• 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!

DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

Where in the Constitution does it say anything concerning atrernative life styles?

Nowhere. But by the same token, it doesn't condemn alternative lifestyles either. So where is this justification to ban active participation in a government sanctioned institution?

There isn't one. But what else do we have to do except fight back using the same system?
Call me old fashioned, but I don't recall granting the SCOTUS legislative authority.

I never once advocated that they should.


These are government entities that you are up against. Their pocket book is limitless. I think you have to win the hearts and minds of the voter to win overall.


You may think that, but if you saw first hand what happened here in California this last election, you would understand that the major opposition is these family values lobbies and their source of funding does have a limit. How often do you think they are gonna go to their churches and ask for a "special offering" to raise money against gay marriage before people just say, "screw it. I don't have to marry a homo so it doesn't matter to me."


Thank you.





Gone about in the proper way, I see no reason to disagree. But, a subversion exists when you speak of law through judicial fiat IMHO.

I think it's necessary to combat the opposition that is trying to use judicial fiat to stop us from doing what is not currently illegal.


Using your own definition here, tell me how the supposed "right to marry" is not negated as destructive to society as you define it above.

***Personally, I don't think it would necessarly be, but rather if gone about in the heavy handed way you describe, I think it would be.****


j-mac

First, I never stated there was a right to marry. There isn't a "right to marry" for gays or straights. But there is a right to equal treatment by our government and if the government is going to grant legal, financial, and social privileges to heterosexuals for marrying, then there is no choice but to grant those same privileges to homosexuals who marry.

With that out of the way, I need you clarify the rest of what you are asking. I'm not understanding what it is you want me to explain...
 
I don't think that these arguments have any merit at all. However, if one wanted to open that door, the argument could go along religious grounds, since the term "Married" is most often affiliated with a church ceremony. Could not one argue civil unions with all the legal bindings of an actual church ceremony are one in the same?


j-mac

The problem with this idea is that the outcome of a Justice of the Peace wedding (i.e. non-religious ceremony) is marriage. Therefore the precedence has already been set that marriages do not have to be religious. Therefore if non-religious ceremonies can be marriages, why can't gay marriage? You can't use religion as a crutch anymore on marriages.

Me personally, I think all government sanctioned unions should be civil unions and then let whatever institution (religion or not) call them marriages.
 
Last edited:
The problem with this idea is that the outcome of a Justice of the Peace wedding (i.e. non-religious ceremony) is marriage. Therefore the precedence has already been set that marriages do not have to be religious. Therefore if non-religious ceremonies can be marriages, why can't gay marriage? You can't use religion as a crutch anymore on marriages.

Me personally, I think all government sanctioned unions should be civil unions and then let whatever institution (religion or not) call them marriages.

This would be nice, and much easier, though you know some hard core folks would still bitch...about a ****ing WORD.
 
Nowhere. But by the same token, it doesn't condemn alternative lifestyles either. So where is this justification to ban active participation in a government sanctioned institution?

There isn't one. But what else do we have to do except fight back using the same system?


I think you always have alternatives to 'in your face' style politic. One way that has been very effective, in the NE anyway, is to highlight more monogamous couples that have benefited the local society, instead of the flamboyant.


I never once advocated that they should.


I may have misinterpreted, Sorry if that is the case.


You may think that, but if you saw first hand what happened here in California this last election, you would understand that the major opposition is these family values lobbies and their source of funding does have a limit. How often do you think they are gonna go to their churches and ask for a "special offering" to raise money against gay marriage before people just say, "screw it. I don't have to marry a homo so it doesn't matter to me."


I never have. But then again I don't buy that you marrying 'Steve' is going to cause a rift in my marriage. Plus, I think that if you are committed, then you should be able to enjoy the ups, and the downs.


I think it's necessary to combat the opposition that is trying to use judicial fiat to stop us from doing what is not currently illegal.


then what of the votes that have taken place? throw them out?


First, I never stated there was a right to marry. There isn't a "right to marry" for gays or straights. But there is a right to equal treatment by our government and if the government is going to grant legal, financial, and social privileges to heterosexuals for marrying, then there is no choice but to grant those same privileges to homosexuals who marry.


Ok, what you are talking about is the issuance of a Marriage license right? Also the priviliages that current married couples enjoy from marriage right? Then what about a civil union?


With that out of the way, I need you clarify the rest of what you are asking. I'm not understanding what it is you want me to explain...


Well, you listed off some things in your response like: Division politics, yet you say that now is the time that the gay community use that as a tactic. also, personal adherence to tradition, would seem to fly in the face of the gay argument.


j-mac
 
This would be nice, and much easier, though you know some hard core folks would still bitch...about a ****ing WORD.

Of course they would, but at least there wouldn't be any legal ramification of the argument like there is now. It would be considered opinion, instead of legal precedence.
 
The problem with this idea is that the outcome of a Justice of the Peace wedding (i.e. non-religious ceremony) is marriage. Therefore the precedence has already been set that marriages do not have to be religious. Therefore if non-religious ceremonies can be marriages, why can't gay marriage? You can't use religion as a crutch anymore on marriages.

Me personally, I think all government sanctioned unions should be civil unions and then let whatever institution (religion or not) call them marriages.


Exactly my point. My wife and I have been married for 23 years. It was a civil union, largely because the church priest was too mired in the old ways of the church to lend the church's blessing. I haven't been back, and after he screamed at me that it would never last. I'd love to invite him to our 25th anniversary in two years. :lol:


j-mac
 
Of course they would, but at least there wouldn't be any legal ramification of the argument like there is now. It would be considered opinion, instead of legal precedence.

Well I suggest you call your Congressional Reps and tell them of this brilliant idea. Since separation of Church and State is a pretty good grounds for this, I think you might even get your name on the bill. ;)


HR 9999 NextEra Public-Marriage Bill...I can see it now...

We could try and do something like Germany, at least I think they still do this, where if you wish to get married you are required to get married by the state (i.e. legal and binding union in the eyes of the law) and then you have the option to get married in a church or religious ceremony if you want to.
 
I'm not even concerned that GM is being shot down in other areas. As long as a few States have it for now, that is a great first step. It will provide a working model for other States that have fears or are simply on the fence to show them that households with gay partnerships are as normal and functional as heterosexual setups.

Some areas of the nation will never see gay marriage. Others will. America is not a one size fits all country. The states can decide if they want it or not. As for the Federal government, it's none of their damn business.
 
FFS Tex, stop it. You're really being ridiculous on this one, and I don't know why...

You cannot compare marriage to murder.

I'm not comparing them. I'm pointing out the ridiculousness of pretending a catch all phrase covers your specific argument.
 
Some areas of the nation will never see gay marriage. Others will. America is not a one size fits all country. The states can decide if they want it or not. As for the Federal government, it's none of their damn business.


Doesn't the Federal part come in when a marriage has to be recognized by another state?


j-mac
 
When logic fails, bring up 12 year olds getting marriage, polygamy and murder. Bestiality comes next, wait for it. Appeals to emotion are so weak, and so predictable.

And when evidence of your claim of genetics fails, run for the hills or don't read your own studies that refute your argument.
 
And when evidence of your claim of genetics fails, run for the hills or don't read your own studies that refute your argument.

You never understood my argument. You also never supported yours.
 
I'm not comparing them. I'm pointing out the ridiculousness of pretending a catch all phrase covers your specific argument.

It did cover it in relation to the phrase right before it. When taken as a whole, it clearly covers marriage. Murder is not covered, because it does not fit the whole thing.
 
You never understood my argument. You also never supported yours.

Yes I did. I even quoted your study.

And my argument was based on your inability to prove your original claim of genetics.
 
It did cover it in relation to the phrase right before it. When taken as a whole, it clearly covers marriage. Murder is not covered, because it does not fit the whole thing.

No it does not.

It never says marriage, unions or anything of the sort. You are not reading. You are spinning the law and claiming it covers something that was never mentioned.

That is why you run for the hills when I demand you quote the specific part that claims that.

All you do is run back to a general phrase then dishonestly claim it covers your specific argument. Using your logic, I could make any claim and point back to that phrase then claim it covers my specific point.
 
Yes I did. I even quoted your study.

And my argument was based on your inability to prove your original claim of genetics.

No, you specifically claimed that the cause was not genetic, in explicit terms. I however, never claimed it was genetic, only that we do not know for sure and there is evidence that it might be.
 
No, you specifically claimed that the cause was not genetic, in explicit terms. I however, never claimed it was genetic, only that we do not know for sure and there is evidence that it might be.

Because you didn't read the entire thread. I was demanding evidence from people who made the genetic claim on page 1.

As I have already told you. You simply did not read who began that argument.
 
No it does not.

It never says marriage, unions or anything of the sort. You are not reading. You are spinning the law and claiming it covers something that was never mentioned.

That is why you run for the hills when I demand you quote the specific part that claims that.

All you do is run back to a general phrase then dishonestly claim it covers your specific argument. Using your logic, I could make any claim and point back to that phrase then claim it covers my specific point.

So marriage is not "an aspect of life"? If it is, then it is covered, if it is not, I am curious to hear you explain how it isn't.
 
Yes I did. I even quoted your study.

And my argument was based on your inability to prove your original claim of genetics.

Which doesn't constitute proof. You obviously still don't get it. :doh
 
So marriage is not "an aspect of life"? If it is, then it is covered, if it is not, I am curious to hear you explain how it isn't.

No, it is not because it is not in that law.

Everything is an aspect of life.

Death is an aspect of life
Children are an aspect of live
Poverty is an aspect of life
and the list is endless.

Is is a general phrase you are trying to shoehorn a specific argument into.
 
Which doesn't constitute proof. You obviously still don't get it. :doh

What part of page 1 do you not understand?

Take a look. The first claim was that it was genetic.

After that, the burden of proof is on the people who claim that.

They failed.
 
Ok, what you are talking about is the issuance of a Marriage license right? Also the priviliages that current married couples enjoy from marriage right? Then what about a civil union?

There was a time I believed that a civil union was a fair compromise. However, I have come to the conclusion that issuing a separate but equal license will only lead to further attempts by the opposition to legally tie up the rights granted by the civil union. If the license is the exact same, right down to the name, I see much less wiggle room for them to try to diminish our rights and freedoms without doing the same to theirs.


Well, you listed off some things in your response like: Division politics, yet you say that now is the time that the gay community use that as a tactic. also, personal adherence to tradition, would seem to fly in the face of the gay argument.


j-mac

I said division politics that pit liberty against religion. Secularism vs Fundamentalism. Mainstreaming the extremes of both parties during elections but then spurning them when the election is over. Pitting left against right over the devil in the details when the whole time, both parties are after the exact same thing: peaceful coexistence within a plural society.

Adherence to tradition, personally, doesn't fly in the face of gay marriage. It is a nod to recognizing your traditions are yours and don't have to be validated by society as a whole. Respect for our elders, passing moral instruction to our children, observance of holidays and religious celebrations...these things don't need to be codefied into law. People need to take responsibility for these practices as individuals regardless of what society says.
 
What part of page 1 do you not understand?

Take a look. The first claim was that it was genetic.

After that, the burden of proof is on the people who claim that.

They failed.

Could you point me to the specific post? I'm not seeing it.
 
Back
Top Bottom