• 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!

Pentagon: No Plans to Change 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy After Court Ruling

Goobieman said:
Hardly. You arent so important that not getting to do something that you want to do - something that no one else can either - means -you- are being discriminated against.
Click to expand...

You're still sidestepping. Heterosexuals are allowed to marry who they love and are attracted to. Homosexuals are not. that is a difference. Try actually addressing that. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
And that is what you have to prove, that there is a legitmatie government interest in preventing it. A just cause. A sound reason. And it is not proven that there is any actual negative effects for accepting homosexuality in a society. Much of that feeling is based on misinformation and unsound reasoning. But it what must be proven to prevent it.
Click to expand...

Sexual promiscuity brings down societies, homosexuality is the final form of oversexualization. (speaking of the clubbing gay people, not the normalized "adopted a child, trying to be a normal member of society")

How does it bring down societies?

Family units disintegrate, because the outcome of hyper-sexualization is jealousy, perma-childlike state of mind, overuse of alcohol etc. etc. (i.e. america right now, and formerly greece/rome)

After the family unit has disintegrated all new members of that society will be ... horrible people.

But ... divorce is a far bigger problem right now, and since that isn't going to change, screw it, legalize homosexual marriage; we are toast as a society anyway.

The gay people who actually want to get married out of love, should be allowed to, but how do you meter that?

What a mess of a topic, but I just don't think you can normalize homosexuality in a society without dramatic negative effects. (which honestly have already happened because of hetero-divorce)
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
You're still sidestepping. Heterosexuals are allowed to marry who they love and are attracted to. Homosexuals are not. that is a difference. Try actually addressing that.
Click to expand...
I did. Not getting to exercise a privilege in the manner you would like to, when no one else can exercise that privilige in that way, is not grounds for an argument of discrimination.
 
Goobieman said:
All groups have the same privilige; all groups have the same restriction. Arguing that some people might get to do exactly what they want and some people do not doesnt equate to discrimination, under the law.
Click to expand...

By this reasoning I could argue that people should only be allowed to marry someone of their own race or religion. Since all the groups have the same restriction it isn't discrimination. However, even so it isn't Constitutional. The state has to demonstrate how it has a legitimate interest in making such a restriction. It can no more do so with race or religion than it can with sexual orientation. That is what "Due Process" means. And it is also why I don't understand why you keep making such a retarded argument. It has absolutely nothing to do with Constitutional law. How does the state have an interest in limiting marriage to people of the opposite sex?
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
The restriction isnt based on sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

Okay, its a restriction based on sex. Even better since the state has to pass an even higher level of scrutiny.

Now answer the question.

How does the state have an interest in limiting marriage to people of the opposite sex?
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Okay, its a restrictioin based on sex. Now answer the question.
How does the state have an interest in limiting marriage to people of the opposite sex?
Click to expand...
Its not necessary that I do - the state can limit the priviliges it grants however it wants, so long as eveyone suffers under the same restrictions.
 
Goobieman said:
Its not necessary that I do - the state can limit the priviliges it grants however it wants, so long as eveyone suffers under the same restrictions.
Click to expand...

Wow, you are incredibly ignorant of Constitutional law. That is not at all how it works. For a law to be Constitutional, it has to pass due process. That is how we keep the state from unnecessarily intruding in our lives. A fact that use to be a conservative principle.

The Constitution is the law of the land. The state can only place restrictions on us as long as they don't violate the Constitution. Part of the Constitution is Due Process which says...

No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Marriage has to deal with life, liberty, and property, whether you regard it as a right or privilege.

Since the marriage restriction is based on sex, it has to pass the Middle Tier of scrutiny of due process which says...

The government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.

So it has nothing to do with discrimination or even equal protection, it is a violation of due process and an unnecessary infringement of the state into our lives.

I ask again,

How does the state have an interest in limiting marriage to people of the opposite sex?
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
{blah blah blah....)
No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Click to expand...
Marriage is a privilige that exists only because the state created it, and the conditions under which the privilige might be exercised. As such, we're not discussing the deprivation of life, liberty or property; your citation of the due process clause is thus rendered irrelevant as none of those things are deprived by the restriction under contention.

So it has nothing to do with discrimination or even equal protection, it is a violation of due process.
Click to expand...
Due process, as shown above, does not apply. Equal protection is met; there is no discrinmination.
 
Boo Radley said:
Heterosexuals are allowed to marry who they love and are attracted to.
Click to expand...

not if it their sister or cousin or their neighbors dog, etc. There are plenty of restrictions on whom a person can marry. the "heteros can marry whoever they want" is a BS arguement because it just isn't true.
 
Goobieman said:
Marriage is a privilige that exists only because the state created it, and the conditions under which the privilige might be exercised. As such, we're not discussing the deprivation of life, liberty or property; your citation of the due process clause is thus rendered irrelevant as none of those things are deprived by the restriction under contention.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if you perceive marriage as a privilege or a right. Marriage is a contract and the rights associated with it all have to do with life, liberty, and property. You can argue that it doesn't but that is simply a denial of reality.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is a fundamental right. That means that Supreme Court precedent overrules your petty deluded opinion on that matter. The state recognizes marriage as a Constitutionally protected right, but even if it didn't, restrictions on marriage based on anything like race, religion, or sex would still have to pass due process when challenged.

So I ask for the fifth time.

How does the state have an interest in limiting marriage to people of the opposite sex?
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
It doesn't matter if you perceive marriage as a privilege or a right. Marriage is a contract and the rights associated with it all have to do with life, liberty, and property. You can argue that it doesn't but that is simply a denial of reality.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is a fundamental right. That means that Supreme Court precedent overrules your petty deluded opinion on that matter. The state recognizes marriage as a Constitutionally protected right, but even if it didn't, restrictions on marriage based on anything like race, religion, or sex would still have to pass due process when challenged.

So I ask for the fifth time.

How does the state have an interest in limiting marriage to people of the opposite sex?
Click to expand...
As I see it, the "state" would only have an acceptable interest in limiting marriage to people of the opposite sex IF doing so had an overall positive effect on whatever it is marriage was created to promote in the first place.

Since the whole argument is over the legal aspects of marriage...
 
CriticalThought said:
It doesn't matter if you perceive marriage as a privilege or a right. Marriage is a contract and the rights associated with it all have to do with life, liberty, and property. You can argue that it doesn't but that is simply a denial of reality.
Click to expand...
That's impossibly weak. If your statement has any real substance you'd not have to resort to the petty, deluded, petulant 'you're just dumb if you dont see it' fallacy.
Until you do MUCH better than that, my statement stands.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is a fundamental right.
Click to expand...
Wait - I'm sorry - didn't you just say that "It doesn't matter if you perceive marriage as a privilege or a right?" Why then do you have the petty, deluded need to show that marriage is a right?
In any event:
Its something that exists only bevause the state created in and granted it. Thus, it is privilige.
Your petty, deluded, sophomoroic appeal to authority only illustrates your utter lack of ability to otherwise support your petty, deluded argument.

That means that Supreme Court precedent overrules your petty deluded opinion on that matter.
Click to expand...
Rights are not granted by the state, prviliges are. By the very nature of rights, nothing granted by the state can be a right. Nothing can change this.
The Supreme Court doesnt overrule reality, so another petty, deluded appeal to authority fails. Sorry.

So I ask for the fifth time....
Click to expand...
Your petty, deluded question rests on an demonstrably petty, deluded, unsound premise, and as such, is meaningless.
There is no due process issue as no one is deprived of life, liberty or property, and there is no EP issue as everyone is held to the same legal standad.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
I'll repeat since you apparently are having a hard time reading what I actually said. Navy has never said he hates gays.

Your personal bias and spin doesn't change what he said.

Enjoy your fail oC
Click to expand...

Yep just like some KKK members haven't said they hate gays, they just think of them as lower citizens that shouldn't have the same rights and privileges as whites. But it's all good to you because some of those members didn't say they hated gays right tex?
 
TheNextEra said:
Yep just like some KKK members haven't said they hate gays, they just think of them as lower citizens that shouldn't have the same rights and privileges as whites. But it's all good to you because some of those members didn't say they hated gays right tex?
Click to expand...

Gays aren't white?
 
SingleCellOrganism said:
Sexual promiscuity brings down societies, homosexuality is the final form of oversexualization. (speaking of the clubbing gay people, not the normalized "adopted a child, trying to be a normal member of society")

How does it bring down societies?

Family units disintegrate, because the outcome of hyper-sexualization is jealousy, perma-childlike state of mind, overuse of alcohol etc. etc. (i.e. america right now, and formerly greece/rome)

After the family unit has disintegrated all new members of that society will be ... horrible people.

But ... divorce is a far bigger problem right now, and since that isn't going to change, screw it, legalize homosexual marriage; we are toast as a society anyway.

The gay people who actually want to get married out of love, should be allowed to, but how do you meter that?

What a mess of a topic, but I just don't think you can normalize homosexuality in a society without dramatic negative effects. (which honestly have already happened because of hetero-divorce)
Click to expand...

While I seriously doubt your premise, marriage is the answer to Sexual promiscuity. By your argument, you should be in favor of same sex marriage.

So, what you think aside, and considering homosexuality has always been with us, can you support your fear of negitive effects?
 
Goobieman said:
I did. Not getting to exercise a privilege in the manner you would like to, when no one else can exercise that privilige in that way, is not grounds for an argument of discrimination.
Click to expand...

No, you're not answering. The priviledge isn't male/felmale but the partner you love and are attracted to. You are not answering that at all. Your premise is silly on its face, and you hide from it by ignoring what the real issue is. If you can marry the person you love and are attracted to, and I cannot, I'm being discriminated against. Unless you can show just cause for that discrimination, the law says you can't do that.
 
Boo Radley said:
marriage is the answer to Sexual promiscuity.
Click to expand...

which is why I support gay marriage. anything that will keep them out of the truck stops, public restrooms, bath houses, rest areas and public parks is a good thing.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, you're not answering.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes I did. Clearly and directly.

The priviledge isn't male/felmale but the partner you love and are attracted to.
Click to expand...
That's not the privilige offered by the state. Love and attraction arent in any way necessary components of marriage; just because you cannot exercise a privilige in the manner you want to in no way means your are suffering under discrimination.

Your premise is silly on its face...
Click to expand...
And yet, you have done nothing to show how it is unsound.
 
Goobieman said:
Yes, yes I did. Clearly and directly.


That's not the privilige offered by the state. Love and attraction arent in any way necessary components of marriage; just because you cannot exercise a privilige in the manner you want to in no way means your are suffering under discrimination.


And yet, you have done nothing to show how it is unsound.
Click to expand...

No, not well you haven't. You treat it as if we marry strightly due to gender and we don't. It happens that most are atracted to and love in the way that works with marrige people of the opposite sex. And most would not marry without those things, they have a different standard, like financial, but not due to gender. So when you say a person can only marry someone of the opposite sex, you are discriminating against people who love and are attracted to, and thus can only consider marrying, people of the same sex. And you are not addressing that.

Yes, your argument is silly on its face because you would not marry someone of the same sex if that was your only option for marriage. If that were the law, you would then understand the discrimination. You would see that you are being given no choice at all, and know how silly it is to say you can do what they can do. Unless you're going to argue you can have sex with someone of the same gender and it not bother you at all, you completely miss the silliness of your argument.
 
Boo Radley said:
You treat it as if we marry strightly due to gender and we don't. It happens that most are atracted to and love in the way that works with marrige people of the opposite sex. (blah blah)
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.
Love and attraction arent in any way necessary components of marriage. As such, any argument that you are being discriminated against because you cannot marry whoever you love is unsound becasue theres no necessary relationship between marriage and the conditions you want to assign to it.

Just because you cannot exercise a privilige in the manner you want to in no way means your are suffering under discrimination.

Yes, your argument is silly on its face...
Click to expand...
And yet, you have done nothing to show how it is unsound.
 
Goobieman said:
Irrelevant.
Love and attraction arent in any way necessary components of marriage. As such, any argument that you are being discriminated against because you cannot marry whoever you love is unsound becasue theres no necessary relationship between marriage and the conditions you want to assign to it.

Just because you cannot exercise a privilige in the manner you want to in no way means your are suffering under discrimination.


And yet, you have done nothing to show how it is unsound.
Click to expand...

For most who marry, love and attraction are the ONLY components.

And yes, i've taken great pains to show you. Again, ask yourself how much choice you would have if you could only marry someone of the same sex. Be honest.

Also, it isn't the manner. Manner suggests how I get married and not who. There are churches more than willing to marry same sex couples. And there is no state interest to prevent it. No rationale reason to prevent it. And if you can marry the person you l;ove and are attracted to, and I can't, then you are discriminating. Saying i can marry someone I am not attracted to, and can't love in the manner of a married couple is not offering me the same choice. I'm sorry, but your argument is silly and unsound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom