• 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.

mac said:
Because the constitution grants to the states the right to make laws on everything the constitution missed. The constitution does not define marriage, so the states do.
Click to expand...

States do NOT have the right to make/enforce unconstitutional laws. This is why every state had to abolish slavery, give blacks and women the right to vote and integrate schools. This is why Proposition 8 was overturned.

No, I don't know what you meant. When things like this change in American society, we need an Amendment to codify it. Get an Amendment. Reality: I wasn't wrong, you were.
Click to expand...
You're right. I was wrong about that fact. Fortunately that takes absolutely nothing away from argument about constitutionality.

And I said the opposite can be true.
Click to expand...

Time has nothing to do with constitutionality particularly when the amendments in question have already passed.
 
theplaydrive said:
At this point, you have not at all explained how -

The 14th Amendment + The Constitution's lack of opinion on marriage = a definition based on inequality is constitutional.

You distracted from the argument by claiming that time determines constitutionality.
Click to expand...

No, I addressed this specifically
 
mac said:
Same-Sex Marriage & the 14th Amendment

"But as a question of constitutional law, it's not quite that easy. For starters, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the guarantee of equal treatment within the equal protection clause does not mean that governments cannot ever treat different people differently. States need not permit children to drive cars, for example, nor must they allow senior citizens to enroll in grammar school. As a basic rule, the Court has said that it is reasonable for states to build categories or classifications into the laws that they pass, and in fact, the "rational basis test" is one of the standards used by the courts to determine whether these classifications are fair. Also known as the Lindsley test, this standard says that if the reasons for treating people differently are reasonable and logically related to the law's purpose, then they are constitutional. Opponents of gay marriage insist that there is a rational basis (usually, they argue, rooted in cultural or religious tradition) for restricting marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman."
Click to expand...

And this is supposed to mean what exactly? Being against SSM because of religious/cultural tradition isn't enough to qualify as due process of law, so what ever you tried to do here failed miserably.
 
mac said:
Same-Sex Marriage & the 14th Amendment

"But as a question of constitutional law, it's not quite that easy. For starters, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the guarantee of equal treatment within the equal protection clause does not mean that governments cannot ever treat different people differently. States need not permit children to drive cars, for example, nor must they allow senior citizens to enroll in grammar school. As a basic rule, the Court has said that it is reasonable for states to build categories or classifications into the laws that they pass, and in fact, the "rational basis test" is one of the standards used by the courts to determine whether these classifications are fair. Also known as the Lindsley test, this standard says that if the reasons for treating people differently are reasonable and logically related to the law's purpose, then they are constitutional. Opponents of gay marriage insist that there is a rational basis (usually, they argue, rooted in cultural or religious tradition) for restricting marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman."
Click to expand...

It's illogical and unreasonable to permit children to drive cars; it's logical and reasonable to allow two adults to get married. This is why Proposition 8 was overturned.
 
mac said:
I don't think God would make people homosexual then tell them not to be. Free will is one thing, but that would just be cruel.
Click to expand...

But God could make people homosexual and people put into the Bible that homosexuality is wrong. You have no way to prove that it was people who decided homosexuality was wrong and put it into the Bible as being from God. Or it could easily be a misinterpretation of translations between the original language of the Bible and our own. There are multiple reasons why there could be a disparity between how God made people and how that is contradicted by the Bible. Unfortunately, that may mean changing some people's view of the Bible.
 
Your Star said:
The 14th amendment guarantees everyone equal protection under law, so it doesn't matter if sexual preference is mentioned in the Constitution, and even if it is a choice(and I know I didn't chose *****, ***** chose me) it doesn't matter. Equal protection is guaranteed to everyone who is a citizen of the US.
Click to expand...

Mac, explain why this is wrong using only logic.

Explain why relegating same sex couples to a separate but equal union than opposite sex couples is not a clear example of "separate but equal" treatment, a policy which was overthrown by the supreme court.

Also, prove that homosexuality is a choice, since you are so intent on asking others to prove their viewpoints, how about showing proof for yours? It has been proven that, in certain cases at least, that there was a direct correlation between fraternal birth order and homosexuality, meaning that in these cases, sexuality was determined in-vitro. Again, I point you to fraternal birth order.

Link

Direct quote:
The fraternal birth order effect is the strongest known predictor of sexual orientation. According to several studies, each older brother increases a man's odds of developing a homosexual orientation by 28–48%.

Bogaert (2006) replicated the fraternal birth order effect on male sexual orientation, in a sample including both biological siblings and adopted siblings. Only the older biological brothers influenced sexual orientation; there was no effect of adopted siblings. Bogaert concluded that his finding strongly suggest a prenatal origin to the fraternal birth-order effect.
Click to expand...
 
roguenuke said:
But God could make people homosexual and people put into the Bible that homosexuality is wrong. You have no way to prove that it was people who decided homosexuality was wrong and put it into the Bible as being from God. Or it could easily be a misinterpretation of translations between the original language of the Bible and our own. There are multiple reasons why there could be a disparity between how God made people and how that is contradicted by the Bible. Unfortunately, that may mean changing some people's view of the Bible.
Click to expand...

Well, the oldest Christian Church is against it....and that is my religion.
 
mac said:
Well, the oldest Christian Church is against it....and that is my religion.
Click to expand...

The oldest Christian Church once said that the sun rotated around the earth. It doesn't make sense to restrict other people's ability to marry on this kind of history.
 
theplaydrive said:
The oldest Christian Church once said that the sun rotated around the earth. It doesn't make sense to restrict other people's ability to marry on this kind of history.
Click to expand...

It was generally accepted in the scientific community, this had nothing to do with religion.
 
mac said:
Well, the oldest Christian Church is against it....and that is my religion.
Click to expand...

I was just pointing out the problem with your logic of how it would be cruel to make people homosexual and then tell them that it is wrong to be homosexual. It is just as cruel to make women capable of doing almost anything a man can do, and then making it wrong to do some of those things. It would be just as cruel to make a person be born as both a girl and boy and making them or their parents choose which sex to live as or choose which sex to partner with. What if they choose the wrong sex, in either way, in God's eyes?
 
mac said:
It was generally accepted in the scientific community, this had nothing to do with religion.
Click to expand...

Galileo was charged with heresy for showing it scientifically.
 
roguenuke said:
I was just pointing out the problem with your logic of how it would be cruel to make people homosexual and then tell them that it is wrong to be homosexual.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with logic, but rather faith. Being marginally intelligent, relatively well educated, and fairly well experienced hasn't killed my faith.

It is just as cruel to make women capable of doing almost anything a man can do, and then making it wrong to do some of those things. It would be just as cruel to make a person be born as both a girl and boy and making them or their parents choose which sex to live as or choose which sex to partner with. What if they choose the wrong sex, in either way, in God's eyes?
Click to expand...

I'm not going to play faith tests with you. If you do not believe in God, that is your business....I do.
 
mac said:
It has nothing to do with logic, but rather faith. Being marginally intelligent, relatively well educated, and fairly well experienced hasn't killed my faith.



I'm not going to play faith tests with you. If you do not believe in God, that is your business....I do.
Click to expand...

I believe in God. I don't believe in the Bible. I have little problem believing in God. I have a big problem believing that God influenced every single thing that was written in a book 2000 years ago and needed to be translated multiple times and that He was able to balance free will with ensuring that no one put something in such book that He didn't want in there.
 
roguenuke said:
I believe in God. I don't believe in the Bible. I have little problem believing in God. I have a big problem believing that God influenced every single thing that was written in a book 2000 years ago and needed to be translated multiple times and that He was able to balance free will with ensuring that no one put something in such book that He didn't want in there.
Click to expand...

Congrats. I don't.
 
mac said:
I don't think God would make people homosexual then tell them not to be. Free will is one thing, but that would just be cruel.
Click to expand...

I don't remember choosing but that aside, if gay people had chosen to be gay, then that still does not explain why God thought it was wrong.
 
mac said:
Congrats. I don't.
Click to expand...

Which goes to show you that there are many different belief systems out there, including ones that do not view homosexuality as a sin and who also do not see marriage as just between a man and a woman. And this is why relying on a religious belief system to provide the basis for laws is bad, since it easily has the potential of outlawing the beliefs of other people and discriminating against others simply because another person's beliefs or a group of people's beliefs include thinking that certain behaviors of others are wrong without showing any actual harm in such behaviors.
 
roguenuke said:
Which goes to show you that there are many different belief systems out there, including ones that do not view homosexuality as a sin and who also do not see marriage as just between a man and a woman. And this is why relying on a religious belief system to provide the basis for laws is bad, since it easily has the potential of outlawing the beliefs of other people and discriminating against others simply because another person's beliefs or a group of people's beliefs include thinking that certain behaviors of others are wrong without showing any actual harm in such behaviors.
Click to expand...

According to mac, as long as the majority believe it, it's okay to base laws on religion.
 
roguenuke said:
Which goes to show you that there are many different belief systems out there, including ones that do not view homosexuality as a sin and who also do not see marriage as just between a man and a woman. And this is why relying on a religious belief system to provide the basis for laws is bad, since it easily has the potential of outlawing the beliefs of other people and discriminating against others simply because another person's beliefs or a group of people's beliefs include thinking that certain behaviors of others are wrong without showing any actual harm in such behaviors.
Click to expand...

I don't rely on it, but have the courage to acknowledge it as a factor. I'm not embarrassed by my faith and I've said several times that scientific proof that homosexuality is not a choice would change my stance on this.
 
mac said:
I don't rely on it, but have the courage to acknowledge it as a factor. I'm not embarrassed by my faith and I've said several times that scientific proof that homosexuality is not a choice would change my stance on this.
Click to expand...

Actually you haven't really explained why proving it isn't a choice would change your opinion. You argued that you need scientific proof that what God in the Bible thinks about homosexuality is wrong, but you haven't provided any evidence of what God in the Bible thinks about homosexuality. For all we know, God in the Bible doesn't think that homosexuality is a choice but still finds it wrong. Sure that might seem cruel, but this is the same God who flooded the world, sacrificed his own son, and lets bad things happen to good people every day.
 
CriticalThought said:
this is the same God who flooded the world, sacrificed his own son, and lets bad things happen to good people every day.
Click to expand...

Not to mention condoning or actively ordering/facilitating the murder of children in response to insults (II Kings 2:23-24), the total extermination of a group of people (Joshua 6-8) and the enslavement of women and children (Deuteronomy 20:13-14)

Also, I have provided significant evidence of in-vitro sexuality determination that mac seems to have completely ignored...
 
TheBook said:
Not to mention condoning or actively ordering/facilitating the murder of children in response to insults (II Kings 2:23-24), the total extermination of a group of people (Joshua 6-8) and the enslavement of women and children (Deuteronomy 20:13-14)

Also, I have provided significant evidence of in-vitro sexuality determination that mac seems to have completely ignored...
Click to expand...

I love that mac feels he can dictate my morality based on this book and in order to convince him otherwise I have to scientifically disprove a position that was never defined or proven to begin with.

This is exactly why I think some religious people are no different than schizophrenics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom