• 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!

Texas court hearing case to limit gay marriage legalization[W:262]

Re: Texas court hearing case to limit gay marriage legalization

JasperL said:
I have no idea why you're taking this discussion down that rathole.
Click to expand...

Because that is the critical presupposition that you are ignoring - positive Rights do not exist, ergo, this particular claim to one is incorrect.

Don't think I've said such a right exists. And Volokh describes the right as an equality right, which you keep intentionally ignoring, preferring to troll and create straw men.
Click to expand...

No, the fact that Rights are negative is sort of what you call "key".

Second, not sure why you're ignoring the relevant part of my posts to split hairs. I'll repeat myself. If you want to address it, fine, if not, have a good evening:
Click to expand...

Because they are not relevant, as you are attempting to discuss something which does not exist . It's like getting into an argument over who has the fastest unicorn.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
beefheart said:
Texas.....nuff' said.

(I'll bet you that some of them people behind this are deeply closeted...its how they are)
Click to expand...

Actually i can't tell if it's more texas or republicans. It seems a national never ending problem as far as that party is concerned. The senate can't even pass ENDA, something 70% of the population supports, because there isn't even 10 republicans willing to vote for it. That's true in 30 state legislatures as well

Then again, texas would be just the 2nd state to go out of its way to ban even a few cities from preventing discrimination. So yeah, the state is ****ed up on top of that, and just think of the twisted argument on their part - don't ever tolerate federal authority, but the cities like dallas have to submit to state authority
 
Re: Texas court hearing case to limit gay marriage legalization

cpwill said:
Because that is the critical presupposition that you are ignoring - positive Rights do not exist, ergo, this particular claim to one is incorrect.
Click to expand...

OK, whatever. I have no interest in debating this particular red herring.

No, the fact that Rights are negative is sort of what you call "key".
Click to expand...

Key to what? It's sure as hell not key to this discussion - it's semantics, pedantry. Let's back up. Here's your statement that started this line of debate:

"The SSM movement decided the battle would be fought in the courts. That was the [wrong] decision from a good governance standpoint, but it's what they chose."
Click to expand...

So the issue is whether or not the court system was an appropriate venue to for gays to fight for SSM. You said no and I think that's silly. SSM proponents believed that the 14th amendment required states to issue licenses to same sex couples on the same terms as straight couples, and the Supreme Court said, "Yes, that is correct!!" In layman's terms, the SC decided gays have a right to marry. Pedants and constitutional lawyers would perhaps articulate the question at issue, that "right," in negative terms, but it's irrelevant to our discussion. Bottom line is the issue is whether the 14A applied to SSM, and prohibited the states from discriminating against gay couples by prohibiting them from marrying, and the court is OBVIOUSLY an appropriate venue to determine that, and they DID, proving the point.

Because they are not relevant, as you are attempting to discuss something which does not exist . It's like getting into an argument over who has the fastest unicorn.
Click to expand...

What does not exist? The 14A, and the principles of due process, and equal protection don't exist? The Court's role in interpreting the reach of the Constitution and specifically the 14A doesn't exist?
 
Re: Texas court hearing case to limit gay marriage legalization

Moderate Right said:
Intergrity? This from the guy who puts a LMAO in every post he makes?
Click to expand...

AGENT J said:
LMAO
The topic is about marriage, equal rights and illegal discrimination. Your posts contained false justification and analogies about that. So Ill ask you again in relation to the legal marriage in regards to there can't be illegal discrimination to answer the questions:
Is there a RIGHT to drive? yes or no
Is there a RIGHT to smoke anywhere you want? yes or no
Thanks!
Click to expand...

We are waiting, please answer the questions, thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom