• 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

Conservative said:
For those of you touting economic benefits of having SSM here are the facts

Consider the state-level data on per capita personal income growth between 1999 and 2009, published by the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis.

- See more at: Tired Meme Alert: MN Gay Marriage Advocates Tout Bogus Economic Arguments | NOM Blog
Click to expand...

Wow, if there's ever a need for an example to demonstrate "strategies for effective use of cherry picked data in propaganda" or for the economic maxim - correlation does not equal causation - we can save that article!

BTW, of those 'states best for jobs growth' here's how they rank on current unemployment, with 1 being the lowest unemployment rate:

GA - 51
TN - 44
NC - 38
FL - 26
TX - 16

Let's cherry pick a few with legal SSM:

Hawaii - 6
Minnesota- 6
NH - 8
 
Conservative said:
I don't see the benefits garnered by gay couples to be married when the reality is that it is nothing more than having something that they believe they cannot have.
Click to expand...

I know you said you're bowing out, but that 'reality' is nothing more than you expressing your own prejudices against homosexuals. As a factual claim, it can be debunked by anyone with the slightest grasp of the facts. And why someone, gay or straight, wants to get married is none of your business or of mine.

Finally, you should know better than to presume that a genuine and personal belief in God is incompatible with homosexuality or support for their rights.
 
JasperL said:
Wow, if there's ever a need for an example to demonstrate "strategies for effective use of cherry picked data in propaganda" or for the economic maxim - correlation does not equal causation - we can save that article!

BTW, of those 'states best for jobs growth' here's how they rank on current unemployment, with 1 being the lowest unemployment rate:

GA - 51
TN - 44
NC - 38
FL - 26
TX - 16

Let's cherry pick a few with legal SSM:

Hawaii - 6
Minnesota- 6
NH - 8
Click to expand...

Right, we wouldn't want to cherrypick data, now would we? The population in Hawaii, Minnesota, and NH total about 8 million people relatively small compared to the states you listed and have no idea what the numbers by the states mean but I do know that TX is among the leaders in job creation and has been for the past 10 years
 
Conservative said:
Right, we wouldn't want to cherrypick data, now would we? The population in Hawaii, Minnesota, and NH total about 8 million people relatively small compared to the states you listed and have no idea what the numbers by the states mean but I do know that TX is among the leaders in job creation and has been for the past 10 years
Click to expand...

The difference is I acknowledged up front that the data was cherry picked, and I don't make the ridiculous assumption that correlation between randomly selected and obviously cherry picked variables proves causation.
 
Conservative said:
Get SSM approved in 50 states BY THE PEOPLE and I will accept that...
Click to expand...


So why don't you accept that same-sex Civil Marriage was passed by vote in Washington, Maine, Maryland, and Minnesota? Why does it have to be all 50 States before you can accept that it should be put to the vote at the State level? Do you acknowledge thawt SSCM exists for anyone married in those jurisdictions?



>>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
So why don't you accept that same-sex Civil Marriage was passed by vote in Washington, Maine, Maryland, and Minnesota? Why does it have to be all 50 States before you can accept that it should be put to the vote at the State level? Do you acknowledge thawt SSCM exists for anyone married in those jurisdictions?



>>>>>
Click to expand...

Who said I didn't accept the vote of the people? Marriage has always been a state issue and that is where it belongs. It needs to be approved by all 50 states or by Constitutional Amendment not by the courts
 
Conservative said:
Who said I didn't accept the vote of the people? Marriage has always been a state issue and that is where it belongs. It needs to be approved by all 50 states or by Constitutional Amendment not by the courts
Click to expand...

Except for when it's interracial marriage?

No it has simply not always been a state issue. Most of the benefits of marriage are federal, not state benefits.
 
roguenuke said:
Except for when it's interracial marriage?

No it has simply not always been a state issue. Most of the benefits of marriage are federal, not state benefits.
Click to expand...

Conservative claims that it is because homosexuality is a choice, even though it has never been proven to be just a choice.
 
roguenuke said:
Except for when it's interracial marriage?

No it has simply not always been a state issue. Most of the benefits of marriage are federal, not state benefits.
Click to expand...

You seem to believe you know me, have we met?

The Federal Govt. has authorized equal benefits for same sex partners or did you miss that declaration?
 
Conservative said:
You seem to believe you know me, have we met?

The Federal Govt. has authorized equal benefits for same sex partners or did you miss that declaration?
Click to expand...

So long as they are married. This means that they have to be able to marry in all states in order to get those benefits.

You have already said that you believed the Loving decision was covered. So what is it? Are you saying that the Loving decision was wrong?
 
Conservative said:
You seem to believe you know me, have we met?

The Federal Govt. has authorized equal benefits for same sex partners or did you miss that declaration?
Click to expand...


Same sex partners are not authorized equal benefits. Same as different sex partners are not authorized Federal benefits.


Spouses (as in Civilly Married) are authorized Federal benefits equally whether they are same-sex or different-sex. Just because two people are sexual partners does not mean they are authorized benefits.



>>>>
 
roguenuke said:
So long as they are married. This means that they have to be able to marry in all states in order to get those benefits.

You have already said that you believed the Loving decision was covered. So what is it? Are you saying that the Loving decision was wrong?
Click to expand...

Loving decision was a black woman wanting to marry a white man which met the requirements of marriage in the state of Va. meaning the union of a man and a woman. You seem to not be able to understand that concept. I would have thought someone who is married to a man would understand the difference between two different sex couples getting married vs. same sex. Would you want your kids to be raised in a family with a same sex couple vs a couple with a man and a woman? Fair question, answer it

Further one more time, I AM FOR STATES' RIGHTS AND MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE. IF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE VOTE FOR IT I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. GET IT YET??????
 
WorldWatcher said:
Same sex partners are not authorized equal benefits. Same as different sex partners are not authorized Federal benefits.


Spouses (as in Civilly Married) are authorized Federal benefits equally whether they are same-sex or different-sex. Just because two people are sexual partners does not mean they are authorized benefits.



>>>>
Click to expand...

Interesting because they were with my company in the state of TX but then again TX doesn't have a state income tax so there wasn't really much difference.
 
Conservative said:
Loving decision was a black woman wanting to marry a white man which met the requirements of marriage in the state of Va. meaning the union of a man and a woman. You seem to not be able to understand that concept. I would have thought someone who is married to a man would understand the difference between two different sex couples getting married vs. same sex. Would you want your kids to be raised in a family with a same sex couple vs a couple with a man and a woman? Fair question, answer it

Further one more time, I AM FOR STATES' RIGHTS AND MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE. IF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE VOTE FOR IT I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. GET IT YET??????
Click to expand...

Your contention was that marriage is a states' rights issue and not found in the US Constitution. You are the one who doesn't "get it". Your arguments contradict themselves.

You argue that things are a states' rights issues when not in the Constitution, unless it is something that you feel is acceptable, like interracial marriage, to be overturned. The Lovings did not meet the requirements of a marriage in Virginia at that time, which said that marriages were only valid between people of the same race.

There is no difference when it comes to legal marriage (or really even personal marriage to me, but that is really a separate issue) between two people of the opposite sex or two people of the same sex.
 
roguenuke said:
Your contention was that marriage is a states' rights issue and not found in the US Constitution. You are the one who doesn't "get it". Your arguments contradict themselves.

You argue that things are a states' rights issues when not in the Constitution, unless it is something that you feel is acceptable, like interracial marriage, to be overturned. The Lovings did not meet the requirements of a marriage in Virginia at that time, which said that marriages were only valid between people of the same race.

There is no difference when it comes to legal marriage (or really even personal marriage to me, but that is really a separate issue) between two people of the opposite sex or two people of the same sex.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the N.C. education escaped you as you don't understand if it is in the Constitution it is a requirement for the state to adhere to those issues and race is in the Constitution, marriage isn't

Noticed that you didn't answer my question, why is that?
 
Conservative said:
Loving decision was a black woman wanting to marry a white man which met the requirements of marriage in the state of Va.
Click to expand...


That is patently false.


The requriements in the Commonwealth of Virginia at the time were that coloreds were required to marry coloreds and whites were required to marry whites. It was against the law in Virgnia for a colored to marry a white and therefore the requirement at the time banned interracial marriage.


That's what the whole freaking case was about.


>>>>
 
Conservative said:
Sounds like the N.C. education escaped you as you don't understand if it is in the Constitution it is a requirement for the state to adhere to those issues and race is in the Constitution, marriage isn't

Noticed that you didn't answer my question, why is that?
Click to expand...

Wrong. Race is not in the Constitution when it comes to the Equal Protection clause.

I missed your question. I wouldn't care. My kids are going to be raised, should my husband and I both pass away before they are grown, by one of my siblings, most likely (since our parents have health issues). Some of them are bisexual and one is transgendered, who has a daughter. Does it sound like I have any issue with two people of the same sex raising children?
 
Conservative said:
WorldWatcher said:
Conservative said:
The Federal Govt. has authorized equal benefits for same sex partners or did you miss that declaration?
Click to expand...
Same sex partners are not authorized equal benefits. Same as different sex partners are not authorized Federal benefits.


Spouses (as in Civilly Married) are authorized Federal benefits equally whether they are same-sex or different-sex. Just because two people are sexual partners does not mean they are authorized benefits.



>>>>
Click to expand...
Interesting because they were with my company in the state of TX but then again TX doesn't have a state income tax so there wasn't really much difference.
Click to expand...


Again with what your company did...

That wasn't what you said. You said the Federal government has authorized equal benefits that that incorrect. Social Security survivor-ship is ONLY available based on Civil Marriage. Joint tax filing is ONLY available on Civil Marriage. Gift Tax spousal exemption is ONLY available to spouses. The Estate Tax exemption for spouses is available ONLY to - you guessed it - Spouses in a Civil Marriage. The military does not recognize sex partners for military housing, dependent healthcare, transportation expenses upon PCS moves, command sponsorship for overseas tours, etc., etc.


Just because you company chooses to do something does not mean that your company is the Federal government.


>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
That is patently false.


The requriements in the Commonwealth of Virginia at the time were that coloreds were required to marry coloreds and whites were required to marry whites. It was against the law in Virgnia for a colored to marry a white and therefore the requirement at the time banned interracial marriage.


That's what the whole freaking case was about.


>>>>
Click to expand...

You miss the point which isn't surprising, the ruling overturned the state ruling because it violated the Constitution. Race was the issue not SSM even though that is what proponents are now using as justification.
 
Conservative said:
You miss the point which isn't surprising, the ruling overturned the state ruling because it violated the Constitution. Race was the issue not SSM even though that is what proponents are now using as justification.
Click to expand...

But race is not in the Constitution specifically as being protected by the EPC, which is what it was ruled to be violating, just the same as you said sex nor sexuality were not in there. So now you are twisting things to fit what you want. Your arguments are inconsistent.
 
Conservative said:
You miss the point which isn't surprising, the ruling overturned the state ruling because it violated the Constitution. Race was the issue not SSM even though that is what proponents are now using as justification.
Click to expand...


But if the State law said they couldn't have a Civil Marriage...


........... They should have just accepted the State law and gone out and got a Civil Union or spent thousand of dollars in lawyer costs to simulate a fraction of what marriage would have provided them.



>>>>
 
Conservative said:
You ought to worry more about your own credibility than mine. As one of the declining numbers of Obama supporters and as a big govt. liberal who cannot admit that liberalism is a failure, it is your credibility that is the issue, not mine. Civics, economics, and now history aren't your strong suits
Click to expand...

LOL....Liberalism is a failure? Is that why when Republicans are in power they create a huge mess and almost always it is the Democrats who have to come in and clean up their mess? Oh....that's right.....you still believe that GWB led us to economic utopia and left a huge budget surplus when he left office. Sorry....I forget that the facts are not your friend...
 
Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

What you fail to recognize Con is that marriage has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right, not a privilege. Sorry...but once again the facts are not your friend. It would really behoove you to take a course in conlaw. Education is not a bad thing.
 
Tom Horne concedes 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down same-sex marriage bans applies to AZ | Blog for Arizona

om Horne concedes 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down same-sex marriage bans applies to AZ
Posted on October 16, 2014 by AZ BlueMeanie | Leave a comment

The state of Arizona has submitted its reply briefs in Majors vs. Horne and Connolly vs. Roche, the two legal challenges to Arizona’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

9cirIn a bit of a surprise, the Arizona-based Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom to whom Attorney General Tom Horne had farmed out the litigation of these cases did not submit the briefs — it was the Arizona Attorney General’s office.

A bigger surprise is that Tom Horne agrees that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling from last week does apply to Arizona, just as soon as the Ninth Circuit Court issues its mandate. His brief is only two pages. Arizona is conceding the cases. Marriage equality in Arizona is only a technicality away.
Click to expand...


The funny part is that our lame duck (lost the primary) AG is the one ruling on marriage...he got busted taking his mistress (who also worked for him at an inflated salary) out for a little after noon delight, but he got involved in an accident and did the old hit and run.... You can't make this stuff up...
 
Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

Unable to stay consistent with an argument. Nobody is shocked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom