• 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!

Do you support legalizing gay marriage?[W:667]

Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

You mean like how you keep declaring bestiality is only illlegal because it's unnatural and disgusting?

:lamo

C'mon....you continue to embarrass yourself here by such an obvious...and failed...attempt at actually continuing the discussion on any supportable grounds at all.

I never claimed bestiality is only illegal because it's unnatural and disgusting. It could, theoretically, be illegal for a variety of other reason, as well, but the PRIMARY reason is because it's unnatural and disgusting. If you don't think that's a fact, just start a poll asking people to vote true or false on the statement that it's unnatural and disgusting. I probably forgot to mention vulgar before now, but add that to the list of appropriate adjectives.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

I never claimed bestiality is only illegal because it's unnatural and disgusting. It could, theoretically, be illegal for a variety of other reason, as well, but the PRIMARY reason is because it's unnatural and disgusting. If you don't think that's a fact, just start a poll asking people to vote true or false on the statement that it's unnatural and disgusting. I probably forgot to mention vulgar before now, but add that to the list of appropriate adjectives.

Sorry, it's up to you to prove your claim.

And that poll would have nothing to do with the Constitutionality of the law.

You really should give it up, your fascination with this subject is getting creepy. And it's been dismissed as relevant to SSM. So please get back on topic.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

I never claimed bestiality is only illegal because it's unnatural and disgusting. It could, theoretically, be illegal for a variety of other reason, as well, but the PRIMARY reason is because it's unnatural and disgusting. If you don't think that's a fact, just start a poll asking people to vote true or false on the statement that it's unnatural and disgusting. I probably forgot to mention vulgar before now, but add that to the list of appropriate adjectives.

So, in your opinion, is "it's disgusting" by itself a reason to make something illegal?
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

There's no way in Hell the Judge met all these requirements for the injunction.

That there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case,
That they face a substantial threat of irreparable damage or injury if the injunction is not granted,
That the balance of harms weighs in favor of the party seeking the preliminary injunction
That the grant of an injunction would serve the public interest.

Do explain which criteria was not met, and why.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

So, in your opinion, is "it's disgusting" by itself a reason to make something illegal?

Yes. That's why we have lots of laws like "you can't take your clothes and make someone's eyes bleed" and "you can't have wild monkey sex with a real wild monkey". It's disgusting. Lots of people don't want you doing that shyte in their neighborhood. Or state. Or country.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

So, in your opinion, is "it's disgusting" by itself a reason to make something illegal?

Well thanks for keeping him engaged in that silliness. He's using it to avoid any rational reasons to object to SSM.

Good luck :)
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Wow. Did you somehow come to the ridiculous conclusion that all rural people are conservative? Damn, man, why do you think "red states" have so many welfare cases.... they've got plenty of liberals living in them.

Lol what? All "welfare cases" are liberals? Fancy that.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Yes. That's why we have lots of laws like "you can't take your clothes and make someone's eyes bleed" and "you can't have wild monkey sex with a real wild monkey". It's disgusting. Lots of people don't want you doing that shyte in their neighborhood. Or state. Or country.

Actually, many of those laws are for all sorts of reasons.

Take Washington state. Bestiality was made illegal there after a man tried to have sex with a horse and ended up rupturing his colon and bleeding out because he was too embarrassed to go to the hospital. It had nothing to do with it being "icky".

Enumclaw horse sex case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

The constitution guards against the tyranny of the majority. This is why gay marriage was won in the courts and not in the voting booth. Although I agree that courts should be extremely careful in overruling voters and I'm not sure they were all that careful with gay marriage. Its seems to me there was very little reluctance.


I would probably vote not to include same-sex couples in the law here in California, but I would not be very upset if the vote went the other way. We have lots of policies I'm not wild about, but I can live with them. I'm far more concerned about a related problem, and an extremely serious one, that tends to get lost in the shuffle. Playing fast and loose with the Constitution is like tampering with the flight controls on an airliner.

Most of the people who have the bit in their teeth on this issue--and I see quite a few of them on forums like these--don't care a damn about the rule of law. All they care about is getting the result they want. And if the only way to get it is to do enormous, irreparable damage to the Constitution, well, so what? To them, the Constitution is just an obstacle to doing what they all know is kind, sensitive, and in all ways just generally wonderful. Amend it? Nah, too much trouble. Just ignore it.

The homosexual-rights lobby, which includes several Supreme Court justices, is a lot like the abortion lobby of forty or fifty years ago. Then, the fruit of their labors was Roe v. Wade, a notoriously arbitrary decision that ranks right down with 1857's Dred Scott v. Sandford as one of the Court's all-time worst. Study the decisions Justice Kennedy has written during the past eighteen years in the Court's major "gay" decisions, Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor, and you can see another Roe in the works.

Whether homosexuals can marry each other in a given state should be for the people of that state to decide, and no one else. A state that excludes same-sex couples from its marriage law is not violating anything whatever in the Constitution; the only way to have a constitutional right to same-sex marriage is to make it up out of thin air. But the same is true of a right to abortion, and that didn't stop the Court forty years ago. Remember: a Court that can interpret the Constitution so as to create rights which are not there can also interpret it so as to destroy rights which are there.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Harumph.



Typical liberal logic: “if it doesn't agree with me it's biased, irrelevant, hateful, bigoted, mean, exploitive, ignorant, narrow-minded, unintelligent, retarded, hitlerian, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, masochistic, chauvinistic, maniacal, evil, depraved, smelly, fat, unhealthy, unhelpful, insensitive, individualistic, horrible, detestable, vile, odious, terrible, unbearable, intolerable, insufferable, revolting, repulsive, disgusting, sickening, ghastly, filthy, sordid, horrible, nauseating, repellent, prejudiced, unfair, partial, nasty, atrocious, ghastly, dreadful, shocking…

It’s never, “Oh, somebody has a view different from mine? I wonder what it might be? Perhaps I should inquire of this fine, obviously-intelligent individual exactly what his opinion is and understand the subject as he see it and perhaps even engage in some civilized conversation that may bring us both closer to some objective truth?”

But that’ll never happen ‘cause all Libs know how to do is destroy anything that does not mimic them.

And you, sir! You call yourself “civilized”?

Nothing could be further from the truth!


:mrgreen:
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

The constitution guards against the tyranny of the majority. This is why gay marriage was won in the courts and not in the voting booth. Although I agree that courts should be extremely careful in overruling voters and I'm not sure they were all that careful with gay marriage. Its seems to me there was very little reluctance.

Rights should never be left to the whims of the electorate.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Very interesting results thus far.


Marriage

Considering the site and it's demographic, not interesting at all. Yes, it is understood that the majority of people are intolerant bigots… it's ok, eventually they will all no longer walk the face of the earth… then we can get down to real equality.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Considering the site and it's demographic, not interesting at all. Yes, it is understood that the majority of people are intolerant bigots… it's ok, eventually they will all no longer walk the face of the earth… then we can get down to real equality.


So if someone has a difference of opinion with you on this issue they are intolerant bigots...The question begs to be asked who are the intolerant ones.

Let me understand, are you wishing all elderly people from the greatest Generation to die?
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

The constitution guards against the tyranny of the majority. This is why gay marriage was won in the courts and not in the voting booth. Although I agree that courts should be extremely careful in overruling voters and I'm not sure they were all that careful with gay marriage. Its seems to me there was very little reluctance.

The Constitution does not guard against any "tyranny of the majority" at all, where many things are concerned. See, e.g., Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992) (holding that California law did not violate equal protection guarantee by imposing wildly different property taxes on owners of very similar homes). And flagrant discrimination by bluenoses against nudists and prostitutes and bestialists still plagues this supposedly advanced nation even today. These people aren't harming anyone, and yet our courts rubber-stamp laws that discriminate against them, as if the Equal Protection Clause didn't even exist.

Then there are the would-be practitioners of adult incest or polygamy--who is going to bat for them? Where are the tear-jerking laments about how thousands of these poor souls are cruelly being denied the fundamental right to marry the loves of their lives by bigoted haters, just because they are different?

I am not persuaded that there is any constitutional right for homosexuals to marry each other, or anything even vaguely approaching it. I have never seen anyone explain what the source of any such right is. That includes Justice Kennedy, whose arguments in Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and U.S. v. Windsor are so short on legal reasoning as to amount to not much more than ipse dixit.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Well I'm not gonna.



The Constitution does not guard against any "tyranny of the majority" at all, where many things are concerned. See, e.g., Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992) (holding that California law did not violate equal protection guarantee by imposing wildly different property taxes on owners of very similar homes). And flagrant discrimination by bluenoses against nudists and prostitutes and bestialists still plagues this supposedly advanced nation even today. These people aren't harming anyone, and yet our courts rubber-stamp laws that discriminate against them, as if the Equal Protection Clause didn't even exist.

Then there are the would-be practitioners of adult incest or polygamy--who is going to bat for them? Where are the tear-jerking laments about how thousands of these poor souls are cruelly being denied the fundamental right to marry the loves of their lives by bigoted haters, just because they are different?

I am not persuaded that there is any constitutional right for homosexuals to marry each other, or anything even vaguely approaching it. I have never seen anyone explain what the source of any such right is. That includes Justice Kennedy, whose arguments in Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and U.S. v. Windsor are so short on legal reasoning as to amount to not much more than ipse dixit.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

I'm sad to see how some grievance groups are more equal than others. Oh, when will this madness end!
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Considering the site and it's demographic, not interesting at all. Yes, it is understood that the majority of people are intolerant bigots… it's ok, eventually they will all no longer walk the face of the earth… then we can get down to real equality.

My take on it is a little different. The most intolerant, bigoted people I see are the crusaders for various grievance groups. The irony that so many of them dare to call themselves "liberal" is good for a laugh, because they are anything but. They're mad--and they've convinced themselves their grievance is so righteous it gives them to right to be as uncivil as they please to anyone who disagrees with them.

These people love to cast whoever it is they have the crying towel out for as participants in an updated version of the black civil rights struggle, claiming that the Fourteenth Amendment protects their group just as strongly as it does blacks. Of course that's nonsense, as the history of that amendment proves.

But they imagine if they repeat this nonsense often and stridently enough, larding it generously with cheap slurs that anyone who disagrees with them is a hater, bigot, fill-in-the-blank-phobe, etc., their appeals to emotion will make up for their gross lack of knowledge and reasoning. They're confident this kind of "debate" will persuade their audience because its knowledge and reasoning power are no better than their own. And all too often, they're right.
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

The Constitution does not guard against any "tyranny of the majority" at all, where many things are concerned. See, e.g., Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992) (holding that California law did not violate equal protection guarantee by imposing wildly different property taxes on owners of very similar homes). And flagrant discrimination by bluenoses against nudists and prostitutes and bestialists still plagues this supposedly advanced nation even today. These people aren't harming anyone, and yet our courts rubber-stamp laws that discriminate against them, as if the Equal Protection Clause didn't even exist.

Then there are the would-be practitioners of adult incest or polygamy--who is going to bat for them? Where are the tear-jerking laments about how thousands of these poor souls are cruelly being denied the fundamental right to marry the loves of their lives by bigoted haters, just because they are different?

I am not persuaded that there is any constitutional right for homosexuals to marry each other, or anything even vaguely approaching it. I have never seen anyone explain what the source of any such right is. That includes Justice Kennedy, whose arguments in Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and U.S. v. Windsor are so short on legal reasoning as to amount to not much more than ipse dixit.

Those "practitioners of adult incest or polygamy" simply do not have the same legal arguments as couples of the same sex. There is no need to go to bat for them beyond ensuring that they have a chance to at least have their arguments heard. Honestly, there are people who support same sex marriage who support both of those things as well. I personally support making exceptions for certain incest cases (and I think first cousins will and should be the next laws we see fought to be taken down), and setting up some forms of marriage that offer at least some base protections for multiple spouses. Logistically though, the arguments against same sex marriage are nowhere near the same as those against multiple spouses or even those against incestuous marriages.

The source of our rights that are protected is the Constitution and the very fact that the Constitution is supposed to protect individual rights first and foremost, including things that you may not personally like. Whether you like it or not, the Constitution was not meant to divide power between the states and the federal government. It is meant, especially the Bill of Rights and many of the following Amendments, to protect individual rights from governmental tyranny, from both the federal and state governments.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

So if someone has a difference of opinion with you on this issue they are intolerant bigots...The question begs to be asked who are the intolerant ones.

No, I did not say that. A difference of opinion is a difference of opinion…. but one group of people not allowing for full freedom and liberty for others (because they are 'icky' or because their religion taught them it is 'wrong' or whatever other lame excuse they come up with) is showing intolerance and fighting against equality (and thus fighting against the principles of the constitution, like good little commies)….

Those that are for equality have no problem with others not marrying those of the same sex, it doesn't effect them at all, as most people for equality believe in adults being happy with who they choose… the are not trying to force their beliefs on others, like you and your kind do.

'Greatest generation' … man that's some funny crap right there… the generation of the KKK and rampant racism … called 'greatest'… oh my!
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

My take on it is a little different.

blah blah blah blah… a load of right wing intolerant excuse making. The funny part is the tactic used is the same crap the left wingers use that those on the right complain about. LOL.

Either you stand for and support the constitution and the ideas behind it, or you are a damn commie bastard… you have clearly chosen.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

The Constitution does not guard against any "tyranny of the majority" at all, where many things are concerned. See, e.g., Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992) (holding that California law did not violate equal protection guarantee by imposing wildly different property taxes on owners of very similar homes). And flagrant discrimination by bluenoses against nudists and prostitutes and bestialists still plagues this supposedly advanced nation even today. These people aren't harming anyone, and yet our courts rubber-stamp laws that discriminate against them, as if the Equal Protection Clause didn't even exist.

Then there are the would-be practitioners of adult incest or polygamy--who is going to bat for them? Where are the tear-jerking laments about how thousands of these poor souls are cruelly being denied the fundamental right to marry the loves of their lives by bigoted haters, just because they are different?

I am not persuaded that there is any constitutional right for homosexuals to marry each other, or anything even vaguely approaching it. I have never seen anyone explain what the source of any such right is. That includes Justice Kennedy, whose arguments in Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and U.S. v. Windsor are so short on legal reasoning as to amount to not much more than ipse dixit.

That is all you need?

Loving v. Virginia established that marriage is a fundamental right. According to the Supreme Court, any law restricting a fundamental right must both serve a compelling state purpose and be narrowly tailored to that compelling purpose. If marriage is denied to some individuals but not others then it is an equal protection issue under the 14th amendment. As such the state must demonstrate a compelling state purpose for denying marriage to same-sex couples. It has proven to be much easier for the state to come up with compelling state interests to deny marriage in cases of incest, etc. than it has been to come up for one for same-sex couples.

Is that sufficient? Or are you looking for something more philosophical?
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Yes. That's why we have lots of laws like "you can't take your clothes and make someone's eyes bleed" and "you can't have wild monkey sex with a real wild monkey". It's disgusting. Lots of people don't want you doing that shyte in their neighborhood. Or state. Or country.

Great! I find your religion disgusting. So let's ban it. Or is there, perhaps, a constitutional objection you might raise?
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

The Constitution does not guard against any "tyranny of the majority" at all, where many things are concerned. See, e.g., Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992) (holding that California law did not violate equal protection guarantee by imposing wildly different property taxes on owners of very similar homes). And flagrant discrimination by bluenoses against nudists and prostitutes and bestialists still plagues this supposedly advanced nation even today. These people aren't harming anyone, and yet our courts rubber-stamp laws that discriminate against them, as if the Equal Protection Clause didn't even exist.

Then there are the would-be practitioners of adult incest or polygamy--who is going to bat for them? Where are the tear-jerking laments about how thousands of these poor souls are cruelly being denied the fundamental right to marry the loves of their lives by bigoted haters, just because they are different?

I am not persuaded that there is any constitutional right for homosexuals to marry each other, or anything even vaguely approaching it. I have never seen anyone explain what the source of any such right is. That includes Justice Kennedy, whose arguments in Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and U.S. v. Windsor are so short on legal reasoning as to amount to not much more than ipse dixit.

I've already explained to you intermediate scrutiny under the 14th amendment. There's your reason.

Nudists aren't covered by intermediate scrutiny, so I'm not sure why you think there's a valid comparison to a same-sex marriage ban.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

My take on it is a little different. The most intolerant, bigoted people I see are the crusaders for various grievance groups. The irony that so many of them dare to call themselves "liberal" is good for a laugh, because they are anything but. They're mad--and they've convinced themselves their grievance is so righteous it gives them to right to be as uncivil as they please to anyone who disagrees with them.

These people love to cast whoever it is they have the crying towel out for as participants in an updated version of the black civil rights struggle, claiming that the Fourteenth Amendment protects their group just as strongly as it does blacks. Of course that's nonsense, as the history of that amendment proves.

But they imagine if they repeat this nonsense often and stridently enough, larding it generously with cheap slurs that anyone who disagrees with them is a hater, bigot, fill-in-the-blank-phobe, etc., their appeals to emotion will make up for their gross lack of knowledge and reasoning. They're confident this kind of "debate" will persuade their audience because its knowledge and reasoning power are no better than their own. And all too often, they're right.

Is this grand tantrum of yours because people called you a bigot? That's the "uncivil" behavior you're complaining about? You know what's uncivil? Voting for an unconstitutional law that suppresses freedom of the individual based solely on your personal dislike for that individual. You don't like gay people, so you want their freedom suppressed. You hide it behind all sorts of pseudo-legal babble, but that's really it. And when you finally admit to that, perhaps some real debate can happen. Here's a strange thing I've noticed about you: Not once have you complained about the insults that the anti-equality crowd throws at gay people. Where's your outrage then?

The 14th amendment protects gender in addition to race. The level of constitutional scrutiny is lower, but it's there. Your response to that fact has boiled down to "Nuh uh!"
 
Back
Top Bottom