• 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!

Appeals court upholds laws against gay marriage in Michigan, 3 other states

WCH said:
There are other so-called 'freedoms' that will not be tolerated by society.
Click to expand...

Not tolerated is not the same thing as not allowed.

I have the freedom to slather myself in peanut butter and masturbate to the Sears Catalog Home Appliance section. I have that right. And if I do that, everyone I know also has the right to stop associating with me. And most importantly of all, the government doesn't have the right to punish either of us for that action.
 
Deuce said:
Finally, they admit that they think they have the right to take away someone else's rights based purely on disapproval.
Click to expand...

Right to what? I voted for one man, one woman. therefore no 'right' exists.
 
Deuce said:
Not tolerated is not the same thing as not allowed.

I have the freedom to slather myself in peanut butter and masturbate to the Sears Catalog Home Appliance section. I have that right. And if I do that, everyone I know also has the right to stop associating with me. And most importantly of all, the government doesn't have the right to punish either of us for that action.
Click to expand...

You can't do that in public.
 
WCH said:
Right to what? I voted for one man, one woman. therefore no 'right' exists.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly.

And I vote that you aren't allowed to build a church, therefore that right doesn't exist.
 
1750Texan said:
If you and enough like minded people wish to... yes you can vote away the entire Constitution and the entire concept of rights and freedoms.

Now all you need is to get 3/4 of the American voters to agree with your ideas of normal, vile, and disgusting.
Click to expand...

Do Gays really want to tempt fate like that?
 
WCH said:
You can't do that in public.
Click to expand...

No, I cannot. Public health hazard. See, it's when my actions start to cause harm to others that someone steps in to stop me.

So what harm to others does two men signing a marriage contract cause?
 
WCH said:
Do Gays really want to tempt fate like that?
Click to expand...

Uhh, do you? Because that's what you're supporting. Ignore individual liberty, throw out the constitution, because Lord WCH says someone else's actions are icky.

What if 51% of the population decides Christianity is icky?
 
Deuce said:
What good does society receive by not allowing two men to sign a marriage contract?
Click to expand...

It is good for society to endorse the behavioral expectations it deems desirable and it is not good for society to be forced to endorse behaviors that it does not wish to endorse. While I think those states that endorse homosexual marriage have lost their minds, it is their right to do that just as it is the right of my state to just say no to the insanity.
 
Papa bull said:
It is good for society to endorse the behavioral expectations it deems desirable and it is not good for society to be forced to endorse behaviors that it does not wish to endorse. While I think those states that endorse homosexual marriage have lost their minds, it is their right to do that just as it is the right of my state to just say no to the insanity.
Click to expand...

Listen, when I ask for some identified benefit, and you say something like this, all I can conclude is that you can't actually name a benefit. "It's good because they want it that way" is not an answer. Like I asked WCH, what happens when 51% of the population decides they don't want to endorse Christianity? These aren't good enough justifications for the government to make this kind of distinction. You? You can decide these things for yourself based on whatever you like. You can decide homosexuality is an abomination because cats have fur. That's good enough for your personal opinion, that's not good enough for government action.
 
Deuce said:
No, I cannot. Public health hazard. See, it's when my actions start to cause harm to others that someone steps in to stop me.

So what harm to others does two men signing a marriage contract cause?
Click to expand...

Generally performing their gay acts in public. [back to vile and disgusting]
 
Deuce said:
Uhh, do you? Because that's what you're supporting. Ignore individual liberty, throw out the constitution, because Lord WCH says someone else's actions are icky.

What if 51% of the population decides Christianity is icky?
Click to expand...

Put it up for a vote.
 
Deuce said:
Listen, when I ask for some identified benefit, and you say something like this, all I can conclude is that you can't actually name a benefit. "It's good because they want it that way" is not an answer. Like I asked WCH, what happens when 51% of the population decides they don't want to endorse Christianity? These aren't good enough justifications for the government to make this kind of distinction. You? You can decide these things for yourself based on whatever you like. You can decide homosexuality is an abomination because cats have fur. That's good enough for your personal opinion, that's not good enough for government action.
Click to expand...

In Texas, it was the will of the people [about 71%] who made that distinction. We demanded the government impose that law.

WE felt it was a better way forward for OUR state.
 
Papa bull said:
It's a good question whether these so-called "harms" are overshadowed by the good that society receives from maintaining traditional marriage. I think the clear answer is "yes", despite his fears about the "harms" that affect the children of homosexual couples since homosexual unions don't produce children.
Click to expand...

You cannot prove any "good" in maintaining "traditional" marriages as the only recognized marriages though, so it doesn't matter. Homosexual couples getting legally married will not hinder reproduction in any way
 
WCH said:
If it's considered to be vile, disgusting and/ or criminal...we certainly do get to vote it away. That'z freedom.
Click to expand...

No you don't. That is not how our laws, constitution works.
 
Deuce said:
Listen, when I ask for some identified benefit, and you say something like this, all I can conclude is that you can't actually name a benefit. "It's good because they want it that way" is not an answer. Like I asked WCH, what happens when 51% of the population decides they don't want to endorse Christianity? These aren't good enough justifications for the government to make this kind of distinction. You? You can decide these things for yourself based on whatever you like. You can decide homosexuality is an abomination because cats have fur. That's good enough for your personal opinion, that's not good enough for government action.
Click to expand...

You don't have to worry about endorsing Christianity. It isn't demanding state endorsement like homosexuals are. Sanction is given, not taken.
 
Taylor said:
From the PBS documentary series, "Frontline":
Click to expand...

Which is not the same thing that was put out earlier, that said they were discharged because their illnesses were no longer considered mental illnesses, but rather the people didn't care or didn't have the money to deal with them, just like I said in the beginning. It had to do with a lack of money, not a change in the philosophy of dealing with mental illness.
 
Taylor said:
The question put before the court was not whether the state must recognize the marriage as a civil marriage, it was whether the state had a right to ban their marriage. The Lovings were sentenced to a year in jail for a marriage that had no legal significance in the state.
Click to expand...

And yet the SCOTUS went far beyond just deciding to overturn the ruling that put the Lovings in jail, including requiring the state of Virginia, and all other states that had bans on interracial marriage at that time, to recognize all interracial marriages. The SCOTUS did not have to make such a broad ruling, except they could since the laws that did not recognize the Lovings as married due to their races, regardless of whether they were treated as criminals or not, violated the US Constitution.
 
WCH said:
Do Gays really want to tempt fate like that?
Click to expand...

I dare you or anyone else to try it. Because it won't happen anywhere in the near future. Heck, you couldn't even get enough support in Congress about 10 years ago, when most Congressmen actually did support banning same sex couples from marriage and DOMA was still law of the land.
 
Papa bull said:
It is good for society to endorse the behavioral expectations it deems desirable and it is not good for society to be forced to endorse behaviors that it does not wish to endorse. While I think those states that endorse homosexual marriage have lost their minds, it is their right to do that just as it is the right of my state to just say no to the insanity.
Click to expand...

Society in 1967 did not, as a whole, want to endorse interracial marriages throughout the country. This is a fact. The majority (the vast majority) wanted them to remain illegal.
 
WCH said:
In Texas, it was the will of the people [about 71%] who made that distinction. We demanded the government impose that law.

WE felt it was a better way forward for OUR state.
Click to expand...

Almost 10 years ago, that vote was taken. Now, it would be lucky to pass. In many states, those bans would be gone if it were put to a vote right now.
 
WCH said:
Revisionists like yourself did away with the original.

Remember states rights? the 10th amendment?
Click to expand...

Do you not remember that the 10th also says individual rights? OR is that not convenient for you? The 14th places individual rights over states' rights, as it should, since whats the point of protecting us against a tyranny of the majority in the form of a federal government if we end up having just smaller tyrannies of the majorities in the form of state governments?
 
WCH said:
Generally performing their gay acts in public. [back to vile and disgusting]
Click to expand...

Ahh, so if I think heterosexuals kissing in public is disgusting, I can ban heterosexuals from marriage? That's quite the logic of yours.

WCH said:
Put it up for a vote.
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving my point. You are the poster boy for authoritarianism. There was never any principle here. To you, individual freedom only exists for people to behave as you demand they behave.
 
WCH said:
In Texas, it was the will of the people [about 71%] who made that distinction. We demanded the government impose that law.

WE felt it was a better way forward for OUR state.
Click to expand...


Yes. Exactly. Nothing except "I want it that way."

Proving my point yet again. Freedom, to you, only means the freedom to do what WCH says is ok.

It is absolutely comical that you people keep crowing about individual liberty when you are its worst enemy. The absolute antithesis of individual freedom is "I don't like that, therefore it will be illegal."
 
Papa bull said:
You don't have to worry about endorsing Christianity. It isn't demanding state endorsement like homosexuals are. Sanction is given, not taken.
Click to expand...

Ahh, I get it.

The existence of same-sex marriage is "state endorsement"

The existence of Christianity is not. None of the religious exemptions count, apparently.

Wonderful. I'm glad you cleared this up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom