• 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

texmaster said:
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.
Click to expand...

And those all fit within the meaning of the law. You have to be treated the same in life, the same in death, the same in poverty or wealth. Your murder example however did not fit within the meaning of the law since it is not an aspect of life.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Could you point me to the specific post? I'm not seeing it.
Click to expand...

Page 1.

Count on the courts to step in and "correct" a grave injustice to the civil rights of homosexuals.
Click to expand...

The Civil Rights Movement 1955-1965: Introduction

The civil rights movement was about African American equality and in some cases equality for women.

Both African Americans and women are defined by genetics. It is not a lifestyle.

Page 3

so did interracial marriage. btw, a goat can't consent.

Again, a comparison of homosexuality to race.

To make such a comparison requires a common thread. Genetics would be the only common thread.

Another example page 11

so it was ok for that minister not to marry the interracial couple? oh, he wasn't a minister? a justice of the peace?

So the race comparison was made not once, not twice but at least 3 times probably more before I ever joined the thread on page 19.


So yes, the claim was made long before I ever even joined making the burden of proof on the people who made and support that claim.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Could you point me to the specific post? I'm not seeing it.
Click to expand...

Here, this is the one I refer to.

texmaster said:
There is no evidence people are created gay. To beleive that is to believe a fallacy.

There is no genetic study anywhere proving even 60% of only homosexuals (60% because I'm so generous not asking for 90 or 100% certainty) showing them to carry any genetic trait so your statement is flat out false unless you can prove otherwise.

And we know you can't.
Click to expand...

Does the meaning seem unclear?
 
Redress said:
And those all fit within the meaning of the law. You have to be treated the same in life, the same in death, the same in poverty or wealth. Your murder example however did not fit within the meaning of the law since it is not an aspect of life.
Click to expand...

Of course murder can be an aspect of life. If someone is murdered you know, that is an aspect of your life. If you see a murder, that is an aspect of life.

This is why your claim that homosexuality can be specifically defined by aspect of life when the phrase itself covers everything in life from birth to death a ridiculous argument.

You are going to have to face the fact that gay marriage is not specifically covered there and therefore they absolutely went against the rights of the people to vote on the issue by denying that vote.
 
Redress said:
Here, this is the one I refer to.



Does the meaning seem unclear?
Click to expand...

Until you can read who began the argument, you are hopelessly lost to logic.

Look up, I even quoted the people who originally made the claim.

The argument did not begin with you Redress. :roll:
 
texmaster said:
Page 1.



The Civil Rights Movement 1955-1965: Introduction

The civil rights movement was about African American equality and in some cases equality for women.

Both African Americans and women are defined by genetics. It is not a lifestyle.

Page 3

so did interracial marriage. btw, a goat can't consent.

Again, a comparison of homosexuality to race.

To make such a comparison requires a common thread. Genetics would be the only common thread.

Another example page 11

so it was ok for that minister not to marry the interracial couple? oh, he wasn't a minister? a justice of the peace?

So the race comparison was made not once, not twice but at least 3 times probably more before I ever joined the thread on page 19.


So yes, the claim was made long before I ever even joined making the burden of proof on the people who made and support that claim.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the claim was made by someone, but was it made and supported by the people whom you are arguing with right now? I for one never made the claim that it was genetic. I also think that there is sufficient proof lacking to ultimately prove either side of the "born that way" vs. "choice" argument. You are demanding proof from people who never made that argument in the first place and not only that, but failing to supply proof for your own assertion and using faulty logic to justify it.
 
texmaster said:
Of course murder can be an aspect of life. If someone is murdered you know, that is an aspect of your life. If you see a murder, that is an aspect of life.

This is why your claim that homosexuality can be specifically defined by aspect of life when the phrase itself covers everything in life from birth to death a ridiculous argument.

You are going to have to face the fact that gay marriage is not specifically covered there and therefore they absolutely went against the rights of the people to vote on the issue by denying that vote.
Click to expand...

If it had to be specifically covered, they would not have added the phrase "not limited to" phrase. The meaning is clear, you are only throwing out all these ridiculous objections because you don't like the reality.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Perhaps the claim was made by someone, but was it made and supported by the people whom you are arguing with right now? I for one never made the claim that it was genetic. I also think that there is sufficient proof lacking to ultimately prove either side of the "born that way" vs. "choice" argument. You are demanding proof from people who never made that argument in the first place and not only that, but failing to supply proof for your own assertion and using faulty logic to justify it.
Click to expand...

The general belief among those studying the issue is both nature and nurture are causes of orientation.

Edit: I use that phrase specifically for a reason. Nature does not mean genetics, but physical.
 
Last edited:
Frankly, I could care less whether it is ultimately genetic or a choice. Either way, I see no reason to deny homosexuals the ability to get married. They are consenting adults.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Frankly, I could care less whether it is ultimately genetic or a choice. Either way, I see no reason to deny homosexuals the ability to get married. They are consenting adults.
Click to expand...

I find the topic interesting, but ultimately it does not change my views on things like gay marriage and gays in the military.
 
jallman said:
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.




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.
Click to expand...


Well, I have to go for now, but suffice to say, that I enjoyed this debate, and was truly educated to your point of view. I may not agree with the method, and tactic word for word, but I hope we both arrive at the same place in the end, fore there are really dire things that deserve our attention, and you are as much a concerned American as am I.

j-mac
 
Alex said:
Let's not pretend that you are concerned about "We the people".
Click to expand...

I am one and so is everyone I know....cept this Australian chick I know....she's well...Australian, so that is my concern. What is yours, your agenda?

You are concerned with nothing but your own impositions.
Click to expand...

My Mom once told me as soon as the argument gets personal, you;ve won. She was right.

There is no logical reason to not allow same-sex marriage, only subjective nonsense.
Click to expand...

Lots of logical reasons, the first is many don't feel it's the equal of one man and one woman wed in matrimony. And they're right, it's not.

That is where a line must be drawn in a legal system based on liberty, it must contain an objective element that exceeds the subjectiveness.
Click to expand...

Gotta contain...hold on...an "objective element" that "exceeds subjectiveness?" That's right out of the constitution, huh?

Just because you do not like something does not mean it must be promulgated into law. Can people like you comprehend this?
Click to expand...

Absolutely we can comprehend. I don't like abortion but it's legal. I don't like most of the liberal Democrats in Congress right now...but they're legal. Neither of us would have liked the 9-11 hijackers to be here legally, they were anyway! That's an easy comprehension, it's reality.

Your reasoning takes away freedoms and imposes your selfish restrictions on an entire population of people,
Click to expand...

Restrictions that apply to all, I cannot wed within gender either and I'm a happy hetero.

same-sex marriage proponents reasoning allows everyone to be free and live their lives.
Click to expand...

Doesn't allow society to define its own institutions.

Absolutely nothing in your life is being diminished due to same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

Except the right to define my own culture.

You, on the other hand, are creating 2nd class citizens by allowing a government based on liberty to restrict people under the law. That is what this is about, people like you wanting to feel like you are above another group of people. So do not pretend to care about "We the people."
Click to expand...

If not for you on the Left exposing yourselves constantly, I might just believe this. But, President Clinton signed the Doma into law, President Obama personally opposes ssm as well, so do so many other democrats who voted for the doma(that vote 342 to 67 in the House, 85-14 in the Senate). Noted names such as Liebermann, Chris Dodd(who ran for President), Joe Biden(current VP), the liberal late Paul Wellstone, Max Baucus, Harry Reid, former Minority Leader Tom Daschle, and Dems from West Virginia Byrd and Rockefeller ALL voted yea. Are these people EVER accused of "wanting to feel like you are above another group of people." Of course not, your emotion is getting the best of you here, we know this name calling is insincere on this issue cause...as soon as a Dem opposed ssm, it's swept under the rug. Obama doesn;t support same sex marriage, is he one of this "group you speak of?

Oops.

Our Constitution is not a toy,
Click to expand...

And why we take the right to define our institutions seriously.

it is not a means to impose what you want society to be like.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. It can be used for a the basis for zoning keeping prostitutes and porn theaters out of my neighborhood. It can outlaw indecent behavior such as public obscenities, public nudity, unnecessary public displays of affection. IT can outlaw third term abortions, it can affect a whole lot to do with our culture and society, wake up.

The Constitution is meant to be law imposed on the government, not the people.
Click to expand...

Government governs by the consent of the governed. Government has been given consent here that we'd very much like to discriminate based on gender as far as marriage is concerned. There are processes that can overturn that reality, but, they haven't been that successful.

It restricts the government and allows for freedoms to its citizens.
Click to expand...

Yes, the freedom to define marriage.

The fact that you would support a constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage only shows your lack of knowledge on what our system of government is.
Click to expand...

I actually initially opposed a ssm amendment, I believe this is a measure best left to the states. However, when I saw the agenda was to simply crawl from state to state and clog up the dockets with same sex marriage, I supported a federal amendment that would reinforce DOMA and making it clear if one state approves gets fruity and kooky and starts marrying same gender, it doesn't apply across the fruited plain.
 
Kandahar said:
No, this is exactly in line with the constituents' decision-making process. DC's city council and mayor were elected by the voters of DC. The voters have the power to vote them out of office if they're upset. Similarly, gay marriage has been legalized in other states by courts that were appointed by the elected representatives of the people. The voters have the power to vote their officials out of office and elect people who promise to appoint anti-gay judges instead, if that's what they want.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you and I agree here, it's a We the People decision, correct? I mean if the court says its unConstitutional simly do back...and amend your Constitution. Hand it to the court and say "interpret this.":2wave:

On the other hand, an amendment to the US Constitution banning gay marriage *would* yank the issue from the constituents' decision-making process.
Click to expand...

An amendment...you do know what the amendment process is, 2/3rds majority and all of that....would "yank" the issue away from Constituents? Really? What other federal emendment yanks decision making from the constituent?

As they should. Frankly it shouldn't be any of Congress' goddamn business what we decide to do in DC, except inasmuch as it affects the workings of the federal government.
Click to expand...

Can we stop the federal funds supporting your fair city then? I mean if it ain;t none of my business.......why should ANYTHING going on in DC...ACORN, poverty, AIDS, crime, gun control, why should ANY of it be under government purview, correct? Sure you've thought this argument out, it sounds unreasonable to me. Unrealistic and flat out silly really.

Why? Why do we the people need to decide that, instead of our elected representatives?
Click to expand...

I have said it before I'd rather see a referendum, but as long as its a legislative endeavor, no matter the decision, I'll support it. I would hope you'd do the same.
 
j-mac said:
Doesn't the Federal part come in when a marriage has to be recognized by another state?


j-mac
Click to expand...
As far as the federal government is concerned:
1) Marriage is a 1 man 1 women arrangement
2) No state must recognize homosexual marriages from other states
 
Taylor said:
As far as the federal government is concerned:
1) Marriage is a 1 man 1 women arrangement
2) No state must recognize homosexual marriages from other states
Click to expand...

Seems like a violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause to me. But we shall see as it winds it way through the courts and eventually the SCOTUS.
 
Taylor said:
As far as the federal government is concerned:
1) Marriage is a 1 man 1 women arrangement
2) No state must recognize homosexual marriages from other states
Click to expand...

As far as the Federal Government was concerned:
-Slavery was legal
-Separate but Equal was legal
-Production and Sale of Alcohol was illegal
-Marriage was between consenting adults of the same skin color
-Women and Minorities used to not be allowed to vote.

Shall I go on? Or can you see that nothing is really set in stone, especially cultural and societal issues.

Anyone have any other Federal laws that have been repealed or overturned?
 
Last edited:
EpicDude86 said:
As far as the Federal Government was concerned:
-Slavery was legal
-Separate but Equal was legal
-Production and Sale of Alcohol was illegal
-Marriage was between consenting adults of the same skin color

Shall I go on? Or can you see that nothing is really set in stone, especially cultural and societal issues.
Click to expand...
You forgot that in the early 1900s, it was legal for a man to marry a girl as young as 10, and it was legal for a parent to give heroin to their babies as a sleep aid. And the list continues.
 
EpicDude86 said:
As far as the Federal Government was concerned:
-Slavery was legal
-Separate but Equal was legal
-Production and Sale of Alcohol was illegal
-Marriage was between consenting adults of the same skin color

Shall I go on? Or can you see that nothing is really set in stone, especially cultural and societal issues.
Click to expand...

Funny how that type forgets these things when they start railing about tradition, age old institutions, blah blah blah.
 
EpicDude86 said:
As far as the Federal Government was concerned:
-Slavery was legal
-Separate but Equal was legal
-Production and Sale of Alcohol was illegal
-Marriage was between consenting adults of the same skin color
-Women and Minorities used to not be allowed to vote.

Shall I go on? Or can you see that nothing is really set in stone, especially cultural and societal issues.

Anyone have any other Federal laws that have been repealed or overturned?
Click to expand...
Yes, everyone here understands that we're allowed to change the law.
 
Traditional Marriage According to the Bible:

When a girl, usually underage, was sold by her father as part of a trade or to pay off a debt. Brings a whole new meaning to "Giving the Bride Away." (for a mule and 3 chickens and 2 slaves) Wealthy men could own as many slaves, sex slaves, and wives as they could afford.

ah, Tradition!

Marriage Laws during the Middle Ages

Marriage laws began to evolve during the Middle Ages. The Council of Westminster decreed in 1076 that no man should give his daughter or female relative to anyone without priestly blessing. Later councils would decree that marriage should not be secret but held in the open. But it wasn't until the 16th century Council of Trent that decreed a priest was required to perform the betrothal ceremony. Separation of couples was tolerated, but there was no legal divorce, though marriages between those too closely related could be annulled.

Wedding customs meant agreements or contracts were drawn up describing the rights of both the bride and groom. Medieval marriage ceremonies and celebrations depended largely on the social class of the bride and groom. Inheritance and property were usually two reasons why arranged marriages were contracted.
Click to expand...

Traditional Marriage in the United States (Pre 1967)

Link

In the United States, anti-miscegenation laws (also known as miscegenation laws) were state laws passed by individual states to prohibit miscegenation, nowadays more commonly referred to as interracial marriage and interracial sex. Typically defining miscegenation as a felony, these laws prohibited the solemnization of weddings between persons of different races and prohibited the officiating of such ceremonies. Sometimes, the individuals attempting to marry would not be held guilty of miscegenation itself, but felony charges of adultery or fornication would be brought against them instead. All anti-miscegenation laws banned the marriage of whites and non-white groups, primarily blacks, but often also Native Americans and Asians.[3] In many states, anti-miscegenation laws also criminalized cohabitation and sex between whites and non-whites. In addition, the state of Oklahoma in 1908 banned marriage "between a person of African descent" and "any person not of African descent", and Kentucky and Louisiana in 1932 banned marriage between Native Americans and African Americans.[4] While anti-miscegenation laws are often regarded as a Southern phenomenon, many northern states had anti-miscegenation laws as well.

Although anti-miscegenation amendments were proposed in United States Congress in 1871, 1912-1913 and 1928,[5][6] a nation-wide law against racially mixed marriages was never enacted. From the 19th century into the 1950s, most US states enforced anti-miscegenation laws. From 1913 to 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states did so.[citation needed] In 1967, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional. With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them.
Click to expand...

Tradition!
 
hazlnut said:
Traditional Marriage According to the Bible:

When a girl, usually underage, was sold by her father as part of a trade or to pay off a debt. Brings a whole new meaning to "Giving the Bride Away." (for a mule and 3 chickens and 2 slaves) Wealthy men could own as many slaves, sex slaves, and wives as they could afford.

ah, Tradition!

Marriage Laws during the Middle Ages



Traditional Marriage in the United States (Pre 1967)



Tradition!
Click to expand...
Since when do Christians read the Bible? Here's another doozy:

(Judges 21:10-24 NLT)

"So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan."

Traditional family values folks!

Also it's somewhat ironic that Solomon (who God considered "the wisest man who ever lived") had 700 hos. Wait, maybe that means he really was the wisest guy who ever lived. 700 hos? I don't even know of many rappers who'll say they have that many bitches.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think the full faith and credit clause should apply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom