• 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.

Same Sex Marriage, not an invasion of security and freedom, that is what mac doesn't seem to understand.

Why is it that you think anyone that doesn't agree with you only does so because they don't understand? That is a childish point of view.
 
That's not true. The people that vote for the legislatures, and the legislatures themselves are religious. Therefor, the laws they make are influenced by religion.

Just because people are religious doesn't mean that their view on politics have to be influenced by said religion, and having a law because of a religion is unconstitutional.

No, I said "no more so than your argument is because I said so." Please re-read the original post.

What do you mean here?

I can't prove that it doesn't meet your approval? Why would I want to do that?

So I'm right.
 
Why is it that you think anyone that doesn't agree with you only does so because they don't understand? That is a childish point of view.

Not anyone who disagrees with me, I'm saying you don't understand. SSM does not violate anyone's freedom, but denying SSM violates my freedom. You fail to see that.
 
Why is it that you think anyone that doesn't agree with you only does so because they don't understand? That is a childish point of view.

This coming from the guy who just told me:
Very few things are as cut and dry as you like to think.
because I disagreed with him.

Hypocrisy.
 
Just because people are religious doesn't mean that their view on politics have to be influenced by said religion, and having a law because of a religion is unconstitutional.

A law doesn't have to be plagiarized from a religious text to be based on religion, or to be influenced by religion. The Constitution does not ban religion from law, it bans laws favoring or censoring religion.

What do you mean here?

I means my argument isn't any more "That's the way I want it" Than yours is "because I said so." ----Is this confusing language?

So I'm right.

Absolutely. It is abundantly clear that the current situation "Isn't good enough" for you. I can't imagine how any argument would change that, so why bother?
 
The things that our Constitution seeks to protect without ever mentioning God once.

Regardless, the idea that each and every one of is deserves either...is a moral.
 
This coming from the guy who just told me:

because I disagreed with him.

Hypocrisy.

I didn't imply that you don't understand and certainly didn't imply that you are incapable of understanding. Nor have I made any attempt to insult you or demean the things you say despite disagreeing with a fair amount of it.
 
Not anyone who disagrees with me, I'm saying you don't understand. SSM does not violate anyone's freedom, but denying SSM violates my freedom. You fail to see that.

I don't fail to see that. Show me where I have implied otherwise.
 
A law doesn't have to be plagiarized from a religious text to be based on religion, or to be influenced by religion. The Constitution does not ban religion from law, it bans laws favoring or censoring religion.

It does ban religion from law, it is very clear in that.

I means my argument isn't any more "That's the way I want it" Than yours is "because I said so." ----Is this confusing language?

My argument isn't based on, well that's the way I want it. It's based on equality under law.

Absolutely. It is abundantly clear that the current situation "Isn't good enough" for you. I can't imagine how any argument would change that, so why bother?

It's not good enough for me, and it's not good enough for America, we are better then that as a country.
 
I don't fail to see that. Show me where I have implied otherwise.

You have implied that by wanting it banned, why else would you be against it?
 
SSM does not violate anyone's freedom, but denying SSM violates my freedom. You fail to see that.

This to me is the basic truth of the argument. However, I would prefer it from some one with a different avatar.
 
It does ban religion from law, it is very clear in that.

Show me where it does that, please.

My argument isn't based on, well that's the way I want it. It's based on equality under law.

I didn't say otherwise, you view that homosexuality is deserving of such protection.

It's not good enough for me, and it's not good enough for America, we are better then that as a country.

In your view.
 
You have implied that by wanting it banned, why else would you be against it?

First, you're talking about what I do or do not understand. At present you are not free to gt married (in most places in the US) Second, not all actions should be freedoms.
 
Show me where it does that, please.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Right there, putting a law in that is based on a religion, is prohibiting the free exercise thereof of people who do not agree with that particular religion.

I didn't say otherwise, you view that homosexuality is deserving of such protection.

Why shouldn't it?

In your view.

And you have no argument to counter my view, no surprise though.
 
First, you're talking about what I do or do not understand. At present you are not free to gt married (in most places in the US) Second, not all actions should be freedoms.

You have to prove why it shouldn't be allowed, and don't use you religion, it's an invalid argument.

And please acknowledge that allowing SSM does not violate your rights in anyway, and that it violates my rights.
 
Right there, putting a law in that is based on a religion, is prohibiting the free exercise thereof of people who do not agree with that particular religion.

What that says is Congress can't make a state religion or ban a religion from being practiced. That's all that means.

Why shouldn't it?

Really, you want to go over all that again?

And you have no argument to counter my view, no surprise though.

I offered plenty. Because you don't agree with them doesn't mean their aren't opposing views.
 
This to me is the basic truth of the argument. However, I would prefer it from some one with a different avatar.

I can't wait to get rid of this thing.
 
You have to prove why it shouldn't be allowed, and don't use you religion, it's an invalid argument.

Why? It's already not allowed...I'm not trying to change anything.

And please acknowledge that allowing SSM does not violate your rights in anyway, and that it violates my rights.

Well, if there were a right for homosexuals to marry, and it was being denied you, then you're rights would be violated. Since SSM is not a right, you're rights are not being violated.
 
Why? It's already not allowed...I'm not trying to change anything.

But you have to prove why it should stay law. So far you haven't.


Well, if there were a right for homosexuals to marry, and it was being denied you, then you're rights would be violated. Since SSM is not a right, you're rights are not being violated.

We are being denied equal protection under law. Which is a right.
 
But you have to prove why it should stay law. So far you haven't.

Well, no, I don't, and what makes you think I'm trying to?

We are being denied equal protection under law. Which is a right.

Equal protection under the law doesn't grant new rights.
 
Regardless, the idea that each and every one of is deserves either...is a moral.

1. Freedom is a moral/ethic/value. Equality is the same. Security is based in common sense and survival.
2. We base law on freedom, equality and security. For example, murder is illegal because it threatens freedom and security.
3. We do not base law on whether it stands up to morals OTHER THAN freedom and equality.
4. Homosexuality does not threaten freedom and equality.
5. Homosexuality does not go against any of the morals that the founding fathers included in the constitution/bill of rights.

Edit: What you fail to acknowledge is that the people who made our rights chose which morals to base society on; they chose which morals they believed were valuable. Perversion was not one of them; equality was.

Edit2: Furthermore, our constitution, etc. is built upon SPECIFIC MORALS, not upon the pool of all potential moralities. We reference the SPECIFIC morals when we make laws. Every generations gets closer and closer to sticking strictly to the morals/guidelines specified in the constitution.
 
Last edited:
Well, no, I don't, and what makes you think I'm trying to?

Yes you do, we are saying it should be legal, and have provided logical reasoning for it. You have to prove us wrong.

Equal protection under the law doesn't grant new rights.[/QUOTE]

Equal protection under law is about making the law apply equally to everybody, and that is what SSM does, not create new rights.
 
Yes you do, we are saying it should be legal, and have provided logical reasoning for it. You have to prove us wrong.

That's not how it works, you have to present a compelling case to the supreme court or vote in people that will make your laws.

Equal protection under law is about making the law apply equally to everybody, and that is what SSM does, not create new rights.

It does actually, since marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. No law is being applied unequally.
 
That's not how it works, you have to present a compelling case to the supreme court or vote in people that will make your laws.

We have, yet you have yet to provide a compelling case to keep said law. You can't hide the fact that your position isn't based in logic by saying this.

It does actually, since marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. No law is being applied unequally.

And we are saying that having marriage as only one man, and one woman is a violation of equal protection, no new rights are created.
 
Back
Top Bottom