• 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.
The Prof said:
don't talk about liberal elitism on a thread about a CA judge overturning a proposition

unbelievable
Click to expand...

He is a conservative judge. Do try and keep up...
 
ptif219 said:
Yes 7% of the population rules over the majority
Click to expand...

So did you read the post I quoted and responded to or are you just in knee-jerk response mode no matter how foolish your replies are?
 
Hicup said:
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-
Click to expand...

It is entirely possible to comprehend an argument and still fundamentally disagree with it.
 
ptif219 said:
Just pointing out marriage may not make gays happy.They keep talking about what they gain and avoid looking at what they lose
Click to expand...

If it is so bad, then why get in their way?
 
Exactly like straights - but we get to make the decision for ourselves.

ptif219 said:
Just pointing out marriage may not make gays happy.They keep talking about what they gain and avoid looking at what they lose
Click to expand...
 
CriticalThought said:
No, the federal Constitution rules over the majority, and the federal Constitution protects the Constitutional rights of the minority.
Click to expand...
And marriage, being a privilege granted by the state, has what to do with that?
 
Ikari said:
It is entirely possible to comprehend an argument and still fundamentally disagree with it.
Click to expand...

Yes I know, I am being deliberately facetious.

Tim-
 
Redress said:
He is a conservative judge. Do try and keep up...
Click to expand...
Really?
I saw that he had his own same-sex marriage waiting for him.
Why didnt he recuse himself?
 
rivrrat said:
Same reason blacks should have been allowed to marry whites. Despite the fact that you can't have 4 wives.
Click to expand...

Again for the thousand time, Blacks are a race of people....They can't change that.........Gays are a class of people defined by their sexual preference..............They can and have done that..........
 
don't bisexuals have a right to express their love?

how can you be so narrow minded?

who is to intercede in a private, consensual contract agreed upon between any three of our neighbors?
 
marduc said:
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)
Click to expand...

You really know how to twist what people say
 
No, they really haven't.

They were either curious, or they denied themselves - but gays are gays are gays are gays.

Navy Pride said:
Again for the thousand time, Blacks are a race of people....They can't change that.........Gays are a class of people defined by their sexual preference..............They can and have done that..........
Click to expand...
 
Dr_Patrick said:
I find it interesting that everytime you get confronted with certain gay marriage questions you immediately go to polygamy. Is it really so hard to stay on topic?
Click to expand...

Its something that won't go away if people like you can marry the same sex........
 
Navy Pride said:
Again for the thousand time, Blacks are a race of people....They can't change that.........Gays are a class of people defined by their sexual preference..............They can and have done that..........
Click to expand...

That's merely your opinion which is not supported by anything observed in society. Gay people tend to be gay people; it's who they are. You want to assume it's just a choice, but to them it's not a choice. That's who they are. Your assumptions do not make for valid argument.
 
texmaster said:
Its absolutely valid you just don't like addressing it.
Click to expand...

Nope, you just don't provide anything worth while to "address" cause you're not making an argument, you're making an ignorant statment.

You wish to throw out law banning gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Yes, and Redress and others are also giving REASONS why it should be thrown out. Unlike you who....

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.
Click to expand...

Just make statements that assert what people must do without giving any reasons, any argument, whatsoever. For your above statement to be true you must actually take Redresses stated reasonings and show why they apply to children. You can not, which is why you don't, you just throw this **** out there and then bitch when its disregarded like the baseless trash it is.

You can't then proclaim there are laws against chidren marrying adults because you just threw out law banning your favored alternative lifestyle.
Click to expand...

Except for equal protection relies on various levels of state interest to determine if its okay for the government to discriminate. The issues regarding the states interest in having a "minor" status has been found to be of sufficient level for that particular type of age discrimination, which is the basis of which groups like agnapostate was a part of fight against. However, they have summarily been unsuccessful at overturning the notion that its a legitimate important state interest.

In this case, the courts are finding that such interest isn't present in regards to discrimination based on (by this case) discrimination based on orientation. As such, the government can't discriminate. Whether or not this will actually be the final result will not be known until the Supreme Court rules.

The REASONS for the state to have a compelling interest in a minor status and states to have a compelling interest in homosexual marriage are entirely different. Because they are entirely different one can quite easily argue in favor of one and against the other or vise versa.

So no, arguing that the EPC protects sexual orientation (or in my case gender) from laws prohibiting them from engaging in a legal act does not mean one also must believe that there is no legitimate government interest in having a minor status which restricts the minors ability to enter into contracts which in turn restricst marriage.

But here, so you'll see consistancy. If the Surpreme Court decided that the status as a "Minor" IS a violation of the EPC and removed it, making children their own guardians and removing any power the parents have over them, then yes...they should be able to get married. However such a thing is unlikely to ever occur.

Thats the fallacy of the gay marriage movment.
Click to expand...

No its not, its the idiocy of those pushing this counter that are using a fallacy.

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...

Like it or not, the courts have found that marriage is a constitutional right. You may not like it, I may not like it, but until such time as that's overturned officially it is considered a constitutional right.

The fourteenth amendment is absolutely meant to provide equal protection under the law.

By combining those two things, its not activist to suggest it applies to gay marriage. Marriage, generic, is a right even though at the time only hetereosexual was present. The 14th gives equal protection for all, even if at the time it was focused on blacks. This is no more activist than saying that the 2nd amendment protects ones right to assult rifles. Assult rifles didn't exist in the days of the founders, wasn't even dreamed of them, but ARMS are protected and assult rifles can fall under such a designation....just like gay marriage falls under the designation of marriage.
 
Navy Pride said:
Its something that won't go away if people like you can marry the same sex........
Click to expand...

There's no proof of that. You just don't want to be reasonable about it because you don't want gay people marrying for whatever reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom