• 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?

The spam and ridiculous premises I have seen on these threads are your own. You haven't even the faintest grasp of the constitutional issues involved, as you've made painfully clear several times. You haven't offered any constitutional reasoning worth the name. I assume that's not because you're refusing to, but simply because you have none to offer. And I don't care that a federal appeals court has seen fit to declare a fundamental right to same-sex marriage.
Classic moving goalposts. You asked for a court case, I gave you one. Now apparently you only accept SCOTUS decisions. That's an interesting metric to use. I suppose the day before the Loving decision you would have vehemently argued that nobody had ever declared interracial marriage to be a right before, therefore it wasn't a right.

Why don't you tell us all why that decision is so important to anyone outside the states in that jurisdiction? Please explain why, when the Court has so strongly shied away from taking the fundamental rights/strict scrutiny path on this subject, Anthony Kennedy will feel obliged to follow a lower federal court down it. Tell us why Kennedy, as Justice Scalia pointed out in his Lawrence dissent, even though he claimed to be overruling Bowers v. Hardwick, was so careful to leave intact Bowers' central holding: That there is no fundamental right to homosexual sodomy.

Wait, now you want to talk about sodomy? This thread is about marriage, dude.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Rather than debate this point with you any further, I'll just note that I don't know of anyplace in the Supreme Court's three "gay" decisions since Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986--Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, or U.S. v. Windsor--where it has shown even the slightest inclination to take up the argument you're making. And that would be because no party had chosen to make that argument in its briefs. If it had the merit you seem to think it has, it's a little surprising all those extremely able lawyers flat missed it in cases claiming discrimination against homosexuals.

I can turn this around and suggest that your arguments must be fundamentally flawed because over and over and over again various federal judges are rejecting arguments for same-sex marriage bans.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

State laws that criminalize adultery rest on the same basis as laws that make crimes of all sort of other sex-related acts--adult incest, bestiality, prostitution, bigamy, polygamy, and so on. And that is the belief of the majority in a state that those acts are immoral and unacceptable.

If that is no longer a good enough reason for the people of a state to exclude same-sex partners from their marriage laws, it will no longer be a good enough reason to prohibit these other acts, either. If it were unconstitutional to exclude same-sex partners from marriage laws, why would it not also be unconstitutional to continue to exclude partners who were more closely related by blood than some specified degree--i.e. partners in adult incest? You know--equal protection, and all that.

The intellectual dishonesty--or maybe it is just lack of intellect--on display in many people who assert that something in the Constitution prohibits any state from excluding same-sex partners from its marriage laws is stunning. What they are desperate to deny is that declaring a constitutional right to same-sex marriage would remove the basis for laws against a wide range of other acts.

These people want to have their pet activity declared a right, and then, once that's done, arbitrarily deny people the right to engage in public nudity, bestiality, public masturbation, adult incest, bigamy, polygamy and so on. It's funny to watch them try to cook up harmful consequences that legalizing these things would supposedly have, since that is the very thing they constantly accuse people who oppose declaring same-sex marriage a constitutional right of doing. I can't just see the would-be adulterers, nudists, bestialists, etc., furiously accusing everyone of bigotry for denying them their equal rights.

Adultery laws have not been enforced in the very few states they are still on the books in since at least 2003. There is a reason for this. Prosecutors across the country know that if they attempt to prosecute someone charged criminally for adultery, they are almost certainly going to face a losing case. Either the jury would simply nullify (I know I would if I were on the jury) or it would reach the SCOTUS. Adultery has no business being in our criminal statutes. And that is the belief of the majority in most states.

Those other things you mention, for the most part, have other reasons for why such laws exist, beyond them merely being "immoral and unacceptable". They can be shown to further legitimate state interests in some way (although I think some should absolutely be challenged, at least some specific circumstances).

Morally unacceptable hasn't been a "good reason" for a law that restricts individual liberties/freedoms in quite some time.

You really have no clue about equal protection at all.

Many who are for same sex marriage actually support legalizing at least some of those things you mentioned, which only proves how little you know about the arguments in relation to same sex marriage and those other things.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

State laws that criminalize adultery rest on the same basis as laws that make crimes of all sort of other sex-related acts--adult incest, bestiality, prostitution, bigamy, polygamy, and so on. And that is the belief of the majority in a state that those acts are immoral and unacceptable.

If that is no longer a good enough reason for the people of a state to exclude same-sex partners from their marriage laws, it will no longer be a good enough reason to prohibit these other acts, either. If it were unconstitutional to exclude same-sex partners from marriage laws, why would it not also be unconstitutional to continue to exclude partners who were more closely related by blood than some specified degree--i.e. partners in adult incest? You know--equal protection, and all that.

The intellectual dishonesty--or maybe it is just lack of intellect--on display in many people who assert that something in the Constitution prohibits any state from excluding same-sex partners from its marriage laws is stunning. What they are desperate to deny is that declaring a constitutional right to same-sex marriage would remove the basis for laws against a wide range of other acts.

These people want to have their pet activity declared a right, and then, once that's done, arbitrarily deny people the right to engage in public nudity, bestiality, public masturbation, adult incest, bigamy, polygamy and so on. It's funny to watch them try to cook up harmful consequences that legalizing these things would supposedly have, since that is the very thing they constantly accuse people who oppose declaring same-sex marriage a constitutional right of doing. I can't just see the would-be adulterers, nudists, bestialists, etc., furiously accusing everyone of bigotry for denying them their equal rights.

I can identify harmful consequences of public nudity and public masturbation. Polygamy, I cannot. Can you? We'll throw out bestiality, because animals cannot consent to sexual activity. That you'd compare that to homosexuality while simultaneously saying it's just not fair that people keep bringing up interracial marriage in these threads is comical.

And why your focus on sex? This thread is about marriage. Marriage isn't sex.

If you are against polygamy, you'd better identify a sufficiently powerful state interest in banning it. I support same-sex marriage and have a constitutional argument for it, that places no burden on me regarding whatever other sexual activity you're currently obsessing over. I don't approve of polygamy, but if I can't identify a legitimate state interest in banning it then it shouldn't be banned. That's the difference between you and me. I believe my personal disapproval isn't enough to ban someone else's actions.
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

State laws that criminalize adultery rest on the same basis as laws that make crimes of all sort of other sex-related acts--adult incest, bestiality, prostitution, bigamy, polygamy, and so on. And that is the belief of the majority in a state that those acts are immoral and unacceptable.

If that is no longer a good enough reason for the people of a state to exclude same-sex partners from their marriage laws, it will no longer be a good enough reason to prohibit these other acts, either. If it were unconstitutional to exclude same-sex partners from marriage laws, why would it not also be unconstitutional to continue to exclude partners who were more closely related by blood than some specified degree--i.e. partners in adult incest? You know--equal protection, and all that.

The intellectual dishonesty--or maybe it is just lack of intellect--on display in many people who assert that something in the Constitution prohibits any state from excluding same-sex partners from its marriage laws is stunning. What they are desperate to deny is that declaring a constitutional right to same-sex marriage would remove the basis for laws against a wide range of other acts.

These people want to have their pet activity declared a right, and then, once that's done, arbitrarily deny people the right to engage in public nudity, bestiality, public masturbation, adult incest, bigamy, polygamy and so on. It's funny to watch them try to cook up harmful consequences that legalizing these things would supposedly have, since that is the very thing they constantly accuse people who oppose declaring same-sex marriage a constitutional right of doing. I can't just see the would-be adulterers, nudists, bestialists, etc., furiously accusing everyone of bigotry for denying them their equal rights.

I think SCOTUS, for once came up with the right question. What Harm is done? Incest, Polygamy etc there is a public harm that can be justifiably argued. SSM, when asked the 'what harm' question by Justice Thomas, the lead attorney for Prop 8 spluttered. It was a defining moment in legal history

Ultimately the whole SSM issue is nothing to do with public good, policy or law. I's a 100% religious issue. Religion, like sex, should be a personal and private thing. Restricted to the home, and have no place whatsoever in 'public' policy.

Our own morality and eternal soul are our own responsibility.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Not really, but here's my point. I will accept the majority vote on the topic on a national basis. Instead of this state by state crap, and 'yes' / 'no' bickering that costs taxpayer dollars and ties up the court system, let's just add a referendum on the national ballot. Why have someone 'legal' in one state, and illegal on another? Isn't that a bit stupid? And what of the tax consequences. We are one nation, not the European Union.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Not really, but here's my point. I will accept the majority vote on the topic on a national basis. Instead of this state by state crap, and 'yes' / 'no' bickering that costs taxpayer dollars and ties up the court system, let's just add a referendum on the national ballot. Why have someone 'legal' in one state, and illegal on another? Isn't that a bit stupid? And what of the tax consequences. We are one nation, not the European Union.

A national referendum? Oh God, politicians hate those...no gerrymandered electoral districts to ensure a win, what a horrible concept! And 'hanging chads'...you ain't seen nothing yet. That would gum up (unfortunately) the legal system for years. Probably give Congress a good excuse to do even less than they already do, while they debate (I use that word loosely, more probably I should just the word shouting) the issue Ad Nauseum.

So more political gridlock, bring the justice system to a grinding halt, and cost millions of $....yep probably gonna happen
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Not really, but here's my point. I will accept the majority vote on the topic on a national basis. Instead of this state by state crap, and 'yes' / 'no' bickering that costs taxpayer dollars and ties up the court system, let's just add a referendum on the national ballot. Why have someone 'legal' in one state, and illegal on another? Isn't that a bit stupid? And what of the tax consequences. We are one nation, not the European Union.

Can we vote on your right to do something instead? I want to vote up or down on your right to get married.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Not really, but here's my point. I will accept the majority vote on the topic on a national basis. Instead of this state by state crap, and 'yes' / 'no' bickering that costs taxpayer dollars and ties up the court system, let's just add a referendum on the national ballot. Why have someone 'legal' in one state, and illegal on another? Isn't that a bit stupid? And what of the tax consequences. We are one nation, not the European Union.


Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

U.S. Code: Table of Contents | LII / Legal Information Institute



1. The above links are to the United States Constitution and the subordinate United States Code - please point out any provisions which provide for national ballots on initiatives?


2. Please enlighten us on any use of a National Ballot in the history of this country to use a ballot initiative to pass a law.




Thank you in advance.

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

So I'll ask again. How does SSM affect the sanctity of YOUR marriage?

Does your God have an 'all in, all out' clause? If thats the case we're all destined for Hell, since...hate to tell you this...only about 30% of the world is even Christian. Buddhists, Jews, Muslims...the list is endless believe in many things which would consider mortal sins.

Does their very existent invalidate any of your beliefs, or affect the sanctity of your vows?

That question has been answered over and over again in this thread...Do you lefties ever read the other posts or just throw **** up against the wall and hope something sticks.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

That question has been answered over and over again in this thread...Do you lefties ever read the other posts or just throw **** up against the wall and hope something sticks.

Firstly, not a lefty, and Yes I do read and you have skirted the question over and over.

Does it harm you? Yes or No?
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

That question has been answered over and over again in this thread...Do you lefties ever read the other posts or just throw **** up against the wall and hope something sticks.

No it hasn't. You say there's an effect, but can never specify what that is. It's always vague stuff about erosion of values and attacking an institution. That's not an effect, that's a catchphrase.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

That question has been answered over and over again in this thread...Do you lefties ever read the other posts or just throw **** up against the wall and hope something sticks.

Actually it hasn't. And it hasn't ever been answered in any of the dozens of threads on this topic.

We all know you cite things like this and then every single time fail to cite a single instance of what you claimed happened.

I'd ask you to cite just one example of what you claimed was explained, but we all know you can't do it. You can't cite what doesn't exist.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Firstly, not a lefty, and Yes I do read and you have skirted the question over and over.

Does it harm you? Yes or No?

The simple truth of the matter is the only reason they're against it is for bigotry reasons. They simply do not want to admit it. Even Republican Conservative appointed judges nationwide are coming up empty trying to find anything that would justify a legal ban and many of the overturns have been by such judges. We don't see as much "judicial activism" claims because it makes the anti-gay marriage crowd look astonishing stupid to claim that against a judge from their own party. They did that initially and got burned to the point it was obvious they defined that phrase as any ruling they disliked for whatever reason.

I recently made a poll regarding marriage bans on things we find icky. The anti-gay marriage crowd avoided that. Seems they know at least to avoid traps that show just how hypocritical they are.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

I grow weary repeating myself.

TOPIC at hand: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

NO!

You're the one who brought up cheating and now you're complaining that it's not on topic?

Hey you want to cheat and avoid the legal penalties?...get a divorce first.

Stop it with the Fundie crap.

What Fundie crap? We're working off your own words. So unless you're a "Fundie", then it's not "Fundie crap".

State laws that criminalize adultery rest on the same basis as laws that make crimes of all sort of other sex-related acts--adult incest, bestiality, prostitution, bigamy, polygamy, and so on. And that is the belief of the majority in a state that those acts are immoral and unacceptable.

I've already addressed this point to you and you seemed to have ignored it since it completely undermines your argument. State laws, specifically Virgina's, had made illegal interracial marriage based upon the desire of the majority in the state. SCOTUS struck down those laws, noting, as they did in other cases, that marriage is a fundamental right. Therefore there is legal precedent that majority view of what is and isn't moral and acceptable does not trump basic rights, which include the legal state of marriage.

If that is no longer a good enough reason for the people of a state to exclude same-sex partners from their marriage laws, it will no longer be a good enough reason to prohibit these other acts, either. If it were unconstitutional to exclude same-sex partners from marriage laws, why would it not also be unconstitutional to continue to exclude partners who were more closely related by blood than some specified degree--i.e. partners in adult incest? You know--equal protection, and all that.

For the same reason that interracial marriage and same sex marriage should not be illegal, not should adult incest. The reason for such are listed in the various incest threads, so go over there to discuss them. No hijacking. ;) Polygamy, while it would fall under the same arguments for having it legal as for SSM, interracial marriage and adult incest, is not logistically feasible at this time due to all the other laws that have arisen over the course of this countri4es history. We would have to make some other legal changes before we could bring back this practice into the legal arena. However, there is nothing to prevent a triad or larger from establishing a household sans the legal rights and protections that are exclusive to marriage. Prostitution has also been shown to fall within many of those same arguments. Bigamy has only to do with legal marriage and thus has no moral standing whatsoever. I can technically be guilty of polygamy without being guilty of bigamy, except that the legal precedent now shows that the law can only recognize legal marriages when applying such laws. Bestiality has been rejected due to the consent issues. It is the orange among the apples.

I think SCOTUS, for once came up with the right question. What Harm is done? Incest, Polygamy etc there is a public harm that can be justifiably argued.

You honestly can't come up with consistent harms that are solely based upon either incest or polygamy. Sure there can be situations that could arise alongside incest and polygamy such as child abuse and abuse against women, but since these things also occur in non incest and non polygamy situations, there is no direct connection to incest or polygamy being that cause.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

I think SCOTUS, for once came up with the right question. What Harm is done? Incest, Polygamy etc there is a public harm that can be justifiably argued. SSM, when asked the 'what harm' question by Justice Thomas, the lead attorney for Prop 8 spluttered. It was a defining moment in legal history

The only Prop 8 case the Supreme Court decided, as far as I know, was Hollingsworth v. Perry. And my transcript of the oral arguments in that case do not show Justice Thomas breaking his longstanding practice of not asking questions at oral argument. So I have no idea what you mean when you talk about Thomas asking a "what harm" question that made the lawyer splutter, or constituted a defining moment. Please clarify.

Ultimately the whole SSM issue is nothing to do with public good, policy or law.

It should be obvious that whether same-sex partners are included in state marriage laws is very much a question both of public policy and of law.

Thanks to strident minorities who want to bypass the democratic process and force their policy preference on millions of people whose laws they are not even subject to--and federal judges who are eager to help them do that--it is also being made into a constitutional issue.

I's a 100% religious issue. Religion, like sex, should be a personal and private thing. Restricted to the home, and have no place whatsoever in 'public' policy.

Again, that is your opinion. Countless thousands of laws in this country, particularly criminal laws, advance moral beliefs held by majorities. And the ultimate basis for those moral beliefs is religious tenets. But the fact most people consider rape and robbery immoral, for example, hardly makes rape and robbery "100% religious" issues that have no place in public policy.

Our own morality and eternal soul are our own responsibility.

I don't believe that paean to radical individualism for a moment. We are members of a society, not just so many individuals in isolation. And all societies, including this one, have always shared--and enforced--certain moral convictions, in the form of laws. Laws necessarily regulate behavior, and he only way every individual can be left perfectly free to decide what acts are moral is to abandon all laws.
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Ditto for you. 8)

Not at all. Unlike you, I post accurate information and concepts with sound logic. I also know the difference between fact and belief. These are all concepts that you fail at.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Like your faux-Judaism?

More like the lack of faith that you have in whatever religion you practice.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

That's neither here nor there, cheating is cheating in my eyes. They are all sinful.

The discussion is not whether heteros can marry or how many get divorced, it's about Gays.

Your eyes are irrelevant to factual information. The study you presented did not address the issue that you wanted it to. That's why your "eyes" are pretty meaningless.

Once again, you confuse fact with belief.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Is there any "conservative" think tank that you feel is credible? I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your assessment of Heritage, but I have noted that there are many people who dismiss this think tank or that one purely on the basis of being liberal or conservative. Are there any conservative ones out there, that while you may disagree with their conclusions and/or premises, you hold as honest in their methods?

None that I can think of.

In that same vein, are there any religious belief systems that you hold to be credible?

Yes. Those that don't use extremism, fundamentalism, and a lack of inclusiveness as part of their system.
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

My apologies to the group, I mis-appropriated the 'harm' question exchange. Here's the actual exchange between Justices Kagen, Kennedy & the attorney Mr Cooper:

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, could you explain that
a little bit to me, just because I did not pick this up
in your briefs.
What harm you see happening and when and how
and -- what -- what harm to the institution of marriage
or to opposite-sex couples, how does this cause and
effect work?
MR. COOPER: Once again, I -- I would
reiterate that we don't believe that's the correct legal
question before the Court, and that the correct question
is whether or not redefining marriage to include
same-sex couples would advance the interests of marriage
as a -*
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, then are -- are you
conceding the point that there is no harm or denigration
to traditional opposite-sex marriage couples? So you're
conceding that.

Old age and the fact that I was typing original post from my cellphone and couldn't check, contributed to my original mistake. Actually old age, a couple of Gin & Tonics were the primary reason LOL
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

That question has been answered over and over again in this thread...

NO IT HAS NOT.

All you have ever done regarding that question is avoid it at all costs because you know the answer will sabotage the MULTIPLE DOZENS of threads you've started about anything and everything gay.

You're obsessed with homosexuality. On every level.

Yet when confronted with the simplest question you avoid it like the plague and redirect or ignore it EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Your hetero marriage is not effected in any way, shape, or form when a gay couple marries. It's just that simple and yet you refuse to admit it.

I'm straight and married. I know of at least three gay people I work with who are now legally married to their gay partner. My marriage has not been changed or effected at all. The ground did not shake when "the queers" married. The pictures of my wedding did not burst into flames when "the homos" said "I do". The law did not come take my kids away from me, my dog did not run away from home, and my neighbors did not become violent thieves who try to set my house on fire to get to my valuable belongings.

I've been married for 24 years and a couple of "fags" getting married isn't going to change what I have because what I have doesn't rely on what other people do.

I know some great people who happen to be gay. I would be honored to stand in, or attend their weddings if they asked. I see no reason to deny them anything simply because "god" made them gay.

So again, why is your marriage so weak and fragile that total strangers getting married somewhere can change what you have?

How has your marriage changed knowing that gay people in the USofA are in fact now getting legally married?

There's a distinct possibility a gay couple somewhere in the USofA got married within the last 24 hours.
Has your marriage somehow changed in the last 24 hours because of that?

Stop avoiding the question and answer it outright. Step up to the plate and be a man. Don't avoid it like you always do.

Delaware allows legal gay marriage.
If a gay couple in Delaware gets married today, how does YOUR marriage change NP?
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

I'm straight and married. I know of at least three gay people I work with who are now legally married to their gay partner. My marriage has not been changed or effected at all. The ground did not shake when "the queers" married. The pictures of my wedding did not burst into flames when "the homos" said "I do". The law did not come take my kids away from me, my dog did not run away from home, and my neighbors did not become violent thieves who try to set my house on fire to get to my valuable belongings.

You listen to way to many country songs! :D
 
Re: Do you support legalizing gay marriage?

Again, that is your opinion. Countless thousands of laws in this country, particularly criminal laws, advance moral beliefs held by majorities. And the ultimate basis for those moral beliefs is religious tenets. But the fact most people consider rape and robbery immoral, for example, hardly makes rape and robbery "100% religious" issues that have no place in public policy.

To persuade anyone of the dangers of your slippery slope, you'll have to do better than that. No need to turn to morality to defend laws against rape or robbery. Rape is a physical assault, justified on the same basis that it's illegal for me to break your legs with a lead pipe for no reason. Robbery violates fundamental property rights. The harms are clear and if challenged in court the state would have no problem providing a long list why banning those activities are in the public interest. Furthermore, there is no public interest served in allowing individuals to rape and rob at will, and there is no conceivable right to assault another person or take her property.

I don't believe that paean to radical individualism for a moment. We are members of a society, not just so many individuals in isolation. And all societies, including this one, have always shared--and enforced--certain moral convictions, in the form of laws. Laws necessarily regulate behavior, and he only way every individual can be left perfectly free to decide what acts are moral is to abandon all laws.

No one has argued individuals should be "perfectly free" to decide anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom