• 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

In the absence of a gay gene, there is no scientific evidence that being gay happens at birth. That is why liberals never talk about that issue

Can't speak for other liberals but I rarely address "the issue" (of the gay gene apparently) because I can't think of a reason to care whether the "cause" of homosexuality is genetic, something during pregnancy, or some combination of nature and nurture.
 
Two different subjects but yes genes do indeed play a role as race and gender are gene related and thus are protected. Hard for anyone to understand people like you who for some reason believe that marriage is a right and not a privilege, that whether or not someone is married is a personal choice issue not a civil rights issue. People like you really are part of the problem not part of the solution. Let the states do their own thing with regard to their own common law. Personal choice issues are allowed but not guaranteed in the Constitution. You can choose to be with whoever you want but don't expect the Constitution to protect you for something that isn't there.

Practicing your religious beliefs and not having them infringed on is indeed guaranteed in the Const. Religion is a choice. And the Const DOES protect my religious rights.

Still wrong. As you are repeatedly insisting there is a gay gene.
 
the reality is pro SSM people cannot prove that being gay is at birth as there is no such thing as a gay gene but there are genes for race and gender and that coupled with the states' rights issue makes it irrelevant to the Constitution IMO.

You cant prove you were straight at birth.

Can you? Can you prove you are straight?


As I said, the fact that you believe being gay means there is a 'gay' gene shows the abysmal depths of your ignorance of reproduction. A particular gene has nothing to do with many things we are born with....is there a 'consciousness' gene? Is there a 'smart' gene? Is there a 'compassion' gene.

For a matter of fact.....why havent they found the 'straight' gene yet?
 
Yes, but science has not ruled out the possibility of a gay gene or combination thereof. That's why cons such as yourself can never discuss science intelligently.

Let me guess, Gravity was NEVER there until someone wrote the science on it huh? Typical Cons, like to bible thump and act like their intelligent, how cute.

You still upset over you losing the gay marriage argument huh? It is happening in SPITE of what you "think". Deal with that Con.

That is a far cry from proof. Typical diversion from you, it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with someone who doesn't understand the word. There is no evidence that there is a gay gene thus gays being created at birth. That is reality and apparently something you are incapable of understanding.
 
That is a far cry from proof. Typical diversion from you, it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with someone who doesn't understand the word. There is no evidence that there is a gay gene thus gays being created at birth. That is reality and apparently something you are incapable of understanding.

Yes and it is reality that science has not ruled out a gay gene as well. You just want to deny marriage to same sex couples because of an archaic belief. Sorry, you don't get to deny people rights based on that. Lucky your bigotry is being fought and you are losing.
 
And science has not ruled out that it could be biological and not a choice either. Too bad the right and you keep losing the SSM argument and more and more places are making SSM legal. You are on the wrong side of history as always.


Too bad the will of the people is trumped by activist justices. Apparently it doesn't bother you that the will of the people was overturned in 19 states. Put SSM on the ballot and let the people decide. why do you have to have a judge make decisions for you? could it be because you cannot sell your argument to the people?
 
Because up until the mid-80s, gays *had* to hide to have *normal* lives. They even married in attempts to fit in. They tried, but they still were gay, staying in the 'closet' didnt make them less gay.

So finally, they were able to, slowly, come out of the closet. And it cost them....they were beaten, killed, lost their jobs, were refused jobs, lost custody of their kids, called perverts and pedophiles and removed for a time from entire professions. It still happens.

Gay people were always within our society....contributing with good jobs, raising kids, being doctors, firemen, teachers, everything. Why should they have to hide who they are and who they love? How would you like to have to live like that?

So are you telling me that by not getting SSM that gays will not be productive and able to compete in society? Tell me exactly why being married is so important to such a small percentage of the population? Tell me why civil unions won't suffice?

Yes, gays have always been in society and yet it wasn't until modern history the last 30 years that activists have captured the movement and are trying to destroy the will of the people.
 
Can't speak for other liberals but I rarely address "the issue" (of the gay gene apparently) because I can't think of a reason to care whether the "cause" of homosexuality is genetic, something during pregnancy, or some combination of nature and nurture.

That is the problem then, you cannot prove that being gay is genetic thus it isn't protected by the Constitution because it is a choice issue. you want it part of the Constitution, let the super majority decide
 
Practicing your religious beliefs and not having them infringed on is indeed guaranteed in the Const. Religion is a choice. And the Const DOES protect my religious rights.

Still wrong. As you are repeatedly insisting there is a gay gene.

Yes, you are free to practice whatever religion you want. Marriage is common law supported by history and precedence. That plus it isn't a genetic trait unless you put it in the Constitution it isn't there.
 
You cant prove you were straight at birth.

Can you? Can you prove you are straight?


As I said, the fact that you believe being gay means there is a 'gay' gene shows the abysmal depths of your ignorance of reproduction. A particular gene has nothing to do with many things we are born with....is there a 'consciousness' gene? Is there a 'smart' gene? Is there a 'compassion' gene.

For a matter of fact.....why havent they found the 'straight' gene yet?

Fail, this has nothing to do with being straight, the reality is you cannot prove it is a civil right to be gay because being gay is a personal choice. Religion, race, and gender were put into the Constitution, marriage isn't there. Therein lies your problem
 
Yes and it is reality that science has not ruled out a gay gene as well. You just want to deny marriage to same sex couples because of an archaic belief. Sorry, you don't get to deny people rights based on that. Lucky your bigotry is being fought and you are losing.

Deny? No, I want it to be the decision of the states. Get it passed in TX by the people instead of an activist judge. That is your problem, you cannot do that so you focus on some bogus argument of equal protection for personal choice issues which violate state laws.
 
That is the problem then, you cannot prove that being gay is genetic thus it isn't protected by the Constitution because it is a choice issue. you want it part of the Constitution, let the super majority decide

I've seen nothing from you or anyone else that indicates that the proper Constitutional answer hinges on the existence or not of a "gay gene." You've conjured this Constitutional test out of thin air.

And you've somehow convinced yourself that unless we identify a "gay gene," then being gay is a "choice issue." Science doesn't agree with your ignorant and baseless opinion on this matter, and the law need not defer to this ignorant premise.
 
Too bad the will of the people is trumped by activist justices. Apparently it doesn't bother you that the will of the people was overturned in 19 states. Put SSM on the ballot and let the people decide. why do you have to have a judge make decisions for you? could it be because you cannot sell your argument to the people?

Ah yes, the will of the people to deny rights. Yes, we've seen this before as well with interracial marriage. Your bigotry is well know and rejected. Deal with it.
 
Deny? No, I want it to be the decision of the states. Get it passed in TX by the people instead of an activist judge. That is your problem, you cannot do that so you focus on some bogus argument of equal protection for personal choice issues which violate state laws.

Oh NOW you want it states. You and other faux outraged cons didn't care marriage was in the feds hand before SSM got here. Sorry, but blame yourselves for that one. Your bogus concern is being fought and you are losing, THAT is fact. Bigots 0, Freedom 1.
 
So are you telling me that by not getting SSM that gays will not be productive and able to compete in society? Tell me exactly why being married is so important to such a small percentage of the population? Tell me why civil unions won't suffice?

Yes, gays have always been in society and yet it wasn't until modern history the last 30 years that activists have captured the movement and are trying to destroy the will of the people.

No of course not but social acceptance of any kind makes it easier for them to contribute, as they arent discriminated against, fewer barrirs, dont get fired, etc.

And the rights that come with marriage also protect their children, both biological, adopted, from merged families, etc. The children get more legal protections and benefits. Are you implying that their children should suffer the same bigotry as their parents?

"Activists" didnt capture anything. It's called social momentum. It took 100 yrs after the Civil War to finally outlaw Jim Crow. SHould blacks have had to wait 100 years for equal treatment from the states? No, it's an embarrassment and a shame. It HARMED them.

Momentum has been building since the 80's....discrimination is wrong and should be stopped as soon as possible, not based on how long it takes bigots to die out.

And separate but equal was ruled unConstitutional, so civil unions are still discrimination. Not only that, it continues to stigmatize gays as 'different' and again, that bigotry affects their kids.

Besides marriage *means* exactly the same thing to gays as straight people. Including (esp. including) those with religious beliefs.

Of course, it's pretty hypocritical to see a conservative pushing for bigger govt....like a whole new institution that has to be administered in DC, more work for the IRS, Obamacare, legal organizations of all kind, thousands more pencil pushers and millions more $$$. For something that already exists? Ha ha ha! Yeah...that makes sense.
 
I've seen nothing from you or anyone else that indicates that the proper Constitutional answer hinges on the existence or not of a "gay gene." You've conjured this Constitutional test out of thin air.

And you've somehow convinced yourself that unless we identify a "gay gene," then being gay is a "choice issue." Science doesn't agree with your ignorant and baseless opinion on this matter, and the law need not defer to this ignorant premise.

Ok, so if it isn't inherited then anything you do regardless of the law is deserving of equal protection? You have no idea how dangerous that argument is and how dangerous the leftwing agenda is to the rule of law.

You and others don't get it. This is about states's rights and the foundation upon which this country was built. Get SSM approved in 50 states BY THE PEOPLE and I will accept that but I won't accept what some activist judges say as they overturned the will of the people. That is a violation of the Constitution which liberals don't want to discuss
 
Oh NOW you want it states. You and other faux outraged cons didn't care marriage was in the feds hand before SSM got here. Sorry, but blame yourselves for that one. Your bogus concern is being fought and you are losing, THAT is fact. Bigots 0, Freedom 1.

I have always wanted it in the states because that is where it belongs. You need to pay closer attention rather than thinking only about what you want to say vs. listening to others.
 
Yes, you are free to practice whatever religion you want. Marriage is common law supported by history and precedence. That plus it isn't a genetic trait unless you put it in the Constitution it isn't there.

Right...religion is a personal choice, it's in the Const. and it's protected by the Const.

Gays have been a part of society as supported by history and precedence. Deserves the same protections as religion.

So...the same. (If you choose to continue to believe that being gay is a choice)
 
Fail, this has nothing to do with being straight, the reality is you cannot prove it is a civil right to be gay because being gay is a personal choice. Religion, race, and gender were put into the Constitution, marriage isn't there. Therein lies your problem

So you cant answer any of the questions? Of course not.

And straight people can marry and it's not in the Constitution (according to you). So it's discrimination to not allow gays to marry. Because of their GENDER. As again, you've been told.
 
Right...religion is a personal choice, it's in the Const. and it's protected by the Const.

Gays have been a part of society as supported by history and precedence. Deserves the same protections as religion.

So...the same. (If you choose to continue to believe that being gay is a choice)

Religion was put into the Constitution. You want gay lifestyle/marriage put in there as well, go for it. I will petition my Rep to vote against it, but what the hell, beats the judges overturning the will of the people.

You people certainly have some screwed up priorities and one of these days you are going to have to reconcile those priorities with "your" God
 
So you cant answer any of the questions? Of course not.

And straight people can marry and it's not in the Constitution (according to you). So it's discrimination to not allow gays to marry. Because of their GENDER. As again, you've been told.

Marriage is common law and is defined as a union between a man and a woman. You cannot seem to grasp the concept. Not surprising
 
Religion was put into the Constitution. You want gay lifestyle/marriage put in there as well, go for it. I will petition my Rep to vote against it, but what the hell, beats the judges overturning the will of the people.

You people certainly have some screwed up priorities and one of these days you are going to have to reconcile those priorities with "your" God

It doesnt need to be added. Gender is clearly covered. Oh well for you.

And what exactly is the 'gay lifestyle?' Is there a 'straight lifestyle?' Please tell me how they are different, besides who they have sex with? And in most marriages, that drops off pretty fast, lol.

Seriously, besides sexual attraction, how are their lifestyles ANY different? Please name one thing?

They go to work, have kids, go to PTA, take their kids to soccer and dance class, go to church, mow the lawn, take vacations, take out the garbage, all eat dinner together as a family, date, drive cars, go on FaceBook, post on the Internet, read books, eat in restaurants, go camping, go swimming, work out at the gym, celebrate the holidays, etc etc etc. What's different?
 
Marriage is common law and is defined as a union between a man and a woman. You cannot seem to grasp the concept. Not surprising

My state does not recognize common law marriage. And the definition of marriage has been changed at the state level before due to federal oversite: polygamy and interracial marriage. The essential definitions changed: race, numbers, now gender. Oh....gender! Which is protected under the Constitution. :)

man and woman
man and man
woman and woman

See the red? GENDER change! LOLOLOLOLOL
 
I have always wanted it in the states because that is where it belongs. You need to pay closer attention rather than thinking only about what you want to say vs. listening to others.

Really? Where before the SSM debate have you EVER commented the states should be in marriage only?
 
Back
Top Bottom