• 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 throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

WCH said:
When a judge can legislate from the bench against the will of the people, the Constitution has been trashed regardless.
Click to expand...

also why did you dodge the question. WHy should the judge have recused himself
 
It's funny how changes in popular opinion change the interpretation of the Constitution, these kinds of rulings wouldn't have happened 10+ years ago when the definitions of marriage were put in place by voters who typically overwhelmingly supported traditional marriage.

Whatever though, more power to the gays and let them be happy.
 
Sababa said:
well then you assume we can vote against our Constitutional rights? Then I see you don't understand how the law works.
Click to expand...

None of those things run afoul of the US Constitution. Unless you're deluded enough to think the US Constitution protects smoking in your car.
 
clownboy said:
Sure, wouldn't live there myself though.
Click to expand...

My husband & I left NJ when the laws there became too insufferable for us. I respect the rights of people to vote for a nanny state, but I don't have to live in one. God bless America, where we are free to choose from among 50 states and can find one that suits us.
 
The word calendar's word of the day is "hyperbole":

hy·per·bo·le


/hīˈpərbəlē/


noun

noun: hyperbole; plural noun: hyperboles




exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

synonyms: exaggeration, overstatement, magnification, embroidery, embellishment, excess, overkill, rhetoric; More

:lamo
 
Sababa said:
your accusation is ridiculous based on the fact that when ever this has come up in a court recently other judges ruled the same way. I also think your slandering this man is disgusting.
Click to expand...

Pardon me if I'm not surprised. Your reaction will always be predictable.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'd have no problem with allowing polygamy. Incest however, no thanks. For the simple fact that genetics don't like it and its too easy for the dominate sibling to "persuade" the non-dominate sibling into such things.
Click to expand...

Kal, Kal, you KNOW that's not true right? You MUST know that even clones would have genetic drift and random mutations. Surely you KNOW this. Further, there is some research that suggests that in the future, and when we finally get to a point where Eugenics will be a reality (Which it will) we will be able to design our offspring however we choose. Incest, although repulsive (Kind of ironic since most people up until this latest push by gays to shame anyone that is verbally repulsed by gay sex, were indeed repulsed by gay sex as well) and taboo, isn't taboo for science sake. In fact I'd say that science or any harmful effects of familial breeding are nonsense and demonstrably not true. In other words, much like gay rights advocates use the "what harm does it cause", mantra, the same exact argument can be said of consensual incestuous relationships. Mother, son, brother sister, sister father.. What a brave new world eh?

Tim-
 
I love the fear, hate, bigotry and dishonesty that equal rights winning brings out in SOME people.
Its funny to watch the desperation they have to try and keep denying fellow Americans equal rights.

Luckily equality is winning and its winning BIG!. Bigotry and discrimaintion is getting its ass kicked all over this country.
Id say at the longest equal rights will be national 2017 maybe even sooner with all these how level cases in the works. At this point I wouldn't be "surprised" it it happened in 19 months)
 
clownboy said:
The word calendar's word of the day is "hyperbole":

hy·per·bo·le


/hīˈpərbəlē/


noun

noun: hyperbole; plural noun: hyperboles




exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

synonyms: exaggeration, overstatement, magnification, embroidery, embellishment, excess, overkill, rhetoric; More

:lamo
Click to expand...

yes your posts and its contents make that obvious. This is why they fail.
 
WCH said:
Already addressed in the thread. I don't reply to your constant LOLs
Click to expand...

translation: you cant defend the illogical claim. Thanks we knew that.
 
AGENT J said:
I love the fear, hate, bigotry and dishonesty that equal rights winning brings out in SOME people.
Its funny to watch the desperation they have to try and keep denying fellow Americans equal rights.

Luckily equality is winning and its winning BIG!. Bigotry and discrimaintion is getting its ass kicked all over this country.
Id say at the longest equal rights will be national 2017 maybe even sooner with all these how level cases in the works. At this point I wouldn't be "surprised" it it happened in 19 months)
Click to expand...


I notice that you did away with your signature. Glad I had a part in showing everyone just how inconsistent you were with that whole "equality human rights? nonsense you were spitting out.


Tim-
 
clownboy said:
No need, the "protections" you claim are not there to amend.
Click to expand...

weird 30+ federal judges disagree with you
guess they got it all wrong and we should just go by your opinions that you cant support lol
 
Hicup said:
I notice that you did away with your signature. Glad I had a part in showing everyone just how inconsistent you were with that whole "equality human rights? nonsense you were spitting out.


Tim-
Click to expand...

im competely 100% consistent and you failed every time
also its STILL in my picture just like before ;) further showing how your lies had ZERO impact and your assumption is a complete failure lol.

clockwise from upper left
equal human marriage rights/human rights
pro-choice
Pro-gun rights
equal human rights

Thank you for the comedy and please stay on topic
 
WCH said:
It's your thread... YOU find my answer.
Click to expand...

I saw them none of the defend your illogical claim hence people asking you multiple times.
Now if you would please defend it and support it with logic
 
So thousands of years of Social precedent that transcended Culture, Religion and Nationality gets ignored because a small minority want to redefine marriage ?

You libs are a walking Contradiction. Youll accept evolution on a biological scale but not on a societal scale.

Societies and cultures and religions didn't just one day deem Homosexuality destructive because they were innately hateful.

Societies evolved to support a standard of morality that benefits the Group as a whole.

And you guys cant blame religion either.

If you're an atheist religion is just another form of Control. A higher Governing body.


The idea that Marriage as defined as union between a man and a woman has survived for millenia, only to be redefined by a small activist minority.

Wow.
 
Fenton said:
1.)So thousands of years of Social precedent that transcended Culture
2.) Religion
3.)and Nationality gets ignored
4.)because a small minority want to redefine marriage ?
5.)You libs are a walking Contradiction. Youll accept evolution on a biological scale but not on a societal scale.
6.)Societies and cultures and religions didn't just one day deem Homosexuality destructive because they were innately hateful.
7.) Societies evolved to support a standard of morality that benefits the Group as a whole.
8.)And you guys cant blame religion either.
9.) If you're an atheist religion is just another form of Control. A higher Governing body.
10.) The idea that Marriage as defined as union between a man and a woman has survived for millenia, only to be redefined by a small activist minority.
11.) Wow.
Click to expand...

1.) gay marriage as been around for this long also lol
2.) religion is meanignless to equal rights and legal marriage
3.) see #2
4.) nobody is redefining it the MAJORITY want equal rights.
5.) sorry tons of conservatives also want equal rights too
6 &7.) your meaningless opinion that has nothing to do with equal rights and legal marriage
8.) see #2
9.) also meaningless to the topic
10.) factually false since gay marriage existed before our great great great grandparents were even around
11.) i agree wow is right, wow that you think any of that matters to equal rights and legal marriage in this country.
 
AGENT J said:
weird 30+ federal judges disagree with you
guess they got it all wrong and we should just go by your opinions that you cant support lol
Click to expand...

And the other 3200+ federal judges don't count in your book? Of course they don't, that doesn't feed into your script.
 
AGENT J said:
I saw them none of the defend your illogical claim hence people asking you multiple times.
Now if you would please defend it and support it with logic
Click to expand...

Here's part of the ruling: I'd say the guy is knee deep in the marriage controversy and should have recused himself. IMHO

I am aware that a large number of Oregonians, perhaps even a majority, have religious or moral objections to expanding the definition of civil marriage (and thereby expanding the benefits and rights that accompany marriage) to gay and lesbian families. It was' these same objections that led to the passage of Measure 36 in 2004. Generations of Americans, my own included, were raised in a world in which homosexuality was believed to be a moral perversion, a mental disorder, or a mortal sin. I remember that one of the more popular playground games of my childhood was called "smear the queer" and it was played with great zeal and without a moment's thought to today' s political correctness. On a darker level, that same worldview led to an environment of cruelty, violence, and self-loathing. It was but 1986 when the United States Supreme Court justified, on the basis of a "millennia of moral teaching," the imprisonment of gay men and lesbian women who engaged in consensual sexual acts. Bowers, 478 U.S. at 197 (Burger, C.J., concurring), overruled by Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 578. Even today I am reminded of the legacy that we have bequeathed today' s generation when my son looks dismissively at the sweater I bought him for Christmas and, with a roll of his eyes, says "dad ... that is so gay."

It is not surprising then that many of us raised with such a world view would wish to protect our beliefs and our families by turning to the ballot box to enshrine in law those traditions we have come to value. But just as the Constitution protects the expression of these moral viewpoints, it equally protects the minority from being diminished by them.

It is at times difficult to see past the shrillness of the debate. Accusations of religious bigotry and banners reading "God Hates Fags" make for a messy democracy and, at times, test the First Amendment resolve of both sides. At the core of the Equal Protection Clause, however, there exists a foundational belief that certain rights should be shielded from the barking crowds; that certain rights are subject to ownership by all and not the stake hold of popular trend or shifting majorities.

My decision will not be the final word on this subject, but on this issue of marriage I am struck more by our similarities than our differences. I believe that if we can look for a moment past gender and sexuality, we can see in these plaintiffs nothing more or less than our own families. Families who we would expect our Constitution to protect, if not exalt, in equal measure. With discernment we see not shadows lurking in closets or the stereotypes of what was once believed; rather, we see families committed to the common purpose of love, devotion, and service to the greater community.

Where will this all lead? I know that many suggest we are going down a slippery slope that will have no moral boundaries. To those who truly harbor such fears, I can only say this: Let us look less to the sky to see what might fall; rather, let us look to each other ... and rise.

BTW: if this goes unchallenged, He and his domestic partner will indeed benefit from his ruling. Exactly a reason to recuse.
 
clownboy said:
And the other 3200+ judges don't count in your book? Of course they don't, that doesn't feed into your script.
Click to expand...

are you telling me 3200+ judges have recently ruled that marriage is not a right and the 14th doesnt apply in america?
please list those cases we'll wait

your post fails again
 
AGENT J said:
im competely 100% consistent and you failed every time
also its STILL in my picture just like before ;) further showing how your lies had ZERO impact and your assumption is a complete failure lol.

clockwise from upper left
equal human marriage rights/human rights
pro-choice
Pro-gun rights
equal human rights

Thank you for the comedy and please stay on topic
Click to expand...


Yeah yeah.. But you cannot be pro-choice and still be for human rights.. Plus near as I can tell you do not support polygamy marriage -or- incestuous marriage. Doesn't seem consistent to me if this is the case, unless of course you do support those other types of consensual marriage? As to pro human rights, well that whole pro-choice thingy kinda slaps in the face of that mantra.. And THAT is factually correct. ;)


Tim-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom