• 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!

Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

roguenuke said:
No, you really haven't accurately portrayed the arguments at all, or the people who support any of those things you mentioned, not as a whole at least. You have portrayed your perception of the situation, which is highly skewed and exaggerated.

Either you are going to actually look at things rationally and accept that both sides do what you say, but neither to the level you are portraying it to be, or you weren't going to be a real ally in the first place, just someone looking for an excuse to be against something.
Click to expand...

I have accurately portrayed the arguments. You need to look at the situation rationally, rather than in the denial you appear to be satisfied with.

People simply voicing an opinion, or exercising their rights, have been subject to ridicule and professional destruction. Consider the founder and former CEO of Mozilla. He made a donation to a cause he believed in, and was professionally destroyed for doing so. There are 1,000's of examples of this.
 
ocean515 said:
LOL

Really? That is your question? Phantom group? So you don't think there is a liberal/progressive agenda that transcends the topic of the OP?

That's too funny.
Click to expand...


LOL.....THAT is what you are talking about? Okie Dokie........No....I don't think there is a liberal/progressive agenda to change the social construct/culture of America. I do think there is a liberal/progressive agenda to maintain our culture against a push by the radical right-wing to infiltrate our society with their perverted versions of "Christianity". They aren't content to practice freely in their churches/homes.....they want to use their religion to write their own rules....and that is something that America....(not just liberals) is not going to stand for.
 
disneydude said:
LOL.....THAT is what you are talking about? Okie Dokie........No....I don't think there is a liberal/progressive agenda to change the social construct/culture of America. I do think there is a liberal/progressive agenda to maintain our culture against a push by the radical right-wing to infiltrate our society with their perverted versions of "Christianity". They aren't content to practice freely in their churches/homes.....they want to use their religion to write their own rules....and that is something that America....(not just liberals) is not going to stand for.
Click to expand...

LOL

So all these societal changes aren't changes? Man, denial is alive and well in the liberal/progressive world. Explains much.
 
ocean515 said:
LOL

So all these societal changes aren't changes? Man, denial is alive and well in the liberal/progressive world. Explains much.
Click to expand...

Honestly I don't see how marriage equality changes the culture of America at all. Did inter-racial marriage change the culture of America? Not really.....I guess if you wanna expand on your point....you could argue that the civil rights movement of the 50's-60's "changed" the culture of America as did giving women the right to vote, the Emancipation proclamation. I guess they all "changed" the culture of America in one perspective....or they furthered the culture of America in another perspective. In your mind....should the culture of America remain static?
 
roguenuke said:
Then perhaps you should consider why it is exactly that you feel that churches would be forced to perform same sex marriages in the US, since that is not in any way a logical position to have, considering the huge amount of opposition to it and the protection against it written into our Constitution. While it is possible, the probability of it happening, especially in the lifetime of anyone living today, including those still in utero, is extremely small, so only paranoia would lead someone to think it is something likely to happen based on this decision, especially just because of this decision.
Click to expand...

If you have something to say, which I suspect you think you do, please attempt to read and comprehend my post before commenting, and please try to make a point that makes sense and doesn't require me to waste 30 seconds reading through babble, as I just did.
 
disneydude said:
Honestly I don't see how marriage equality changes the culture of America at all. Did inter-racial marriage change the culture of America? Not really.....I guess if you wanna expand on your point....you could argue that the civil rights movement of the 50's-60's "changed" the culture of America as did giving women the right to vote, the Emancipation proclamation. I guess they all "changed" the culture of America in one perspective....or they furthered the culture of America in another perspective. In your mind....should the culture of America remain static?
Click to expand...

If you're not going to read the content of a post, why comment on it? I haven't suggested same sex marriage is going to singularly change the culture of America. Please point out where I did that.

You're posts are a great example of circular confusion. In one post you suggest nothing has changed, and indeed the effort is to keep Christians from changing it, and in other you write changes have and will occur, and imply the Nation shouldn't remain static.

Perhaps you could pick a position and remain consistent, or just flail about for the sake of it.
 
Sykes said:
No, the left is over-the-moon ecstatic about it because we know it is fair, just, and long overdue.

The meltdown on the right is just icing on the gay cake someone was forced to bake.
Click to expand...

"Love wins". The best part of love winning is "nanny nanny boo boo!".

Such contradiction in 2 short sentences. Odd.
 
ocean515 said:
If you're not going to read the content of a post, why comment on it? I haven't suggested same sex marriage is going to singularly change the culture of America. Please point out where I did that.

You're posts are a great example of circular confusion. In one post you suggest nothing has changed, and indeed the effort is to keep Christians from changing it, and in other you write changes have and will occur, and imply the Nation shouldn't remain static.

Perhaps you could pick a position and remain consistent, or just flail about for the sake of it.
Click to expand...

I understand fully what your ridiculous assertion is. I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of it. Your claims teeter on paranoia.....that there is some big bad progressive/liberal agenda to fundamentally change the culture of America. In your mind....marriage equality is just one example of a larger agenda. My position is completely consistent. I guess if you adopt your view EVERYTHING changes the culture of America in one way or another. I don't view it that way. Examples like the Emancipation proclamation, voting rights for women, the civil rights movement, marriage equality are all extensions of the American Culture/Society of freedom and justice for all....and all are consistent with our Constitutional guarantees. They certainly all involved "change" but not change that fundamentally changed the culture of America. THAT is where you are dead wrong. Sorry.
 
disneydude said:
I understand fully what your ridiculous assertion is. I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of it. Your claims teeter on paranoia.....that there is some big bad progressive/liberal agenda to fundamentally change the culture of America. In your mind....marriage equality is just one example of a larger agenda. My position is completely consistent. I guess if you adopt your view EVERYTHING changes the culture of America in one way or another. I don't view it that way. Examples like the Emancipation proclamation, voting rights for women, the civil rights movement, marriage equality are all extensions of the American Culture/Society of freedom and justice for all....and all are consistent with our Constitutional guarantees. They certainly all involved "change" but not change that fundamentally changed the culture of America. THAT is where you are dead wrong. Sorry.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Ridiculous assertion, fear, paranoia,....

You are an example of that of which I write. Unable to articulate a point, you just devolve into grade school name calling to defend the agenda.

I have no time for such an age group.

Have a nice day.
 
disneydude said:
that there is some big bad progressive/liberal agenda to fundamentally change the culture of America.
Click to expand...

If there is not, why does your president talk so fondly of his goal of fundamentally transforming this country? He dislikes most things about it, just as most leftists do.

Examples like the Emancipation proclamation, voting rights for women, the civil rights movement, marriage equality are all extensions of the American Culture/Society of freedom and justice for all....and all are consistent with our Constitutional guarantees.
Click to expand...

Just the opposite is true of Obergefell. It is a direct threat to democratic rule and has nothing whatever to do with the Constitution. It is a substantive due process exercise in judicial fiat, much like Roe v. Wade was. I hope states will heed Justice Scalia's reminder that the Supreme Court has no way to enforce its decisions, and show this one the contempt it deserves.
 
disneydude said:
I understand fully what your ridiculous assertion is. I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of it. Your claims teeter on paranoia.....that there is some big bad progressive/liberal agenda to fundamentally change the culture of America. In your mind....marriage equality is just one example of a larger agenda. My position is completely consistent. I guess if you adopt your view EVERYTHING changes the culture of America in one way or another. I don't view it that way. Examples like the Emancipation proclamation, voting rights for women, the civil rights movement, marriage equality are all extensions of the American Culture/Society of freedom and justice for all....and all are consistent with our Constitutional guarantees. They certainly all involved "change" but not change that fundamentally changed the culture of America. THAT is where you are dead wrong. Sorry.
Click to expand...



There isn't even any consistency in that post.

First, you lose the argument because the first half is personal insults, typical "debate" from the socialist crowd in here. Second there IS a "progressive" agenda, it's called Obama's administration and it HAS been wreaking change, big bad change. Change is not limited to such grandiose ideas as the emancipation proclamation, but comes daily in small and big ways.

Obama has changed the culture of the nation in many ways, the left is far more ugly and personal, has far more hate, and the nation has been saddled with the greatest burden of health care in the known universe.

and THAT is where YOU are dead wrong.

I suggest you do some reading..
 
matchlight said:
If the guarantee of equal protection applies as broadly as the proponents of the homosexual agenda have never tired of claiming, why would a state not violate it by arbitrarily drawing the line at first cousins? Consanguinity restrictions were included in marriage laws because people realized the incidence of birth defects in offspring increased the more closely the parents were related by blood. That rationale obviously disappears where the partners are the same sex.

I don't see what legitimate government purpose will be served any longer either by those restrictions or by state laws against adult incest outside marriage, where the partners are of the same sex. And if one or both were permanently sterile, why wouldn't it be an arbitrary injustice to deny a brother and sister the same right to marry each other? As Chief Justice Roberts noted, laws against plural marriage very well may not survive either.
Click to expand...

There are reasonable state interests in not allowing closer than first cousins to be involved in sexual relations, especially if one grew up around the other, related to either undue influence in the relationship (real grooming) or there is a chance of offspring with birth defects (for 1st level relations, it can be close to 40% or more), or both are concerns. I don't really see any reason not to allow case by case bases of marriage between siblings, even blood siblings, if they weren't raised together, since there is little likelihood of undue influence on the relationship.

There are state interests involved in limiting number of legal spouses as well. They don't involve tradition, "think of the children" with no science to back up any harm to children, or random possibilities of an unknown future, nor should the argument involve "the people voted for this" (since most of these laws were put in place by legislatures). It will revolve around how legal marriage works and protects the spouses from other legal family members, society (in some ways) and each other. The arguments prior to any court challenge should include looking for ways to actually change some marriage laws to accommodate multiple spouses in a marriage (but not a person having multiple spouses not joined, since that would be a legal nightmare and have the potential for harming current spouses who might not know about new spouses).

As with any SC battle, such cases would be decided on their own arguments, both for and against, not mainly on previous cases.
 
disneydude said:
I understand fully what your ridiculous assertion is. I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of it. Your claims teeter on paranoia.....that there is some big bad progressive/liberal agenda to fundamentally change the culture of America. In your mind....marriage equality is just one example of a larger agenda. My position is completely consistent. I guess if you adopt your view EVERYTHING changes the culture of America in one way or another. I don't view it that way. Examples like the Emancipation proclamation, voting rights for women, the civil rights movement, marriage equality are all extensions of the American Culture/Society of freedom and justice for all....and all are consistent with our Constitutional guarantees. They certainly all involved "change" but not change that fundamentally changed the culture of America. THAT is where you are dead wrong. Sorry.
Click to expand...

So Dude, do you see anything at all being proposed, explored, or even positively discussed as a natural next step given the SC reasoning in their marriage decision?
You don't have to agree with it, but has any occured to you?
 
disneydude said:
I understand fully what your ridiculous assertion is. I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of it. Your claims teeter on paranoia.....that there is some big bad progressive/liberal agenda to fundamentally change the culture of America. In your mind....marriage equality is just one example of a larger agenda. My position is completely consistent. I guess if you adopt your view EVERYTHING changes the culture of America in one way or another. I don't view it that way. Examples like the Emancipation proclamation, voting rights for women, the civil rights movement, marriage equality are all extensions of the American Culture/Society of freedom and justice for all....and all are consistent with our Constitutional guarantees. They certainly all involved "change" but not change that fundamentally changed the culture of America. THAT is where you are dead wrong. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Lol. Do you somehow not understand that all of those changed the culture of the country in pretty fundamental ways? Rights movement like the LBGT and feminists movement are all about changing cultural views and attitudes to gain whatever they are after.
 
Henrin said:
Lol. Do you somehow not understand that all of those changed the culture of the country in pretty fundamental ways?
Click to expand...

Not really. Advanced the culture I think would be more accurate.
 
bubbabgone said:
So Dude, do you see anything at all being proposed, explored, or even positively discussed as a natural next step given the SC reasoning in their marriage decision?
You don't have to agree with it, but has any occured to you?
Click to expand...

No. I don't accept Scalia and Roberts slippery slope analogies. The majority opinion is completely consistent with stare decisis and consistent with our Constitutional guarantees.
 
disneydude said:
No. I don't accept Scalia and Roberts slippery slope analogies. The majority opinion is completely consistent with stare decisis and consistent with our Constitutional guarantees.
Click to expand...

Given the USSC ruling seems to have been based on "dignity" being a Constitutional right, what's to prevent the slippery slope?
 
Henrin said:
That's pretty subjective really.
Click to expand...

Isn't it all subjective? I see all of those decisions as not fundamentally "changing" our culture....because America has always strived to be a society of Freedom and Justice for ALL. Sometimes we have been slow to get there, but eventually we do. I guess if you support the traditional "Justice for white male property owners" only...then you could argue that all of these changes "fundamentally changed the culture of America"....but not if you adhere to the principles upon which this great country was founded.
 
tres borrachos said:
"Love wins". The best part of love winning is "nanny nanny boo boo!".

Such contradiction in 2 short sentences. Odd.
Click to expand...

In my first few seconds of reading Obergefell, I saw the majority talking about a "dynamic," and I knew the rest would be junk. Anthony Kennedy and his four co-conspirators were clever to dress this lawless piece of garbage up as a paean to love--they should have been wearing tie-dye robes and sandals, with flowers in their hair. Some of us, though, had thought the Supreme Court's job was not to spread the love of all things homosexual, but rather to determine what this or that part of the Constitution meant, in a particular case. Some of us had thought it still took that job seriously.

Justice Scalia's thoroughly justified mockery of the decision's repeated use of noble-sounding but utterly meaningless gobbledygook is just one of the attacks in the dissenting opinions that hit their target dead center. Like Roe, another substantive due process hot mess, Obergefell will be remembered as an embarrassing performance that does not even come close to meeting the standards expected of a Supreme Court decision. It appeals to dim bulbs who can't reason.
 
bubbabgone said:
Given the USSC ruling seems to have been based on "dignity" being a Constitutional right, what's to prevent the slippery slope?
Click to expand...

That's an oversimplification of the holding, so its a little difficult to respond. What exactly are you afraid of?
 
ocean515 said:
Ok. How does that change anything?
Click to expand...

Putting off marriage until they are mature enough (or at least they believe so) and/or financially/educationally secure enough to handle marriage best is better for society and marriages. It means that more people are actually thinking about their marriage in a responsible way rather than "I want to have sex, I should get married" or "I got pregnant, I need to get married" or "I love him/her so much, we should get married (wonder what my last name will be)".
 
matchlight said:
In my first few seconds of reading Obergefell, I saw the majority talking about a "dynamic," and I knew the rest would be junk. Anthony Kennedy and his four co-conspirators were clever to dress this lawless piece of garbage up as a paean to love--they should have been wearing tie-dye robes and sandals, with flowers in their hair. Some of us, though, had thought the Supreme Court's job was not to spread the love of all things homosexual, but rather to determine what this or that part of the Constitution meant, in a particular case. Some of us had thought it still took that job seriously.

Justice Scalia's thoroughly justified mockery of the decision's repeated use of noble-sounding but utterly meaningless gobbledygook is just one of the attacks in the dissenting opinions that hit their target dead center. Like Roe, another substantive due process hot mess, Obergefell will be remembered as an embarrassing performance that does not even come close to meeting the standards expected of a Supreme Court decision. It appeals to dim bulbs who can't reason.
Click to expand...


If you think that Scalia's vitriolic dissent was becoming of Supreme Court Justice and was founded in logic....then I think it speaks clearly as to what constitutes a "dim bulb".
 
bubbabgone said:
Given the USSC ruling seems to have been based on "dignity" being a Constitutional right, what's to prevent the slippery slope?
Click to expand...

Greetings, bubba. :2wave:

Dignity is earned by your actions, not given by a piece of paper. It may take a while for that to sink in...
 
disneydude said:
That's an oversimplification
Click to expand...
of the holding, so its a little difficult to respond.
What exactly are you afraid of?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

It's not an oversimplification.

I take it you've not thought beyond this ruling and what it could portend, your efforts to divert from the question notwithstanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom