals/supreme courts [including en blanc reviews), federal district courts, and federal appeals court]).



I'm sorry, but you appear to flatter yourself on what "the rest of use think". The fact is that the last time such proposals were placed before the voting public in General Election initiatives, Marriage Equality won each time. In addition polls have shown a consistent trend to more acceptance of SSCM over the last decade.

Face it, you don't speak for "the rest of us" or even the majority. Your claim to being a majority is based on actions taken a decade ago.



We the people are consenting, it's now the minority opinion that capricious and invidious laws targeting homosexuals are just.



>>>>
Click to expand...
Again, stack it up against those states disagreeing... and proving your point does not mean that just because a couple of dozen judges throughout the entire nation go along with this silliness and the legal jujitsu performed means the point was proven. There are all sorts of reasons so few judges may have gone along with this distorted view.

Relish your victories wherever you may find them, surely. But in the totality of the situation, assuredly got a long way to go... and, as with the ERA, time often is not a friend. I think with current liberals in our government taking a sledge hammer to our healthcare system, our president proving he has little idea of how to govern, only the ability to make on prompter platitudes which nobody any longer believes... with no coattails as the boob isn't running again, democrats have little to run on... and the results might be pretty devastating this next election. With the house and senate, perhaps the presidency the next election cycle...perhaps we could get this silliness locked down for good. Certainly need such. And...

We have much better things to be concentrating on than this kind of wasted effort and misguided silliness for a small population that should be satisfied with the tolerance already extended.

As regards being or not being the majority, you have no real evidence to support that. You have only fleeting polls based on who really knows what? I ll believe it when the majority actually decide, one way or the other. Up until that time, we the majority have decided the way it is currently.

The fact is most of us just want to keep marriage the way we know it works... the invidiousness is what we want to keep out, those undesirable elements in our culture demanding that, which is by definition deviant, to become the new norm.

How peculiar and unworkable is that?
 
prometeus said:
Thanks for the demonstration of ignorance and lack of understanding. History is just an account of events, it can not have fault, be clean or dirty. It can be inaccurately presented or misrepresented, but that is hardly the fault of history.

No that is more ignorant misrepresentation. Being prevented from being marries is the discrimination.
Click to expand...
Oh my sweet fricken lord... seems there is an equation that has surfaced as a pattern in this thread and with this debate. A diametric inverse of real knowledge/rationality to level of annoyance. The one goes way down, the other goes way up.

You do know that in most dictionaries there are words that have varying definitions, not just the single one, depending on context? Here is one, apt, from Merriam-Webster online of history: events of the past.

Events of the past CAN be dirty. Yesterday I cleaned the bathroom sink. The undeniable history of this particular sink proved that it had gotten dirty. Until this very moment this historic event had not been written about... I suppose if I didn't have to go to to such lengths to prove this point, it never would have... it is still history now, whether I had ever written of it or not. Simple example, should be simple enough to assimilate.

Even, based on your incomplete understanding of the definition, there can be fault, as in knowingly leaving out of pertinent portions or putting in lies... that would, indeed, be dirty and the fault of those writing the history... they would be dirty and so would their account of history. If you believe otherwise, well, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Way to prove your point on discrimination. I think I might completely abandon my reasoning abilities and agree with you now. Thanks, you have been ever so helpful. :lamo:2wave::peace
 
prometeus said:
There is not need to fabricate or make up lies, although it is not surprising coming from you.
I made no remark about summary of events. That is just a lie to mask your mistake or inability to comprehend written sentences. An accounting, an accurate one as it was implied, would contain all pertinent aspects.
Click to expand...
Might you give an example representing your view of history, please? Besides being wrong on the definition, also wrong with regard to accounting v summary. It is almost impossible, perhaps it is impossible, to get ALL pertinent aspects. Often times nobody knows ALL, or will ever know, ALL of them...

And, absolutes are usually best not used as they can almost always be proved wrong. See how I used that almost before the absolute of always?

You don't have to thank me.
 
prometeus said:
Yes you keep saying that and not much else.

Neither is it won by denial, bigoted statements or irrelevant tripe, fellow citizen.
Click to expand...
I think a simple comparison of what I have written here on the topic compared to...just what have you actually written on the topic? Usually just a rather unreasoned/faulty counter to what I have posted, seems to me.

So you think the state is our master, that society cannot choose to go the way society wants? You think that the minority's will should win out over the majority's will? You think that SSM is specifically provided protections in the Constitution? :lamo
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Just responding in kind to the silliness that was expressed... that's fair game. ;):mrgreen::lamo

So, you think Hamilton wrong in his sales job/assessment that if the people find that the government oversteps its bounds that the people may then take proper remedy... do you agree we are the masters and the government our servant...or do you think we are just slaves to government?
Click to expand...

False dichotomy.

Here's the real question you should be asking: does the will of the people supersede the constitution?

No. It does not.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
I think a simple comparison of what I have written here on the topic compared to...just what have you actually written on the topic? Usually just a rather unreasoned/faulty counter to what I have posted, seems to me.

So you think the state is our master, that society cannot choose to go the way society wants? You think that the minority's will should win out over the majority's will? You think that SSM is specifically provided protections in the Constitution? :lamo
Click to expand...

Doesn't need to be specifically mentioned. Equal protection covers it, and experts on the law agree with me instead of you.
 
Deuce said:
I would consider that the ideology of the US constitution. But you are grossly overestimating your belief's impact on our culture. States have implemented same-sex marriage and nothing remotely resembling "havoc" nor "topsy-turvy" has occurred.

Yes, absolutely, those nine people have the right to overturn your unconstitutional law.
Click to expand...
Show me in the Constitution where your defective view of Constitutional ideology resides in fact, in writing.

You know, when it begins to rain, those raindrops initially seem insignificant, are welcomed even... until it continues to rain and rain and rain with water rising to flood stages, rivers bulging, overflowing their banks, dams potentially undermined and bursting if these seemingly insignificant raindrops keep falling. If one could stop the raindrops falling before disaster, before the destruction and loss of life, one would.

You see, it seems left to conservatives, sensing danger that the inattentive rest cannot seem to see, to hold back these rising waters of these overfull embankments, to save those innocents downstream, to keep us all from this growing potential disaster.

Yes, you want a minority of Americans to enforce a mockery being made of our Constitution. Understood.
 
1750Texan said:
Some are desperately holding on the belief that their way of thinking on SSM is still the majority opinion in America. Almost every Supreme Court ruling has a dissenting opinion. Some, as of yet, have not come to the realization that their opinion will forever be the dissenting opinion on SSM.
Click to expand...
Wow, forever huh? I do not get the feeling that you are a real prohet, divining the future is probably not your forte... I think you will just have to settle for that being your opinion.

How about we at least wait until they, the SC, make a judgement. Its like I told someone else here, don't count your turkeys until they have hatched.
 
Deuce said:
False dichotomy.

Here's the real question you should be asking: does the will of the people supersede the constitution?

No. It does not.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Most certainly it does. From where does this mistaken philosophical underpinning for your erroneous viewpoint originate? Certainly not derived from the Constitution, not in the Federalist Papers, so where?

We not only have the right, we have a solemn duty to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom