• 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!

Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

Papa bull said:
Incorrect. The laws apply equally to you whether you are heterosexual or not. A heterosexual can't marry someone of the same sex, either. This isn't an equal rights issue.
Click to expand...
Heterosexual people have no desire to marry people that are the same sex, they're straight! you know this. An adult should be able to marry another adult regardless of their gender. We get it, you don't personally like it. I don't like when men wear open toed sandals and flip flops, however it doesn't personally affect me and I have zero right to tell a guy He can't wear hippie sandals. Forget about it and walk on dude.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Heterosexual people have no desire to marry people that are the same sex, they're straight! you know this. An adult should be able to marry another adult regardless of their gender.
Click to expand...

Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but it's a very queer opinion (some pun intended) and it's one that's only recently been considered to be a wonderful brainstorm by liberals.

We get it, you don't personally like it.
Click to expand...

You enjoy using the royal "we", I see.

I don't like when men wear open toed sandals and flip flops, however it doesn't personally affect me and I have zero right to tell a guy He can't wear hippie sandals. Forget about it and walk on dude.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a sanction the government must issue. You know... the government of the people and by the people. And if "we the people" don't approve, we shouldn't be forced to sanction it. You can live with who you want but you can't force society to sanction it. Not rightly. It looks like you may end up forcing that, anyway, but it's not a pushover and it's a long hard road because you SHOULDN'T be able to force that. This is why it will be bad if the court forces homosexual marriage on states that don't want it. It's something that should be done through the legislative process IF the states want it because it IS their business becuase it's THEIR sanction people are trying to attain.
 
Papa bull said:
1.)If you don't want to flyfish, don't insist on fishing a flyfishing only stream and don't whine that you are being persecuted because you prefer spinning tackle.
2.)Marriage is a heterosexual thing and always was despite specious arguments by homosexuals and advocates of homosexuality.
3.) Two people of the same sex living together may be a relationship of one sort or another but it isn't a marriage.
Click to expand...

1.) good thing that has nothing to do with equal rights and isnt a parallel analogy to SSM in anyway lol
2.) another posted lie that has been proven false many times by facts links and many posters, also meanignless to equal rights
3,) another posted lie, facts also prove this wrong, in some states it is indeed a legal marriage, your feelings dont change this fact

Facts win again
 
Papa bull said:
1.)Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but it's a very queer opinion (some pun intended) and it's one that's only recently been considered to be a wonderful brainstorm by liberals.
2.)You enjoy using the royal "we", I see.
3.)Marriage is a sanction the government must issue.
4.)You know... the government of the people and by the people.
5.) And if "we the people" don't approve, we shouldn't be forced to sanction it.
6.) You can live with who you want but you can't force society to sanction it. Not rightly.
7.) It looks like you may end up forcing that, anyway, but it's not a pushover and it's a long hard road because you SHOULDN'T be able to force that.
8.) This is why it will be bad if the court forces homosexual marriage on states that don't want it.
9.) It's something that should be done through the legislative process IF the states want it because it IS their business becuase it's THEIR sanction people are trying to attain.
Click to expand...

1.) no its called equal rights as court cases prove
2.) correct cause its accurate. We get you are against equal rights
3.) its a contract that people enter into
4.) correct, you know the people that equal rights apply too, all of them
5.) there is no FORCE, and we the people dont get to take away the rights of others LMAO see woman's rights, minority rights and interracial marriage and now SSM all things that prove your statments factually wrong.
6.) once again there is ZERO force lol
7.) see #6 that posted lie already failed
8.) good thing the courts havent even done that once so theres no concern about it
9.) once again facts laws, rights and court cases all prpve this wrong

too funny simply repeating those lies wont change the the facts, law, rights and court cases

maybe a solid, logical, sound argument that can be support with facts should be tried . . . . .just a idea

also I notice you are still dodging my questions . . VERY telling
 
Papa bull said:
Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but it's a very queer opinion (some pun intended) and it's one that's only recently been considered to be a wonderful brainstorm by liberals.



You enjoy using the royal "we", I see.



Marriage is a sanction the government must issue. You know... the government of the people and by the people. And if "we the people" don't approve, we shouldn't be forced to sanction it. You can live with who you want but you can't force society to sanction it. Not rightly. It looks like you may end up forcing that, anyway, but it's not a pushover and it's a long hard road because you SHOULDN'T be able to force that. This is why it will be bad if the court forces homosexual marriage on states that don't want it. It's something that should be done through the legislative process IF the states want it because it IS their business becuase it's THEIR sanction people are trying to attain.
Click to expand...
Right, just as slavery was and separate lunch counters, times change, the status quo changes, positive societies move forward.
 
Papa bull said:
Marriage is a sanction the government must issue. You know... the government of the people and by the people. And if "we the people" don't approve, we shouldn't be forced to sanction it. You can live with who you want but you can't force society to sanction it. Not rightly. It looks like you may end up forcing that, anyway, but it's not a pushover and it's a long hard road because you SHOULDN'T be able to force that. This is why it will be bad if the court forces homosexual marriage on states that don't want it. It's something that should be done through the legislative process IF the states want it because it IS their business becuase it's THEIR sanction people are trying to attain.
Click to expand...
Why do I need your approval to get married?

Secondly, as an article of faith, perhaps you believe that gay unions are "not normal" and therefore wish that the states enforce this. As near and dear to your heart as that may be, it's never ever going to find support in a secular court applying constitutional protections.
 
Papa bull said:
And I respect your right to your own opinion even though you don't have a monopoly on defining conservative values, either. My respect for homosexual relationships isn't the issue and your relationship is your business. Only when people want the state to sanction their relationship does that become their business - not the relationship; just the sanction. And with homosexual marriage being a novel concept only realized for the first time in modern history since 2001, I think it's more than a little unreasonable for anyone to think that failure to embrace it must be purely because of bigotry or a desire to oppress anyone. It's a social experiment so novel that it will take some time for everyone to get used to it. Where it takes us is anyone's guess. Will the whole world end up promoting homosexual marriages? Will it be a mistake that we rescind? Will it be something that turns out to be so insignificant that we'll all wonder what the fuss was about? No one knows.
Click to expand...

My vote is that nobody will give a crap and life will go on.
 
Papa bull said:
Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but it's a very queer opinion (some pun intended) and it's one that's only recently been considered to be a wonderful brainstorm by liberals.



You enjoy using the royal "we", I see.



Marriage is a sanction the government must issue. You know... the government of the people and by the people. And if "we the people" don't approve, we shouldn't be forced to sanction it. You can live with who you want but you can't force society to sanction it. Not rightly. It looks like you may end up forcing that, anyway, but it's not a pushover and it's a long hard road because you SHOULDN'T be able to force that. This is why it will be bad if the court forces homosexual marriage on states that don't want it. It's something that should be done through the legislative process IF the states want it because it IS their business becuase it's THEIR sanction people are trying to attain.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity does your populist logic extend to interracial marriage bans? Should the courts have stayed out of it and left it to the "will of the people" in those respective states that banned it?
 
Papa bull said:
If you don't want to flyfish, don't insist on fishing a flyfishing only stream and don't whine that you are being persecuted because you prefer spinning tackle.

Marriage is a heterosexual thing and always was despite specious arguments by homosexuals and advocates of homosexuality. Two people of the same sex living together may be a relationship of one sort or another but it isn't a marriage.
Click to expand...

Hey, you better rip your DirectTV dish off your roof....

 
Papa bull said:
Two people of the same sex living together may be a relationship of one sort or another but it isn't a marriage.
Click to expand...

Odd argument. To assert your own perspective as absolute and to voluntarily enter a state of denial of any other perspective on the issue seems more like a coping mechanism than an argument. Same-sex marriage existed throughout history and in different cultures. It has come back with a vengeance after being suppressed for centuries but it is not exactly new to the world.
 
Papa bull said:
If you don't want to flyfish, don't insist on fishing a flyfishing only stream and don't whine that you are being persecuted because you prefer spinning tackle.

Marriage is a heterosexual thing and always was despite specious arguments by homosexuals and advocates of homosexuality. Two people of the same sex living together may be a relationship of one sort or another but it isn't a marriage.
Click to expand...

Better option:

If you don't like fishing, and only support flyfishing... just flyfish instead of insisting that the government ban everyone from fishing in any lake or stream in the nation.
 
Deuce said:
Every state that comes after this has the wonderful distinction of being slower than Alaska in establishing marriage equality.
Click to expand...

Yeah, thanks for reminding me how much i despise my state
 
Papa bull said:
Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but it's a very queer opinion (some pun intended) and it's one that's only recently been considered to be a wonderful brainstorm by liberals.



You enjoy using the royal "we", I see.



Marriage is a sanction the government must issue. You know... the government of the people and by the people. And if "we the people" don't approve, we shouldn't be forced to sanction it. You can live with who you want but you can't force society to sanction it. Not rightly. It looks like you may end up forcing that, anyway, but it's not a pushover and it's a long hard road because you SHOULDN'T be able to force that. This is why it will be bad if the court forces homosexual marriage on states that don't want it. It's something that should be done through the legislative process IF the states want it because it IS their business becuase it's THEIR sanction people are trying to attain.
Click to expand...

So where you complaining about states' "rights" when "DOMA" was passed and the fed amendment that would ban SSM was voted on? Those were exactly the same as what you're going on about now, attempts by the fed to strip the states of any ability to decide for themselves.
 
Papa bull said:
They are not barred from marriage. The fact that marriage law requires the union of one of EACH sex - the pairing of opposites that is actually MARRIAGE does not bar them from being married. There is no law stating that you must assert that you are heterosexual before being married. The pairing of opposite sexes is the very purpose of marriage. The homogenous union of two people of the same sex is something but it's not a marriage. At least it wasn't until the Canada and the Netherlands decided to volunteer to be guinea pigs in this social experiment. I think it's too bad we aren't waiting longer to see what happens to them before deciding to join them. I think it's foolish on our part.
Click to expand...

Every wrong in history is corrected by someone taking that first step. Sort of like how interracial marriage was banned from the start, or how catholics couldn't marry non catholics and so on. Now would you say, all these years later, that a black female and white male cannot have a marriage? Or a protestant and catholic? Your view will suffer the same fate in posterity.
 
Papa bull said:
State endorsement of marriage at the state level is very much about taxes. Homosexual marriage will lower state and federal revenues. Basically, it's a tax dodge for homosexuals.
Click to expand...

Yeah making interracial marriage legal also lowered state revenue, guess you were just as pissed off about that huh? Puuuhlease, don't even give the excuse that your "concerned" about state revenue with SSM being legalized. Just admit you don't like it, at least you'll be honest. You could give two shakes of a piss about marriages not bringing in "revenue" for the states.
 
Papa bull said:
Incorrect. The laws apply equally to you whether you are heterosexual or not. A heterosexual can't marry someone of the same sex, either. This isn't an equal rights issue.
Click to expand...

and with SSM being legalized it is equal since you too can marry someone of the same sex. Why do you hate equality? Maybe Iran or ISIS is more suitable to your beliefs.
 
chromium said:
Yeah, thanks for reminding me how much i despise my state
Click to expand...

Minnesota didn't have to be forced into recognizing marriage equality. Marriage inequality came up for vote and we shot that nonsense down at the ballot, and our legislature saw the writing on the wall and legalized it shortly after. We did the right thing, all on our own. Like grownups. :smug:
 
clownboy said:
Why were the 13th, 14th and 15th written and ratified? Learn a bit more about the US Constitution and you'll not need to ask that. As for the over 45 judges, yes, they ruled inconsistently with both law and constitution.
Click to expand...

Don't pretend that to you it's about the constitution, instead of simply prejudice, not that the constitution forbids SSM either. Even if the constitution explicitly stated "Marriage is between two adults of any gender," you would find another reason to object, just like you object to every other right or dignity for gays.
 
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
What these amendments did was set the tone for the nature of American citizenship for the modern era. No longer would we be a nation of first and second class citizens. Every citizen would be equal in the eyes of the law and would enjoy the full and complete measure of rights as every other citizen. Except, apparently, for women. These men dropped the ball on that one and we're still trying to get that sorted out.
Click to expand...

From my understanding the 13th-15th could not have passed if they had pursued such rights for women. This possibility was raised as a tactic by those opposing the amendments. They figured that somehow, if slavery dies, women will get to vote next, and interracial marriage will be kosher. Today, most of us indeed see those as intrinsic to any free society, but the fact it took 50 and 100 years respectively gives us a sense of the hostility to them in 1870. I doubt the 15th could have passed if it included women and unlike the 14th, it was tailored as a specific response ("race, color, or previous servitude") to specific southern tactics to undermine the 1866 Civil Rights Act ("black codes").

That the 14th's equal protection clause *doesn't* mention race leads me to believe it was left intentionally broad. It could be used gradually by the courts to achieve equality for different groups once there was sufficient support, instead of having to go thru the damn amendment process over every single issue.
 
Papa bull said:
State endorsement of marriage at the state level is very much about taxes. Homosexual marriage will lower state and federal revenues. Basically, it's a tax dodge for homosexuals.
Click to expand...

It's not a "tax dodge" any more than my 23 year marriage next week is a tax dodge. Besides, marriage will result in lower taxes for some straight AND gay couples and higher taxes for others (see, Marriage Penalty). The net effect of SSM on tax revenues is fairly modest, according to the only decent estimate I've seen.

Revisiting the state and federal income tax effects of legalizing same-sex marriages Journalist's Resource: Research for Reporting, from Harvard Shorenstein Center

- Twenty-three states would realize a net fiscal benefit from legalization of same-sex marriage, the greatest gain being in New York, with an estimated $16 million in additional revenue. California would lose an estimated $29 million, and 20 other states would also experience a decline in revenue. The remaining seven states do not levy an income tax and therefore would be unaffected.

- The aggregate impact on revenue across all states would be negative, but small relative to the size of overall state revenues, ranging from a loss of $2.6 million to $18 million

- At the federal level the government would lose revenue, with the decline estimated to be between $187 million and $580 million. While not insignificant, it is just 0.02% of total revenue for the U.S. federal government in 2013, $2.8 trillion.
Click to expand...

Those estimates assume (unrealistically) that 100% of same sex couples living together get married, so if, say, only half do, cut those figures in half. But roughly 30 states will benefit or see no change, and 20 will see revenues drop.
 
JasperL said:
That's ridiculous. Reminds me of the childhood saying, "Cutting off your nose off to spite your face...."

Whether government should recognize straight marriages has literally NOTHING to do with gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Why. What exactly justifies a special status for people decide to live together and probably reduce the number of sex partners? That can be better handled with civil contracts.
 
Papa bull said:
I should have restricted that to the multitude of homosexuals who use slurs like "breeders" when referring to heterosexuals.... and those like my brother that think marriage is a farce that homosexuals are too smart to get involved in.... or at least that was his position before homosexual marriage became the politically correct cause for homosexuals like himself. It is a generalization. But it's not an "overgeneralization" nor is it a prejudice. I know there are exceptions, but most homosexuals I've known (and I've known a LOT of them) always thought marriage was a "hetero" thing until very recent years and I'm very suspicious of the motivation for this sudden embracing of homosexual marriage by a community that previously thought it was the dumbest institution man ever created.
Click to expand...

If someone "detests" marriage, they've no reason to take part in it, so what you say doesn't apply to those homosexuals who DO wish to marry.

You're right that we've by and large thought of marriage as a hetero institution, until recently. That's simply because it wasn't seen as possible before and it was just one of several reasons to wish to be heterosexual instead. But that wasn't possible either, so there was no recourse but to feel hated and bitter about the whole thing. It's not that it was "dumb" but the institution did serve to oppress (including single heteros) who did not take part.

Now that homosexuality is becoming accepted and other rights, not just marriage, are becoming reality, a lot of the hostility and mockery of this institution can fade without accepting 2nd class status. It's no longer threatening and in fact, your suspicion answers itself since marriage really is no longer exclusively a hetero thing. The embracing of it is a reaction to no longer being excluded, go figure.
 
Papa bull said:
Marriage equality. That's really the right phrase because this isn't about equal rights for people.

I hope my state has the distinction of being the last to succumb to liberal social engineering.
Click to expand...

Who is it 'not equal' for?
 
Papa bull said:
It doesn't have to impact my life directly in order for it to matter. It impacts my SOCIETY. It impacts my state taxes. It impacts our court systems. It is not something my state needs or wants because my state doesn't consider homosexual unions to be the fundamental building block of society that it feels needs to be endorsed, encouraged and supported. I think it is quite reasonable enough that the state does not consider homosexuality to be a criminal behavior and does not interfere with people living with or having sex with whomever they choose. Homosexuals may enjoy their homosexual relationships without interference from the state - but also without the state's blessing. I know it's just awful that all the homosexuals in Ohio can't say "we're just as normal as heterosexuals" but our state just isn't interested in perpetuating that lie.
Click to expand...

They and their families are a part of your society. And it only affords more legal protections and benefits for the children of those families.

No society is better off disenfranchising perfectly good, contributing segments of it's population. Esp. segments that have not been shown to do any harm to individuals or society.

No society should support bigotry. (Again...esp, in the face of the fact that there is no harm done or shown...then it's just personal beliefs. Bigotry)
 
chromium said:
From my understanding the 13th-15th could not have passed if they had pursued such rights for women. This possibility was raised as a tactic by those opposing the amendments. They figured that somehow, if slavery dies, women will get to vote next, and interracial marriage will be kosher.
Click to expand...

Looks like they were right. I see the inexorable march of progress as a very good sign.

Today, most of us indeed see those as intrinsic to any free society, but the fact it took 50 and 100 years respectively gives us a sense of the hostility to them in 1870. I doubt the 15th could have passed if it included women and unlike the 14th, it was tailored as a specific response ("race, color, or previous servitude") to specific southern tactics to undermine the 1866 Civil Rights Act ("black codes").
Click to expand...

Imagine what we're hostile to that will be seen that way in another century... It's difficult to imagine that equal rights for gays isn't one such issue. But I imagine that there will be things we haven't even thought of yet that will be fundamental rights to future generations.

That the 14th's equal protection clause *doesn't* mention race leads me to believe it was left intentionally broad. It could be used gradually by the courts to achieve equality for different groups once there was sufficient support, instead of having to go thru the damn amendment process over every single issue.
Click to expand...

I agree. This is likewise why we don't need a constitutional amendment endorsing SSM. Unfortunately, we might need one to completely protect the rights of women. Too often, legislation and the courts don't live up to the promises in the 14th amendment when it comes to issues for women.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom