• 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

roguenuke said:
They could have ruled as many antissm here claim, only towards interracial couples. They could have said (in far more words) that the Lovings and other interracial couples had a right to be together as a couple, live together, but not be recognized as legally married. After all that is what ssm opponents claim same sex couples don't have a right to, legal recognition.
Click to expand...
That was not the question that the court was asked to consider, and it was not an argument made by the State of Virginia. So no, they could not have made such a ruling.
 
Taylor said:
That was not the question that the court was asked to consider, and it was not an argument made by the State of Virginia. So no, they could not have made such a ruling.
Click to expand...

Yes, they could have. It just never occurred to anyone back then to separate living together as married and receiving recognition for that.

I'm not saying they should have done it or that doing it wouldn't have caused another constitutional conflict, only that they could have only addressed the question asked of them, did it violate the constitution to imprison interracial couples for living together as married? The Lovings wanted to live together in Virginia without getting arrested
 
WCH said:
That is for sure unprovable.
Click to expand...

Plenty of evidence for it, including some surveys done that take into account IQ and educational level in relation to support for or against same sex marriage.
 
WCH said:
That means very little.
Click to expand...

Stunning rebuttal. :lamo

You can add in all the opinion polls too. So, I have recent voting trends and a decade's worth of opinion polls. What's your evidence?
 
Papa bull said:
That actually means quite a lot. Marriage laws are a state's right issue and if people want to change them, their legislature should address that. If the current trend continues, all states will eventually sanction homosexual marriages. And I'm satisfied with each state doing that when the will of the people in the state dictates it be done.
Click to expand...

I'm not satisfied with unconstitutional infringement on individual liberty based on nothing more than a moral disapproval of the majority, but to each their own, friend.
 
roguenuke said:
Yes, they could have. It just never occurred to anyone back then to separate living together as married and receiving recognition for that.
Click to expand...
No, they couldn't have, for reasons already described.

roguenuke said:
they could have only addressed the question asked of them, did it violate the constitution to imprison interracial couples for living together as married? The Lovings wanted to live together in Virginia without getting arrested
Click to expand...
They did only address the question asked of them. What other questions do you believe they addressed other than the one raised by the plaintiffs?
 
roguenuke said:
Plenty of evidence for it, including some surveys done that take into account IQ and educational level in relation to support for or against same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

Like you often point out, that's is all subjective.

Personally I think one is quite stupid for spitting in the face of God.
 
Deuce said:
Stunning rebuttal. :lamo

You can add in all the opinion polls too. So, I have recent voting trends and a decade's worth of opinion polls. What's your evidence?
Click to expand...

I blame a lot of whatever support there is for gays/SSM on cultural peer pressure.

Bring on that popular vote and then we can get started looking for that Gay Liberia. :lamo
 
WCH said:
Like you often point out, that's is all subjective.

Personally I think one is quite stupid for spitting in the face of God.
Click to expand...

Intelligence levels can be subjective, since there are different levels and types of intelligence. However, there are several studies out there on many of those levels and types.

Support For Same-Sex Marriage Edges Upward | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

Note education levels and support for and against.

FreakoStats: The Stupidity of Opposing Gay Rights

Leaders of industry, MENSA members, so many people who are viewed as "intelligent", from most standpoints support same sex marriage. Even in the military, my rate was considered the rate for the smart people (there were mandatory prerequisites to be a nuke based on academic scores) and even before this debate really got heated nationally, you could see the larger level of support amongst nukes for gays compared to any other rating.
 
WCH said:
I blame a lot of whatever support there is for gays/SSM on cultural peer pressure.

Bring on that popular vote and then we can get started looking for that Gay Liberia. :lamo
Click to expand...

Nope. We'll stick with the more constitutional way, the courts, while still increasing the acceptance with the public, as is evident to the majority is happening, even if some still wish to live in denial.
 
roguenuke said:
Intelligence levels can be subjective, since there are different levels and types of intelligence. However, there are several studies out there on many of those levels and types.

Support For Same-Sex Marriage Edges Upward | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

Note education levels and support for and against.

FreakoStats: The Stupidity of Opposing Gay Rights

Leaders of industry, MENSA members, so many people who are viewed as "intelligent", from most standpoints support same sex marriage. Even in the military, my rate was considered the rate for the smart people (there were mandatory prerequisites to be a nuke based on academic scores) and even before this debate really got heated nationally, you could see the larger level of support amongst nukes for gays compared to any other rating.
Click to expand...

All those polls are based on telephone interview opinions of less than 2000 people nationwide. We need a popular internet vote of all adults.

The second guy is a blogger who thinks way too much of himself. Please!
 
WCH said:
All those polls are based on telephone interview opinions of less than 2000 people nationwide. We need a popular internet vote of all adults.

The second guy is a blogger who thinks way too much of himself. Please!
Click to expand...

And yet still more than you have to counter it or to show that same sex marriage support hasn't grown in every state since their bans were passed, as you originally asserted.
 
WCH said:
I blame a lot of whatever support there is for gays/SSM on cultural peer pressure.

Bring on that popular vote and then we can get started looking for that Gay Liberia. :lamo
Click to expand...

You say peer pressure, I say "people changing their mind."

Your guys lost all four ballot measures in 2012, none came up in 2014, and this will be over by 2016 so I guess we'll never find out how long the win streak would continue.
 
Last edited:
WCH said:
All those polls are based on telephone interview opinions of less than 2000 people nationwide. We need a popular internet vote of all adults.

The second guy is a blogger who thinks way too much of himself. Please!
Click to expand...


Excellent. So I can ignore Obamas job approval rating because you didn't ask everybody. Also, what are statistics?
 
Deuce said:
Excellent. So I can ignore Obamas job approval rating because you didn't ask everybody. Also, what are statistics?
Click to expand...

Obama and stats are highly over-rated.

ask everyone the question if you want real answers.
 
WCH said:
Obama and stats are highly over-rated.

ask everyone the question if you want real answers.
Click to expand...

So, literally no poll in history has ever been useful. Fun notion.

Wrong, but fun.
 
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...

BS. Christian interference in the secular world is the only reason this has ever been an issue
 
Deuce said:
So, literally no poll in history has ever been useful. Fun notion.

Wrong, but fun.
Click to expand...

I've taken a couple of those polls...the way they're worded is biased and bogus.

Why do you have such a problem with a general vote?
 
WCH said:
I've taken a couple of those polls...the way they're worded is biased and bogus.

Why do you have such a problem with a general vote?
Click to expand...


Here is the Gallup wording: "Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"



Yep, boy that look biased and bogus.



>>>>
 
WCH said:
I've taken a couple of those polls...the way they're worded is biased and bogus.

Why do you have such a problem with a general vote?
Click to expand...

Oh well I guess your personal experience with "a couple of those polls" invalidates all of statistics, and all polls ever. Well, unless they say something favoring Republicans.

As for general votes, I only have a problem with voting in something unconstitutional. If it violates the constitution, I don't care if 100% of the population votes for it. You want to ban same-sex marriage? You need a constitutional amendment to that effect. Until you do, the constitution will continue to trump your ever-fading will of the people.
 
WorldWatcher said:
Here is the Gallup wording: "Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"



Yep, boy that look biased and bogus.



>>>>
Click to expand...

It is. They could have simply asked, "do you think same sex couples should be allowed to marry?" Yes or No. The rest is all superfluous steering.
 
clownboy said:
It is. They could have simply asked, "do you think same sex couples should be allowed to marry?" Yes or No. The rest is all superfluous steering.
Click to expand...

Which part is steering?
 
Deuce said:
Oh well I guess your personal experience with "a couple of those polls" invalidates all of statistics, and all polls ever. Well, unless they say something favoring Republicans.

As for general votes, I only have a problem with voting in something unconstitutional. If it violates the constitution, I don't care if 100% of the population votes for it. You want to ban same-sex marriage? You need a constitutional amendment to that effect. Until you do, the constitution will continue to trump your ever-fading will of the people.
Click to expand...

Well then we disagree. We'll see what happens in actuality.
 
Deuce said:
Which part is steering?
Click to expand...

All the rest of the dressing except for the central question. I was clear about that.

Btw, it also matters where they poll. Polls taken in urban environs are going to turn out differently than those taken in rural environs. The result can easily be steered by polling heavily in one or the other. Pollsters know this.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom