• 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!

Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

Jerry said:
Yes, Loving is part of that erosion process. That's a good point.
Click to expand...

Erosion of the state's right to erode individual rights? Oh, cry me a river.
 
Deuce said:
Erosion of the state's right to erode individual rights? Oh, cry me a river.
Click to expand...
Erosion of the 10th Amendment. If the Fed wants to weigh in on marriage, hey that's great, and the only proper way is to make a Federal amendment so that marriage comes under Federal governance and is no longer left to the States.

What happened in Loving and is happening with SSM is the Fed is ruling and a right which it has no authority to rule on.

Gay marriage isn't about gays or marriage, its about attacking the Constitution.

So, what we need is a federal marriage amendment defigning what marriage is and protecting fair and equal access to it.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Erosion of the 10th Amendment. If the Fed wants to weigh in on marriage, hey that's great, and the only proper way is to make a Federal amendment so that marriage comes under Federal governance and is no longer left to the States.

What happened in Loving and is happening with SSM is the Fed is ruling and a right which it has no authority to rule on.

Gay marriage isn't about gays or marriage, its about attacking the Constitution.

So, what we need is a federal marriage amendment defigning what marriage is and protecting fair and equal access to it.
Click to expand...

Invoke the 10th, ignore the 9th and 14th. States do have a right to define marriage, but they must also comply with the constitution when they do so. Restricting marriage on the basis of race or gender is a violation of the 14th amendment.

I'll ask again, since you ignored the question before:
Do you think homosexual couples fighting for equality are doing it because they want to "attack the constitution?" Do you really think expanding individual liberty is a danger to the constitution?
 
Deuce said:
Invoke the 10th, ignore the 9th and 14th. States do have a right to define marriage, but they must also comply with the constitution when they do so. Restricting marriage on the basis of race or gender is a violation of the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...
The 9th realy has nothing to do with the topic since no one is trying to use one right to trample on another. The 14th doesn't apply because the 14th was made to give recently freed slaves equal standing. Nothing more. Even to those who think the 14th applies, each sex has the same allowances and restrictions as the other, so there's no violation. The Loving decision even supported that standaed. Add to that SCOTUS has no authority to rule on marriage at all since marriage is a right wich falls to the states to regulate.

The only legitimate way for the fed to regulate marriage is with a Constitutional amendment. That way the 10th makes it the Feds buisness. Untill then, the 10th makes it non of the Feds buisness.

Deuce said:
I'll ask again, since you ignored the question before:
Do you think homosexual couples fighting for equality are doing it because they want to "attack the constitution?"
Click to expand...
No, I think they're usefull idiots.

Deuce said:
Do you really think expanding individual liberty is a danger to the constitution?
Click to expand...
When don in this way, yes.
 
Last edited:
johndylan1 said:
On what basis should a government sanction a marriage?
Click to expand...
The State has a "compelling interest" to infringe on your right to privacey on the basis of enshuring healthy raising and socializing of children, and supporting healthy, stable relationships.

johndylan1 said:
On what basis should a marriage not be sanctioned?
Click to expand...
When the relationship is otherwise harmfull, such as incest. Same-sex relationships are not otherwise harmfull and thus should be afforded access to marriage.
 
Jerry said:
The State has a "compelling interest" to infringe on your right to privacey on the basis of enshuring healthy raising and socializing of children, and supporting healthy, stable relationships.


When the relationship is otherwise harmfull, such as incest. Same-sex relationships are not otherwise harmfull and thus should be afforded access to marriage.
Click to expand...

Why limit the nature of the relationship to marriages of two people?
 
Jerry said:
Yes, Loving is part of that erosion process. That's a good point.
Click to expand...

I say that the people have decided that you are wrong. If they, the people of the US as a whole, have a problem with the way that the SCOTUS is ruling on an issue, particularly one that deals with individual rights vs states' rights, then the people are free to either a) change the Constitution or b) start another revolution, if they have the actual support for either.

In reality, state's rights were eroded with the Civil War. And most American's don't really mind this.
 
Jerry said:
The 9th realy has nothing to do with the topic since no one is trying to use one right to trample on another. The 14th doesn't apply because the 14th was made to give recently freed slaves equal standing. Nothing more. Even to those who think the 14th applies, each sex has the same allowances and restrictions as the other, so there's no violation. The Loving decision even supported that standaed. Add to that SCOTUS has no authority to rule on marriage at all since marriage is a right wich falls to the states to regulate.
Click to expand...

The 14th amendment was not solely limited to recently freed slaves, no. That's just your interpretation. Equal protection of the laws. All of the laws. And all people.
Loving did not support that standard. Loving explicitly rejected the logic: "everyone has equal right to marry someone of the same race!" Same logic, now gender is swapped for race. Equal protection applies to gender too.

No, I think they're usefull idiots.
Click to expand...
:roll:

When don in this way, yes.
Click to expand...
Well, your authoritarianism is losing.
 
roguenuke said:
I say that the people have decided that you are wrong. If they, the people of the US as a whole, have a problem with the way that the SCOTUS is ruling on an issue, particularly one that deals with individual rights vs states' rights, then the people are free to either a) change the Constitution or b) start another revolution, if they have the actual support for either.

In reality, state's rights were eroded with the Civil War. And most American's don't really mind this.
Click to expand...

I don't think the people are free to do that, because their hand-outs will be threatened if they do.

America is more and more returning to slavery.
 
Jerry said:
I don't think the people are free to do that, because their hand-outs will be threatened if they do.

America is more and more returning to slavery.
Click to expand...

Why would their "handouts" be threatened by working to Amend the Constitution? That doesn't involve any connection to "handouts".

Plus, if something is important enough to the people, then there is nothing that they wouldn't be willing to do.
 
roguenuke said:
Why would their "handouts" be threatened by working to Amend the Constitution?
Click to expand...
For the same reason the President closes parks and tourist attractions when there's a government shutdown, eventhough said parks and attractions are not the main expense causing the shutdown, but bloated pork projects (those projects are kept running during a shut-down, too). That reason being: to change the people's minds.

roguenuke said:
That doesn't involve any connection to "handouts".
Click to expand...
Right. No one said they were connected. I said the handouts would be stopped, not that the handouts were connected. You need to read what is written, not what you imagine is written.

roguenuke said:
Plus, if something is important enough to the people, then there is nothing that they wouldn't be willing to do.
Click to expand...
I agree. Handouts are the most important thing to the American people, and there is nothing the people won't sacrifice to protect those handouts. We have and will again tolerate highly illegal actions by Congress, such as the Patriot Act. We have and will again tolerate acts of treason by the President of the United States, such as Benghazi. We have and will again tolerate the overreaching of power and violation of the separation of powers by SCOTUS, such as Loving, Roe, Heller, and the future SSM ruling. We pay more taxes today than we originally revolted against the Crown over, we send our children to unjust foreign wars, because we will do whatever it takes to protect our entitlements.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
For the same reason the President closes parks and tourist attractions when there's a government shutdown, eventhough said parks and attractions are not the main expense causing the shutdown, but bloated pork projects (those projects are kept running during a shut-down, too). That reason being: to change the people's minds.

Right. No one said they were connected. I said the handouts would be stopped, not that the handouts were connected. You need to read what is written, not what you imagine is written.

I agree. Handouts are the most important thing to the American people, and there is nothing the people won't sacrifice to protect those handouts.
Click to expand...

Honestly I think you are just complaining here. There is no logical reason to make all these assumptions that you are.

Plus, you haven't shown that this is actually true, that the politicians would stop "handouts" to people who pushed for Amendments to the Constitution for things that they want when there is enough people showing they want those Amendments. We certainly didn't see this threat back just in 2004 or 2006 when there were proposed Amendments involving defining marriage within the Constitution then. There simply wasn't enough support either time.

Not to mention the fact, that those who are in general the ones complaining about handouts, are also the ones complaining about the erosion of states' rights. So why would they care if the handouts were taken away?
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
Honestly I think you are just complaining here. There is no logical reason to make all these assumptions that you are.

Plus, you haven't shown that this is actually true, that the politicians would stop "handouts" to people who pushed for Amendments to the Constitution for things that they want when there is enough people showing they want those Amendments. We certainly didn't see this threat back just in 2004 or 2006 when there were proposed Amendments involving defining marriage within the Constitution then. There simply wasn't enough support either time.

Not to mention the fact, that those who are in general the ones complaining about handouts, are also the ones complaining about the erosion of states' rights. So why would the care if the handouts were taken away?
Click to expand...
Still editing....

And while I'm editing my post, why don't you edit this sentence: "So why would the care if the handouts were taken away?"
 
blarg said:
bull **** show me one from this site I dare you
Click to expand...
Ok, so I said a gay couple who divorces is throwing away all the arguments in support of SSM. And now you want an example of one such argument being thrown away by said gay couple in their divorce. You want to be shown just any pro-ssm argument at random. Here's a pro-SSM argument I gave 10 posts ago on this same thread:
Jerry said:
johndylan1 said:
On what basis should a marriage not be sanctioned?
Click to expand...
When the relationship is otherwise harmful, such as incest. Same-sex relationships are not otherwise harmful and thus should be afforded access to marriage.
Click to expand...
Same-sex couples are throwing away my argument when they divorce.
 
Jerry said:
Ok, so I said a gay couple who divorces is throwing away all the arguments in support of SSM. And now you want an example of one such argument being thrown away by said gay couple in their divorce. You want to be shown just any pro-ssm argument at random. Here's a pro-SSM argument I gave 10 posts ago on this same thread:

Same-sex couples are throwing away my argument when they divorce.
Click to expand...

theirs no argument posted their for same sex marriage that that's thrown away by divorce try again
 
blarg said:
theirs no argument posted their for same sex marriage that that's thrown away by divorce
Click to expand...
Yes, there is. If your grammar is any indication of your reading skill, I would suggest a night class for basic English, and then trying again.
 
Jerry said:
Yes, there is. If your grammar is any indication of your reading skill, I would suggest a night class for basic English, and then trying again.
Click to expand...

that argument had nothing to do with divorce
 
Jerry said:
Ok, so I said a gay couple who divorces is throwing away all the arguments in support of SSM. And now you want an example of one such argument being thrown away by said gay couple in their divorce. You want to be shown just any pro-ssm argument at random. Here's a pro-SSM argument I gave 10 posts ago on this same thread:

Same-sex couples are throwing away my argument when they divorce.
Click to expand...

Divorce is not objectively harmful. It does not hurt everyone to divorce. Some divorces can be better for society overall, as well as the couple, vice the couple simply staying married. Many divorces are simply net neutral on their effect on society. It would be impossible to prove that most individual divorces actually caused negative repercussions within our society in themselves, since we can't know what would have happened had the couple remained married.

Nor does it actually hurt the fight for same sex marriage for same sex couples who have been married to divorce. That is ridiculous. Part of the right to marry is the increased protections and fairness in disposition of assets in divorce vice simply separating as an unmarried couple. While some judges may grant some consideration to couples for their established relationship when it comes to a separation of a couple who have been together, it is only when they are married that this consideration of their relationship is taken into account by law.
 
blarg said:
that argument had nothing to do with divorce
Click to expand...
I know. I never said it did have to do with divorce. Again, check into those English classes.

I said that argument was in support of SSM, and it was, and thus it's an argument which gays who divorce toss out.
 
roguenuke said:
Divorce is not objectively harmful. It does not hurt everyone to divorce. Some divorces can be better for society overall, as well as the couple, vice the couple simply staying married. Many divorces are simply net neutral on their effect on society. It would be impossible to prove that most individual divorces actually caused negative repercussions within our society in themselves, since we can't know what would have happened had the couple remained married.

Nor does it actually hurt the fight for same sex marriage for same sex couples who have been married to divorce. That is ridiculous. Part of the right to marry is the increased protections and fairness in disposition of assets in divorce vice simply separating as an unmarried couple. While some judges may grant some consideration to couples for their established relationship when it comes to a separation of a couple who have been together, it is only when they are married that this consideration of their relationship is taken into account by law.
Click to expand...

so jerry thinks divorce is harmful and that harmful marriages should not be aloud an that divorce is a part of the rights associated with marriage

therefore he opposes all marriage?
 
Jerry said:
I know. I never said it did have to do with divorce. Again, check into those English classes.

I said that argument was in support of SSM, and it was, and thus it's an argument which gays who divorce toss out.
Click to expand...

er how is it tossed out by a divorce? that's what you cant show

that argument s in no way undone or made less true by divorce

there is no contradiction in agreeing to that argument and getting a divorce
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom