• 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!

Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

Kobie said:
I'm not claiming that SSM would invariably lead to polygamy. I'm just questioning why polygamy should be illegal.

Claiming that legal SSM will invariably lead to legal polygamy is like claiming legal marijuana will invariably lead to legal PCP.
Click to expand...

It's not the same. First off, let's address the question you asked, "Why shouldn't Polygamy be legal". The answer is that it really should. It's just a legal agreement between consenting adults, and that's all that SSM has really been about (sans the whole cake thing which was preposterous). Ultimately, homosexuals want to be treated the same as heterosexuals, in terms of legalities at least, yes? There's nothing in that argument that can't then be applied to Polygamy or a host of others.

And what makes this different from the drug argument is that the same arguments for one, cannot be applied at this time to the other. I mean, at this moment we're just getting a feel of what legalizing marijuana will do. We don't know have a hard grasp of the consequences for what that brings. If this whole experiment blows up in our faces and turns out to be a bad idea, than nothing else ever gets legalized. I don't see how we could ever look back at SSM being legal and say that was a bad idea, see what I'm saying?
 
AGENT J said:
Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage - CNN.com
Click to expand...

What we are seeing is the last refuge of this political fight. It does not matter how many polls we bring up showing strong support for marriage equality, there will be a sizable group across the nation that pushes for legislation like what Cruz is proposing here. Predictably we still have plenty of voters in the SE especially that see this as a State's Rights issue as a potential last fight. Think, similarity to how this fight occurred out in California after the Proposition 8 vote.

My issue at this point is political capital. With the recent success in gaining control of the 114th Congress it could be argued well that the intentions of the voter was to handle economic, some domestic spending, and foreign matters. There is not much evidence that the social barometer of the nation all of a sudden switched direction looking for the 114th Congress to introduce social conservative legislation. But to appease constituents it appears they will try anyway. My worry is these days that is how Democrats can bait Republicans right out of office, at stake is 2016 with Hillary in the wait with whatever 115th Congress she faces.

If Republicans want to stay politically relevant going forward they are going to have to adapt to the social barometer of the nation. Support for marriage equality is doing nothing but going up and the number of States that have fallen one way or another to allow gay marriage is in the majority. Cruz's actions seem to me to be another "prop 8" vote. That was done right before California courts could decide on a few challenges, just as Cruz's proposal is right before the Supreme Court can decide on a few challenges.

The backlash could be enough to compromise Republican momentum headed into 2016, and the last thing we need to do is hand Hillary a bigger win and potentially with a more complicit 115th Congress.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
You're not listening to what I'm saying. The reason it wouldn't apply to women or race is because you are judging them based solely on who they, not what their doing. You feel, and I think many on our side erroneously think so as well, that many of those who oppose SSM do so because they simply hate gays. This isn't some backwater African government that wants to ban any expression or support for homosexuality. What they fear most is what will happen when you start assigning equal rights to legal arrangements and that's all that marriage (straight or gay) is. Once you start assigning those protections to legal arrangements, then you start to move into the territory where stuff like polygamy can be recognized under the law and offered the same treatment as other marriages.
Click to expand...

No i get it, its just that fear is irrational and wrong. There is nothing about equal rights that leads to that nor does any of that have the power to make all marriage just legal arrangements.

thats the whole thing why traditional marriage isnt in danger, a marriage is what you want it to be, if a person wants thier subjective definition of what a traditional marriage is thats what they have

protecting equal rights is nothing new so the fear is irrational and silly and it certainly has no logical basis to deny equal rights . . .
Polygamy would be a NEW right that has nothing to do with marriage as it is now, polygamy wont happen because of gay rights if it happens it will happen simply because people fight for it. THeres no arguments for polygamy solely based on gay rights.

So why the fear, what is it based on rationally and using legality that ties to equal rights for gays?

why this NEW fear now? why didnt it exist for equal rights for women, minorities etc
 
AGENT J said:
No i get it, its just that fear is irrational and wrong. There is nothing about equal rights that leads to that nor does any of that have the power to make all marriage just legal arrangements.

thats the whole thing why traditional marriage isnt in danger, a marriage is what you want it to be, if a person wants thier subjective definition of what a traditional marriage is thats what they have

protecting equal rights is nothing new so the fear is irrational and silly and it certainly has no logical basis to deny equal rights . . .
Polygamy would be a NEW right that has nothing to do with marriage as it is now, polygamy wont happen because of gay rights if it happens it will happen simply because people fight for it. THeres no arguments for polygamy solely based on gay rights.

So why the fear, what is it based on rationally and using legality that ties to equal rights for gays?

why this NEW fear now? why didnt it exist for equal rights for women, minorities etc
Click to expand...

SSM has never been about making sure homosexuals weren't discriminated, but about allowing them access to the same legal protections and goodies that heterosexual couples have. And that's what any marriage, whether it be straight or gay is: a legal agreement between two people that you have to take to the courthouse. And there's no argument that you can give that wouldn't also apply to polygamy, which is why many oppose them. Because really, the only reason we don't allow Polygamy today is because it's a social taboo, as was SSM for the longest time. Once you remove the taboo, you realize there's nothing to stop extending legal protections to them.

And the reason it didn't exist for women or minorities is obvious; you don't go to a courthouse to become black or a woman.
 
nota bene said:
It could be that they are standing up for their sincere belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Click to expand...

thier sincere belief doesn't matter to rights

people had sincere beliefs that women and blacks were lessers too and that there shouldn't be interracial marriage etc etc :shrug: but their feelings didnt matter either

so again the amazement of ignorance is still present, sincere beliefs doesnt change that amazement in fact for me it amplifies it
sincere bigotry in 2015 is sad and amazing at the same time
 
OrphanSlug said:
What we are seeing is the last refuge of this political fight. It does not matter how many polls we bring up showing strong support for marriage equality, there will be a sizable group across the nation that pushes for legislation like what Cruz is proposing here. Predictably we still have plenty of voters in the SE especially that see this as a State's Rights issue as a potential last fight. Think, similarity to how this fight occurred out in California after the Proposition 8 vote.

My issue at this point is political capital. With the recent success in gaining control of the 114th Congress it could be argued well that the intentions of the voter was to handle economic, some domestic spending, and foreign matters. There is not much evidence that the social barometer of the nation all of a sudden switched direction looking for the 114th Congress to introduce social conservative legislation. But to appease constituents it appears they will try anyway. My worry is these days that is how Democrats can bait Republicans right out of office, at stake is 2016 with Hillary in the wait with whatever 115th Congress she faces.

If Republicans want to stay politically relevant going forward they are going to have to adapt to the social barometer of the nation. Support for marriage equality is doing nothing but going up and the number of States that have fallen one way or another to allow gay marriage is in the majority. Cruz's actions seem to me to be another "prop 8" vote. That was done right before California courts could decide on a few challenges, just as Cruz's proposal is right before the Supreme Court can decide on a few challenges.

The backlash could be enough to compromise Republican momentum headed into 2016, and the last thing we need to do is hand Hillary a bigger win and potentially with a more complicit 115th Congress.
Click to expand...

in many ways i agree wholeheartedly and have said so in other threads.
Its not how I think it should be but in 2015 the political atmosphere will make it that way.
any candidate that has recently fought hard against equal rights or makes it part of thier running campaign to overturn it will lose the election, and yes you are right hand Hilary a large win
 
Hamster Buddha said:
1.)SSM has never been about making sure homosexuals weren't discriminated, but about allowing them access to the same legal protections and goodies that heterosexual couples have.
2.) And that's what any marriage, whether it be straight or gay is: a legal agreement between two people that you have to take to the courthouse.
3.) And there's no argument that you can give that wouldn't also apply to polygamy, which is why many oppose them.
4.) Because really, the only reason we don't allow 4.Polygamy today is because it's a social taboo, as was SSM for the longest time.
5.) Once you remove the taboo, you realize there's nothing to stop extending legal protections to them.
6.) And the reason it didn't exist for women or minorities is obvious; you don't go to a courthouse to become black or a woman.
Click to expand...

1.) thats simply 100% false, its always been a second or first stepping stone to many people because people knew they would go hand in hand by design.
2.) correct legal marriage is a legal contract
3.) like i already said there is no legal precedence for arguing solely about equal rights for gays that lones itself to polygamy . . . none . . . zero
if you disagree simply make one, it cant be done
4.) and the fact that polygamy is not a right :shrug: polygamy would be a NEW right, not a fight for equal rights.
5.) this doesnt bother me but again if they want to fight for that new right
6.) that has nothing to do with equal rights :shrug: you dont go to the court house to be gay either LMAO
 
AGENT J said:
1.) thats simply 100% false, its always been a second or first stepping stone to many people because people knew they would go hand in hand by design.
2.) correct legal marriage is a legal contract
3.) like i already said there is no legal precedence for arguing solely about equal rights for gays that lones itself to polygamy . . . none . . . zero
if you disagree simply make one, it cant be done
4.) and the fact that polygamy is not a right :shrug: polygamy would be a NEW right, not a fight for equal rights.
5.) this doesnt bother me but again if they want to fight for that new right
6.) that has nothing to do with equal rights :shrug: you dont go to the court house to be gay either LMAO
Click to expand...

Let me sum this up because I'm not going to go over the same points again:

You have a right to be Gay in the US, you do not have the right to Gay Marriage.
 
nota bene said:
It could be that they are standing up for their sincere belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Click to expand...

And it could be that conservatives are once again standing up for more laws, fewer rights and freedoms and more of the Bible in the justice system. There's a widening gulf between how conservatives talk and how they walk.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Let me sum this up because I'm not going to go over the same points again:

You have a right to be Gay in the US, you do not have the right to Gay Marriage.
Click to expand...

And then again, conservatives will tell you that rights aren't given, they're inherent. Well, gays have that right in most states and will in all despite the best efforts of conservative petty tyrants.
'Legal' is the default setting and you need a damn good reason before you make something illegal. In my philosophy, anyway, but I'm liberal so I don't approve of government meddling where it doesn't belong.
 
Grand Mal said:
And then again, conservatives will tell you that rights aren't given, they're inherent. Well, gays have that right in most states and will in all despite the best efforts of conservative petty tyrants.
'Legal' is the default setting and you need a damn good reason before you make something illegal. In my philosophy, anyway, but I'm liberal so I don't approve of government meddling where it doesn't belong.
Click to expand...

Strange definition of Liberal. But regardless, honestly the government shouldn't be in the position of defining marriage in the first place. Again though, it's really not about discriminating gays as it is preventing a slippery slope where other doors are then opened.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Strange definition of Liberal. But regardless, honestly the government shouldn't be in the position of defining marriage in the first place. Again though, it's really not about discriminating gays as it is preventing a slippery slope where other doors are then opened.
Click to expand...

I'd say most conservatives have a strange definition of conservatism, considering they approve of more laws, fewer rights and freedoms, more power for the police, more religion in government, etc.
Those other doors should never have been closed. Liberals pried them open for women's suffrage and black civil rights and liberals are still prying doors open despite the best efforts of those petty tyrants.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
No, that's what I'm saying. SSM is an issue, must like drugs incidentally, that the nation has been softening on for about a decade. And there are serious legal issues raises when you try to extend the 14th amendment to protect legal agreements (which is really what SSM is all about). It opens up the doors for all sorts of other issues like incest and polygamy. I'm not saying that loving someone of the same sex is a choice, but to enter into a legal agreement that says such is. See the difference?
Click to expand...

There is no "slippery slope" and there is no reason to think that current bans on incest and polygamy will be declared unconstitutional. I'm afraid those that believe so are just showing their bigotry against SSM.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Let me sum this up because I'm not going to go over the same points again:You have a right to be Gay in the US, you do not have the right to Gay Marriage.
Click to expand...
`
That's changing thankfully.
 
iguanaman said:
There is no "slippery slope" and there is no reason to think that current bans on incest and polygamy will be declared unconstitutional. I'm afraid those that believe so are just showing their bigotry against SSM.
Click to expand...

I've yet to hear an argument for allowing SSM that couldn't be applied to polygamy or incest.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Let me sum this up because I'm not going to go over the same points again:

You have a right to be Gay in the US, you do not have the right to Gay Marriage.
Click to expand...

what does that statement change? marriage is a right :shrug:
 
Paxaeon said:
`
That's changing thankfully.
Click to expand...

I want them to have the ability, it's clearly a form of discrimination for government to favor one form of marriage over the other. It's just the consequences that we'll have to deal with that makes it less savory..

AGENT J said:
what does that statement change? marriage is a right :shrug:
Click to expand...

Marriage is a right? Must of missed that in the Constitution.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Let me sum this up because I'm not going to go over the same points again:

You have a right to be Gay in the US, you do not have the right to Gay Marriage.
Click to expand...

Demonstrably untrue in 37 states now.
 
AGENT J said:
I dont totally disagree but is that his end game? just making the religious extremist and right fringe happy?
Not that I think he ever had a shot but does he not care to be POTUS?
Click to expand...

There are plenty of fundies who would vote for him for POTUS, but because he's a one-sided candidate, aiming at an ever-shrinking audience, this is why the Republicans fail so often, they only put up religious wingnut candidates that the wider secular voters wouldn't look at for a moment. The Republicans will continue to fail until they get it through their heads that religion isn't going to win elections.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
I've yet to hear an argument for allowing SSM that couldn't be applied to polygamy or incest.
Click to expand...

you keep saying this yet none exist solely based on SSM . . not one. . .this is why you can't provide any

people can apply anything they want doesn't mean it will be base on legality, facts or precedence

people argue illegal discrimination is actually legal for many reason doesnt mean it holds water lol
 
Cephus said:
There are plenty of fundies who would vote for him for POTUS, but because he's a one-sided candidate, aiming at an ever-shrinking audience, this is why the Republicans fail so often, they only put up religious wingnut candidates that the wider secular voters wouldn't look at for a moment. The Republicans will continue to fail until they get it through their heads that religion isn't going to win elections.
Click to expand...

Funny, it didn't seem to hurt them in 2014...
 
Cephus said:
There are plenty of fundies who would vote for him for POTUS, but because he's a one-sided candidate, aiming at an ever-shrinking audience, this is why the Republicans fail so often, they only put up religious wingnut candidates that the wider secular voters wouldn't look at for a moment. The Republicans will continue to fail until they get it through their heads that religion isn't going to win elections.
Click to expand...

oh im sure he'd get votes, the extremists and hardcore boter will simply vote for thier own no matter what, thats true of all parties but he wont be president

and yes even as a person of religion, any platform that forces religion will never get my vote
 
AGENT J said:
Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage - CNN.com



wow what a waste of time and money, also nothing like making sure you wont be president either lol Equal rights is coming bigots . .. give it up

again im not saying this one topic SHOULD decide who could be president but any candidate that comes out against equal rights and they make it "PART OF THEIR CAMPAIGN AND RUNNING PLATFORM" is sure to lose lol

its just the way politics will be in 2016

lastly traditional marriage is in no danger by equal rights, its a made up subjective thing, it wont be impacted at all

next "the obama administration forcing it"? It doesnt get any dumber than that. :lamo

good lord
the war is over but its entertaining seeing the last desperate attempts of bigotry, it shows peoples true colors
Click to expand...

I'll bet Cruz has a different opinion on state's rights for marijuana...

He is throwing out red meat to an ever decreasing base of rabid folks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom