• 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!

Maryland Gay Marriage Bill sent back to cmte. Shelved for this year at least.

Tucker Case said:
But that is the traditional definition of marriage.

I wonder why they reject tradition when it doesn't suit their purposes? Hmmmmm.....
Click to expand...

I don't reject it, I kinda like it.
 
theplaydrive said:
And defining marriage as between a man and a woman is inherently unconstitutional because it denies people equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...

It's been longer than usual for mac like response time, so I think we should assume he agrees with the above assertion.
 
Tucker Case said:
Then why don't you argue for that traditional definition of marriage instead of leaving out the lifelong part?
Click to expand...

When have I argued against it specifically? The problem's I see with it are that most states now are no-fault and divorce basically can't be denied by either party to the marriage. I definitely would like to see divorce restricted more than it is.
 
theplaydrive said:
It's been longer than usual for mac like response time, so I think we should assume he agrees with the above assertion.
Click to expand...

I was building a robot.

Anyway, I think that's arguable.
 
mac said:
When have I argued against it specifically? The problem's I see with it are that most states now are no-fault and divorce basically can't be denied by either party to the marriage. I definitely would like to see divorce restricted more than it is.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that divorce would be restricted, nor would it be affected by that definition. It would go on as normal.

Only second/third/fourth/etc marriages would become illegal using that definition. They'd be civil unions.
 
Tucker Case said:
I didn't say that divorce would be restricted, nor would it be affected by that definition. It would go on as normal.

Only second/third/fourth/etc marriages would become illegal using that definition. They'd be civil unions.
Click to expand...

I don't see a problem with that from a legal perspective. Assuming civil unions had the same protections and rights as civil marriage.
 
mac said:
I don't see a problem with that from a legal perspective. Assuming civil unions had the same protections and rights as civil marriage.
Click to expand...

So why don't you adopt that definition of marriage as the one you promote?
 
theplaydrive said:
How is that not 100% true?
Click to expand...

Because it redefines marriage. Marriage has been universally accepted to mean marriage between man and a woman. In some cases multiple women (and I don't agree with that either). Marriage has never been between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
 
Tucker Case said:
So why don't you adopt that definition of marriage as the one you promote?
Click to expand...

Because it's unnecessary at this point. It's definitely something I counsel on a personal level though.
 
mac said:
Because it redefines marriage. Marriage has been universally accepted to mean marriage between man and a woman. In some cases multiple women (and I don't agree with that either). Marriage has never been between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
Click to expand...

Appeal to tradition, not a valid argument.
 
mac said:
Because it redefines marriage. Marriage has been universally accepted to mean marriage between man and a woman. In some cases multiple women (and I don't agree with that either). Marriage has never been between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
Click to expand...

The constitution specifies the moral principles by which we are to evaluate and determine our laws (we agreed on this, you told me morality guides the const.); our constitution is our guide or else we could do what we want. Morals that concern 'proper' sex acts and definitions of marriage are not included in these specified moral principles. That's why people want an amendment to the constitution to ban gay marraige- in order to make it value sex/marriage, which it does not.

Because all citizens are guaranteed equal protection understand the law, laws that are defined based on inequality are unconstitutional and therefore, must be overturned or redefined.
 
Last edited:
theplaydrive said:
The constitution specifies the moral principles by which are to evaluate and determine our laws (we agreed on this, you told me morality guides the const.); our constitution is our guide or else we could do what we want. Morals that concern 'proper' sex acts and definitions of marriage are not included in these specified moral principles. That's why people want an amendment to the constitution to ban gay marraige- in order to make it value sex/marriage, which it does not.

Because all citizens are guaranteed equal protection understand the law, laws that are defined based on inequality are unconstitutional and therefore, must be overturned or redefined.
Click to expand...

Any right or law not specifically included in the Constitution is reserved for the states and the people....most of them have made laws stating that marriage is between a man and a woman.
 
Singularity said:
I have no idea how these types of idiotic opinions don't get someone either banned or infracted. There are homosexual people on this board, and what this person is doing is not only insulting and disrespecting everything about them, but the fact that they can do it all repeatedly in every thread about gay marriage, gay adoption, or anything else regarding homosexuality is just plain stupid. I somehow doubt that we would extend the same courtesy to those idiots who maintain that African Americans, Jewish people, or any other ethnic group are 'wrong' or 'abnormal'. So why do we tolerate this blatant hatred?

I could understand if they were debating on the causes of sexuality where both sides can engage in reasonable debate. Or maybe even a respectful discussion of how to stop kids from bullying other children who happen to be homosexual. These twits can't even manage that, because they do nothing but piss and moan about homosexuality being wrong, abnormal, or some other stupid nonsense that is nothing but disrespect and belittlement.

It's hate speech - nothing more.
Click to expand...

What YOU said is hate speech. NOTHING MORE.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
Any right or law not specifically included in the Constitution is reserved for the states and the people....most of them have made laws stating that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

Equal protection under law is a right specifically stated in the Constitution. If a law doesn't apply to everyone equally, without due process then it is unconstitutional.It's not hard to understand.
 
mac said:
Any right or law not specifically included in the Constitution is reserved for the states and the people....most of them have made laws stating that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

1. All of those laws are unconstitutional.
2. The right to be unconstitutional is NOT reserved for the states and the people which is why the 14th amendment was added to ensure equal protection under the law.
2. States and citizens have the right to create rights and laws that are constitutional - 14th amendment adds equal protection.

Defining marriage between a man and a woman is inherently unconstitutional because it goes against the 14th amendment. The Constitution does not specify any moral or ethical guides for defining marriage; therefore, it's definition must, by the 14th amendment and by the absence references to marriage, not exclude any citizens.
 
mac said:
On it's own, you'd have point. But I'm not trying to win a debate, and it's not my only argument.
Click to expand...

Then what are you trying to do?

And all your other arguments have been debunked.
 
Your Star said:
Equal protection under law is a right specifically stated in the Constitution. If a law doesn't apply to everyone equally, without due process then it is unconstitutional.It's not hard to understand.
Click to expand...

And it's not hard to understand that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, that except in a few places, marriage between a man and a man or woman and woman is not seen as a right.
 
mac said:
And it's not hard to understand that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, that except in a few places, marriage between a man and a man or woman and woman is not seen as a right.
Click to expand...

And we are saying that it is in violation of the 14th amendment, it's not hard to understand, you just don't want to accept our argument.
 
Your Star said:
Then what are you trying to do?

And all your other arguments have been debunked.
Click to expand...

No they haven't. Has it been proven that homosexuality is anything other than a choice?
 
Your Star said:
And we are saying that it is in violation of the 14th amendment, it's not hard to understand, you just don't want to accept our argument.
Click to expand...

It's not hard to understand that not everyone see it as a violation, clearly, or the SCOTUS would have struck down SSM prohibitions.
 
mac said:
And it's not hard to understand that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, that except in a few places, marriage between a man and a man or woman and woman is not seen as a right.
Click to expand...

You conveniently ignored my post where I proved you wrong, let me repost it:

1. All of those laws are unconstitutional.
2. The right to be unconstitutional is NOT reserved for the states and the people which is why the 14th amendment was added to ensure equal protection under the law.
2. States and citizens have the right to create rights and laws that are constitutional - 14th amendment adds equal protection.

Defining marriage between a man and a woman is inherently unconstitutional because it goes against the 14th amendment. The Constitution does not specify any moral or ethical guides for defining marriage; therefore, it's definition must, by the 14th amendment and by the absence references to marriage, not exclude any citizens.
 
mac said:
No they haven't. Has it been proven that homosexuality is anything other than a choice?
Click to expand...

choice has nothing to do with constitution. focus on the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom