• 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!

California gay marriage ban overturned: report

Status
Not open for further replies.
Goobieman said:
The point was that your statement about marriage being a right is in error.
Click to expand...

The point being, that I listed 4 Supreme Court precedents that state that marriage is a Constitutionally protected right. Whether you like it or not, that is the precedent of this country, and neither side in the Prop 8 case contests that marriage is a fundamental right in this country.
 
CriticalThought said:
I agree. Making a blatant logical fallacy is just about as good an argument as marriage shouldn't be a Constitutionally protected right. In my mind they are pretty much equally irrational.
Click to expand...

Oh? What fallacy would that be exactly?

Tim-
 
apdst said:
I could give a ****, either way, if gays get married. But, at what point can't a judge over-rule the will of the people?
Click to expand...

When it's not an issue that violates the Constitution. Not every vote of the people is a Constitutional issue. If the voters decide to raise or lower a tax in their state, for instance, not much a court can do about that.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
What the hell is this? Are we trying the "oh the children" argument? If gay marriage is made legal, all the school should say on the issue is the same that is said now, except replace "man and woman" with "2 people". How the hell is this some issue even worth mentioning?
Click to expand...

I don't expect, in fact, I kNOW it is beyond your comprehension.

Tim-
 
CriticalThought said:
The point being, that I listed 4 Supreme Court precedents that state that marriage is a Constitutionally protected right.
Click to expand...
And guess what?
They are necessarily incorrect.
States do not - indeed, can not - grant rights, they grant privileges.
No court decision can change that fact. Apply some critical thought and you'll understand.
 
Hicup said:
I don't expect, in fact, I kNOW it is beyond your comprehension.

Tim-
Click to expand...

Or is it beyond your ability to explain? Instead of just making an insult, how about you also answer the question?
 
rivrrat said:
Sooo... you haven't seen these rulings?



Hey look, I think the govt should be out of the marriage racket altogether. But until they ARE out of the marriage racket, they need to extend the right equally.
Click to expand...

Just another sign that gays want their immoral behavior to be seen as normal
 
Redress said:
What the hell is this? Are we trying the "oh the children" argument? If gay marriage is made legal, all the school should say on the issue is the same that is said now, except replace "man and woman" with "2 people". How the hell is this some issue even worth mentioning?
Click to expand...

Its absolutely valid you just don't like addressing it.

You wish to throw out law banning gay marriage. When a child and an adult come to you and say they want to get married and you can't deny them their "right" they are using the same argument as you are ie their "right" to marray. You can't then proclaim there are laws against chidren marrying adults because you just threw out law banning your favored alternative lifestyle. Thats the fallacy of the gay marriage movment. You want gay marriage? Fight for an ammendment don't try to get activist judges to bastardize the Constitution into pretending they were ever addressing homosexual marriage when it is painfully clear they never did.
 
texmaster said:
Its absolutely valid you just don't like addressing it.

You wish to throw out law banning gay marriage. When a child and an adult come to you and say they want to get married and you can't deny them their "right" they are using the same argument as you are ie their "right" to marray. You can't then proclaim there are laws against chidren marrying adults because you just threw out law banning your favored alternative lifestyle. Thats the fallacy of the gay marriage movment. You want gay marriage? Fight for an ammendment don't try to get activist judges to bastardize the Constitution into pretending they were ever addressing homosexual marriage when it is painfully clear they never did.
Click to expand...

Marriage is based on mutual consent. Children cannot consent. Therefore your argument is moot.
 
Zyphlin said:
Well, was fun all but I gotta actually go do work away from the computer. I'm sure it'll be 10 pages longer by the time I get back ;)
Click to expand...

Count your blessings if only 10 pages. I just got home, and was 400 posts back when I started, and still a long way to go.

Worst past is I was not going to post anything till I got caught up, but could not manage that.
 
Groucho said:
When it's not an issue that violates the Constitution. Not every vote of the people is a Constitutional issue. If the voters decide to raise or lower a tax in their state, for instance, not much a court can do about that.
Click to expand...

Then fight for an ammendement or law recognizing gay marriage. Stop trying to bastardize the Constitution into pretending it addressed this subject in the past when every rational person knows it never did.
 
texmaster said:
Its absolutely valid you just don't like addressing it.

You wish to throw out law banning gay marriage. When a child and an adult come to you and say they want to get married and you can't deny them their "right" they are using the same argument as you are ie their "right" to marray. You can't then proclaim there are laws against chidren marrying adults because you just threw out law banning your favored alternative lifestyle. Thats the fallacy of the gay marriage movment. You want gay marriage? Fight for an ammendment don't try to get activist judges to bastardize the Constitution into pretending they were ever addressing homosexual marriage when it is painfully clear they never did.
Click to expand...

Children cannot enter into contract by themselves. They cannot do so until age of consent.
 
Hicup said:
I went back two pages, can you be more specific? I don't recall an argumentum ad populum I was quoting?

Tim-
Click to expand...

I was quoting the one where they were arguing that gay marriage should be banned in California because 30 other states have banned it.
 
ptif219 said:
Just another sign that gays want their immoral behavior to be seen as normal
Click to expand...

So? My immoral behavior is seen as normal (well generally), although I am not gay.. here is a startling revelation for you.. it is normal for humans to have a sex drive, and to act on it.

not that has anything to do with this argument, or the issue at hand, marriage is >> sex (aka immoral behavior)
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
Then fight for an ammendement or law recognizing gay marriage. Stop trying to bastardize the Constitution into pretending it addressed this subject in the past when every rational person knows it never did.
Click to expand...

Nobody said that gay marriage has been addressed in the past by the Constitution. The Constitution protects broad rights, not specific ones like marriage. For example, a broad right that the Constitution protects is Equal Protection under the law. Another one is due process. These rights in and of themselves have nothing to do with marriage, but they can be applied to marriage and a number of other things.
 
texmaster said:
Not true Redress. You want to throw out all laws banning homosexual marriage in favor of allowing it so why can't other alternative lifestyles throw out the laws you enjoy for the sake of your argument?
Click to expand...

Well as soon as you actually apply the things people are ACTUALLY arguing in opposition to gay marriage realistically and legitimately toward polygamy you may have a case.

However, most people keep arguing this point from a basis of stereotypes, and assume that those on the opposite side much simply except it even if they don't fit that stereotypes.

For me, as I've been taking the gender discrimination tact, no ones been able to show me where NUMBER of people is a protected status anywhere near the level of sexual orientation.

In regards to those arguing sexual orientation, their argument is that sexual orientation should be included at the same stricter levels of at least gender if not race/religion/etc, and have reasons supporting that. Those that oppose it with polygamy rarely have legitimate reasons why "Number of people" should be a protected status.

Perhaps the Polygamy argument would be useful if anyone ever presented it in a way other than "Yeah well, um, if you think that way you have to think Polygamy is okay too or your a BIGOT cause um....I don't have any reasons, but cause I say so!"
 
Ikari said:
What part of "It doesn't matter what the majority wants, the majority may not infringe upon the rights of the minority" do you not understand?
Click to expand...

Yes 7% of the population rules over the majority
 
ptif219 said:
Yes 7% of the population rules over the majority
Click to expand...

No, the federal Constitution rules over the majority, and the federal Constitution protects the Constitutional rights of the minority.
 
CriticalThought said:
You completely lost me here. What does the state mandating gender roles in marriage have to do with pedophiles?
Click to expand...

ask barry's doj

And yet — sorry, the contradictions keep coming — once Obama was elected, and once a gay couple in California had sued to overturn DOMA, his Administration not only defended the law, but defended it in a legal argument so reactionary that it would embarrass Dick Cheney (who, incidentally, is to the left of Obama on marriage). In that argument — here's a PDF courtesy of Georgetown professor Nan Hunter — Obama's lawyers noted that "courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with ... public policy." The examples the Justice Department offered: "marriage of uncle to niece," "marriage of 16-year-old," "marriage of first cousins."
Click to expand...

Why Does Obama Keep Flip-Flopping on Gay Marriage? - TIME
 
Ikari said:
Or is it beyond your ability to explain? Instead of just making an insult, how about you also answer the question?
Click to expand...

I didn't because Redress knows full well what my position is on the subject, and rather than derail the thread any further, I decided to refrain. The comprehension comment is legitimate, since Redress does not comprehend my viewpoint as even valid.

Carry on..


Tim-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom