• 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!

Walkout of Anti-Gay Event

CRUE CAB said:
Name the right. Remember, there is no right to marry.
Click to expand...

You're even less qualified to discuss this than I suspected. Marriage has specifically been named to be a right.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Disgusting lifestyle behavior shouldn't be tolerated, its necessary for it to be quashed every time it shows itself.
Click to expand...

Then go to a gay bar, turn around, and walk out.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Where?
Click to expand...

[h=3]Marriage as a fundamental right[/h] The United States Supreme Court has in at least 14 cases since 1888 ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. These cases are:[SUP][37][/SUP]

  1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190
    (1888)     Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
  2. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390
    (1923)     The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
  3. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535
    (1942)     Marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man” and “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
  4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479
    (1965)     "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
  5. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1
    (1967)     “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
  6. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371
    (1971)     “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
  7. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632
    (1974)     “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
  8. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494
    (1977)     “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
  9. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678
    (1977)     “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
    [*]Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374
    (1978)     “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
    [*]Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78
    (1987)     “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
    [*]Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833
    (1992)     “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
    [*]M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102
    (1996)     “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
    [*]Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558
    (2003)     “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. ... Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual person



Marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

-Judge Warren.

It is because of this and the other cases that is why gay marriage succeeds every time it is brought to court (including the pesky 14th amendment, of course).
 
Cardinal said:
[h=3]Marriage as a fundamental right[/h] The United States Supreme Court has in at least 14 cases since 1888 ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. These cases are:[SUP][37][/SUP]

  1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190
    (1888)     Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
  2. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390
    (1923)     The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
  3. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535
    (1942)     Marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man” and “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
  4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479
    (1965)     "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
  5. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1
    (1967)     “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
  6. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371
    (1971)     “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
  7. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632
    (1974)     “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
  8. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494
    (1977)     “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
  9. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678
    (1977)     “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
    [*]Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374
    (1978)     “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
    [*]Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78
    (1987)     “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
    [*]Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833
    (1992)     “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
    [*]M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102
    (1996)     “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
    [*]Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558
    (2003)     “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. ... Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual person



Marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


All attempts to hang marriage on another right, not a right to marry.
 
CRUE CAB said:
All attempts to hang marriage on another right, not a right to marry.
Click to expand...

That doesn't even make sense. Do you want to try that again?
 
CRUE CAB said:
Disgusting lifestyle behavior shouldn't be tolerated, its necessary for it to be quashed every time it shows itself.
Click to expand...
"Disgusting" is such a subjective term that many throughout the world, and even this forum, would genuinely and vigorously believe that your behavior should be quashed. If you don't like lifestyles you find disgusting, don't partake of them, but don't imagine yourself to be the keeper of all knowledge relating to what's disgusting and what's not.
 
Summerwind said:
"Disgusting" is such a subjective term that many throughout the world, and even this forum, would genuinely and vigorously believe that your behavior should be quashed. If you don't like lifestyles you find disgusting, don't partake of them, but don't imagine yourself to be the keeper of all knowledge relating to what's disgusting and what's not.
Click to expand...

The gay agenda is disgusting. What part of that do you not understand?
 
CRUE CAB said:
Yea, any time you don't agree with the gay agenda or life style. You are accused of "hate". So using hate, bigotry, homophobe and all that has lost its punch.
Click to expand...

Except you folks don't just want to "disagree" with a lifestyle...
CRUE CAB said:
Disgusting lifestyle behavior shouldn't be tolerated, its necessary for it to be quashed every time it shows itself.
Click to expand...
 
CRUE CAB said:
Disgusting lifestyle behavior shouldn't be tolerated, its necessary for it to be quashed every time it shows itself.
Click to expand...

CRUE CAB said:
The gay agenda is disgusting. What part of that do you not understand?
Click to expand...

Disgusting is subjective, I only find the gay agenda disgusting if I'm forced to particpate, which I'm not. Your agenda, the agenda of pretending there are no rights associated with marriage, and then that those rights associated with marriage are not to be extended to all who are in loving relationsihips, is very disgusting.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Disgusting lifestyle behavior shouldn't be tolerated, its necessary for it to be quashed every time it shows itself.
Click to expand...

Chalk up another supporter of anti-sodomy laws!
 
CRUE CAB said:
Not a right on its own.
Click to expand...

The default setting is 'legal'. Everyone has the same rights, everything starts out being legal. From there you make laws against things that harm others, making damn sure you have good reason and get the words right.
At least, that's the liberal position. Others advocate more laws and more government control. Conservatives.
 
Grand Mal said:
The default setting is 'legal'. Everyone has the same rights, everything starts out being legal. From there you make laws against things that harm others, making damn sure you have good reason and get the words right.
At least, that's the liberal position. Others advocate more laws and more government control. Conservatives.
Click to expand...

Default setting. Hahahahahaha
 
Grand Mal said:
The default setting is 'legal'. Everyone has the same rights, everything starts out being legal. From there you make laws against things that harm others, making damn sure you have good reason and get the words right.
At least, that's the liberal position. Others advocate more laws and more government control. Conservatives.
Click to expand...

Well, there's a lot of holes in this gross generalization.

Are you suggesting liberals don't believe felons should be barred from owning firearms? Because simply owning a firearm harms no one, yet and the "default setting" based on your suggestion is that a felon should legally be able to own a gun.

This is why gross generalizations about either side are generally poor ideas.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Disgusting lifestyle behavior shouldn't be tolerated, its necessary for it to be quashed every time it shows itself.
Click to expand...

What about disgusting ideologies? Should they be tolerated?
 
Zyphlin said:
Well, there's a lot of holes in this gross generalization.

Are you suggesting liberals don't believe felons should be barred from owning firearms? Because simply owning a firearm harms no one, yet and the "default setting" based on your suggestion is that a felon should legally be able to own a gun.

This is why gross generalizations about either side are generally poor ideas.
Click to expand...

Hmm, the libs I know I think would say it depends on the felony. Were it a violent felony, particularly one using a weapon, then probably shouldn't be allowed to own a gun when his time is served. If it was for walking/driving/standing/shopping while black with a joint or dime bag in his pocket, then yeah, he should be able to have a gun when he gets out.
 
Summerwind said:
Hmm, the libs I know I think would say it depends on the felony. Were it a violent felony, particularly one using a weapon, then probably shouldn't be allowed to own a gun when his time is served. If it was for walking/driving/standing/shopping while black, then yeah, he should be able to have a gun when he gets out.
Click to expand...

Even in the former, it'd be creating a law limiting someone from the "default setting" despite the action in question harming no one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom