• 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!

Criticizing Bigotry is not an Attack on Faith

NWRatCon said:
It is born of a desire to establish a Christian theocracy in America. The problem, really, is that the Constitution is an explicitly secular document, and that just causes some people to chafe. Oh, and ask him when Jesus condemned homosexuality. That should be fun.
Click to expand...

The Constitution is a secular document and the left has seen fit to find all sorts of rights in it that are not there. It has nothing to do with theocracy and everything to do with bending the document to fit a political agenda. The Constitution confers specific and rather narrow powers to the Federal government and leaves all others to the states or the people. Defining marriage is nowhere a Federal power. If states wanted gay marriage, it was in their power to establish it.
 
veritas1 said:
That may be but it isn't a qualification. It is an immutable characteristic. I'd never vote for anyone because they were male, female, black, white, etc. I'd have to know their positions and the reasons they held them. The Dems see immutable characteristics as positive arguments to vote for someone, as in Obama being black somehow equating to a reason to vote for him. Same with Kamala Harris being black and female. I just don't agree with that. Let me know what you think. What you look like is fairly meaningless.
Click to expand...

Unless you're white and wear a powdered wig?
 
veritas1 said:
Yet liberals see being minority, female or gay as positives for a presidential candidate. Why should these characteristics have anything to do with qualifications? Why is every white male asked if he'll put a woman on his ticket as if being a woman confers some benefit beyond whatever other abilities she has?
Click to expand...
What left?
Who said those things have to do with qualification?

can you tell us where you get you extremists dishonest talking points handbook from? I have to read this fantasy one day because its hilarious!

another retarded lie goes down in flames LOL
 
veritas1 said:
The Constitution is a secular document and the left has seen fit to find all sorts of rights in it that are not there. [Like what? equal protection of the laws?] It has nothing to do with theocracy [I quite agree] and everything to do with bending the document to fit a political [my religious] agenda. The Constitution confers specific and rather narrow powers to the Federal government and leaves all others to the states or the people. Defining marriage is nowhere a Federal power. If states wanted gay marriage, it was in their power to establish it.
Click to expand...
You missed a few years of your limited education, my friend. See, back in the 1860s there was this little skirmish. After it, there were some modifications to the Constitution. Blacks were given citizenship, States were required to follow "equal protection" and "due process" and all. Minor tweaks like that.
 
veritas1 said:
Yet liberals see being minority, female or gay as positives for a presidential candidate. Why should these characteristics have anything to do with qualifications? Why is every white male asked if he'll put a woman on his ticket as if being a woman confers some benefit beyond whatever other abilities she has?
Click to expand...

Liberals don't see those things as positives so much as they don't see them as negatives, like the right does. Asking that question of the many white male candidates is just sensationalism by the media. Most liberal voters don't care. We care about the skyrocketing costs of health care and medicines. We care about the fact that while unemployment may be low, too many of those jobs don't pay a living wage. We care about the fact that we're destroying our luving habitat. We listen closely to those who have actual substantive, sensible plans to fix some of the most important issues.

Answer this: All day for several days now, I've been listening to and watching Trump's people like Sarah Sanders and Kellyanne Conway blaming this immigrant influx on the failure of Democrats to sit down with Trump and try to solve our immigration problems. But until a few months ago, Republicans had the power trifecta, so why didn't THAT congress sit down with Trump and get immigration reform done? They had two effing YEARS to do so.

I await your answer with anticipation of more spin and deflection and a dose of whataboutism.
 
NWRatCon said:
My dear sir, your ignorance of the history of marriage is as vast as the Grand Canyon and the skies of Montana. You have a very narrow window of existence, and it is obvious to any outside observer. I, too, have a sacred text. It's called the Constitution. There are a couple of principles in it that you clearly don't understand or support. One is the separation of church and State. Another is equal protection of the laws. I suggest that if compliance with the organizing principles of our nation are too much for you, you seek residence elsewhere. The Vatican, I understand, is a Christian theocracy, but I suspect you won't like its current leader.
Click to expand...

Rather amusing. How can you have equal protection of a law that doesn't exist? Marriage had a legal definition which consisted of the union of one man and one woman. That was being equally applied. What you want isn't equal protection of the law but making new law and the place to do that, per the Constitution, is in the states unless that power is specifically given to the Federal government. You can also cut the theocracy blather. Nobody, least of all I, is calling for a theocracy. That's just another attempt to divert the conversation.
 
Idiometer said:
Liberals don't see those things as positives so much as they don't see them as negatives, like the right does. Asking that question of the many white male candidates is just sensationalism by the media. Most liberal voters don't care. We care about the skyrocketing costs of health care and medicines. We care about the fact that while unemployment may be low, too many of those jobs don't pay a living wage. We care about the fact that we're destroying our luving habitat. We listen closely to those who have actual substantive, sensible plans to fix some of the most important issues.

Answer this: All day for several days now, I've been listening to and watching Trump's people like Sarah Sanders and Kellyanne Conway blaming this immigrant influx on the failure of Democrats to sit down with Trump and try to solve our immigration problems. But until a few months ago, Republicans had the power trifecta, so why didn't THAT congress sit down with Trump and get immigration reform done? They had two effing YEARS to do so.

I await your answer with anticipation of more spin and deflection and a dose of whataboutism.
Click to expand...

You obviously haven't been paying attention as I've said on numerous occasions that the Ryan led GOP Congress was utterly spineless and beholden to its corporate donors. That's why the mess wasn't addressed long before now. They chose their masters over doing the right thing.
 
NWRatCon said:
You missed a few years of your limited education, my friend. See, back in the 1860s there was this little skirmish. After it, there were some modifications to the Constitution. Blacks were given citizenship, States were required to follow "equal protection" and "due process" and all. Minor tweaks like that.
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Nice try.
 
veritas1 said:
Any time, sport.
Click to expand...

LOL. Yeah, right. My friend, you have opinions. Strongly held opinions. But debate requires a command of facts. In 17 pages of discussion you have produced numerous opinions, but no facts. You have no real grasp of the Constitution, or its precepts. You parrot religious talking points without any real understanding of the text. I come here to discuss substance, big ideas, issues of real import. You come here to snipe. I don't consider that debate. I don't have the time or inclination to fill in the huge gaps in your education, and I don't think it would be effective in any event (given current evidence).

Here, let's try this: provide some historical basis for your insistence that marriage is between a man and woman. See if you can come up with a constitutional basis for denying a right to a class of citizens based upon their immutable condition (sexuality). Show me a legal basis for your position that is not based upon a religion predilection, and I'll seriously consider your offer.
 
veritas1 said:
The same arguments made to allow gay marriage could be used by any two or more people, including close relations if they were gay, and they'd have a very strong case under the current circumstances.
Click to expand...

You're trying hard to divert the discussion to the 1 in a million. Why not just bring in dogs or cats or donkeys? And the "case" against it is that intra-family marriage is inherently abusive. I don't know or want to guess how the courts would rule on that, but it's the same argument against intra-family marriages or marriages of adults and minors pre-SSM. Health concerns were one part of those arguments.

If marriage is a Constitutional right, then it would have to be one for all citizens. That is where we really diverge, I think. The "right" to marriage discovered in the Constitution does not exist, IMO. It was properly regulated by the states per the 10th amendment.
Click to expand...

So you'd have opposed the Loving decision, and allowed for bans on interracial marriages on the books of many states? And if you know anything about marriage and the courts, you'd also know that the courts created a 'right' to marriage long, long before SSM. Loving was just an example. That was all fine and dandy until the gays pointed out if it's a right, then that 'right' exists for them as well as straight couples.
 
NWRatCon said:
LOL. Yeah, right. My friend, you have opinions. Strongly held opinions. But debate requires a command of facts. In 17 pages of discussion you have produced numerous opinions, but no facts. You have no real grasp of the Constitution, or its precepts. You parrot religious talking points without any real understanding of the text. I come here to discuss substance, big ideas, issues of real import. You come here to snipe. I don't consider that debate. I don't have the time or inclination to fill in the huge gaps in your education, and I don't think it would be effective in any event (given current evidence).

Here, let's try this: provide some historical basis for your insistence that marriage is between a man and woman. See if you can come up with a constitutional basis for denying a right to a class of citizens based upon their immutable condition (sexuality). Show me a legal basis for your position that is not based upon a religion predilection, and I'll seriously consider your offer.
Click to expand...

Do you deny that the entire understanding of marriage in this country, without even referencing its long traditions elsewhere, was that it was between one man and one woman? If you deny that, then there is hardly a reason for me to argue for why changing it was done in an un-Constitutional manner. If you concede the point then what was the Constitutional basis for establishing new law? I contend that there is no basis since the Constitution is silent on the matter and it should have been left to the states. If they all wanted gay marriage, so be it, but it should not have been forced on them.

I haven't parroted religious talking points or referenced scripture, either. If you'd like to debate that, feel free as well. My personal opposition to gay marriage is a moral one but, accepting that it can be enacted under our Constitution, the least that could be done would be to actually follow the document.

You say you came here to debate substance then go off on a bevy of personal attacks. If the former is true, then you don't need to shelter behind the latter.
 
veritas1 said:
That may be but it isn't a qualification. It is an immutable characteristic.
Click to expand...

No one argues that because "woman" or because "gay", therefore, that a person is qualified to be VP or President. The argument is there are many women and minorities otherwise qualified to be VP or President, and all else equal a positive if someone with a different perspective had a voice at the top of an administration.

I'd never vote for anyone because they were male, female, black, white, etc. I'd have to know their positions and the reasons they held them. The Dems see immutable characteristics as positive arguments to vote for someone, as in Obama being black somehow equating to a reason to vote for him. Same with Kamala Harris being black and female. I just don't agree with that. Let me know what you think. What you look like is fairly meaningless.
Click to expand...

I've never read or listened to anyone on the left with that position - that BECAUSE a person is female (or gay or black or Muslim), they support them. Just for example, people have expressed clear preferences for Harris versus Warren versus Gabbard versus other women in the race. That's based on their positions, their agenda, their QUALIFICATIONS!

You're infantilizing those on the left with positions they don't hold - that the only reason anyone voted for Obama was because he's black. If you noticed, he also ran a great campaign, was a tremendous public speaker, and proposed policies supported by 'the left.'

Let's put this another way. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have a problem with someone who is a farmer running, and farmers supporting him because they believe a person who is a farmer will represent their interests if elected. Being a farmer provides a unique perspective on farm issues - that politician has lived it. So why exactly is it irrational somehow for women or blacks to prefer, all else equal, a black or woman who they might believe will represent their interests if elected? It's not irrational. It would only be irrational if the person who is black (or a woman) was otherwise UNqualified for office, and the only reason to support that person is because they are black or a woman. NO ONE holds that position.

Was Obama qualified? Yes. Was Hillary in 2008? Yes! So given that two completely qualified candidates were on the ballot in the primaries, of course blacks may have preferred Obama. I can promise you if some fruitcake like Alan Keyes ran, he wouldn't have garnered the kind of support Obama got because blacks would not have approved of his qualifications, his policy recommendations, and would have determined him UNqualified given their political positions.
 
TrueScotsman said:
The Bible is clear that you shouldn't associate with someone like Pete who claims to be Christian and yet is openly sexually immoral by its standard. The problem is Christianity and the Bible, bigotry is merely the programming of traditional society. If Christians want to try and overcome that, it is an uphill battle, the text clearly sides with the bigots.
Click to expand...

If memory serves, Jesus was condemned for his associations.
 
JasperL said:
You're trying hard to divert the discussion to the 1 in a million. Why not just bring in dogs or cats or donkeys? And the "case" against it is that intra-family marriage is inherently abusive. I don't know or want to guess how the courts would rule on that, but it's the same argument against intra-family marriages or marriages of adults and minors pre-SSM. Health concerns were one part of those arguments.



So you'd have opposed the Loving decision, and allowed for bans on interracial marriages on the books of many states? And if you know anything about marriage and the courts, you'd also know that the courts created a 'right' to marriage long, long before SSM. Loving was just an example. That was all fine and dandy until the gays pointed out if it's a right, then that 'right' exists for them as well as straight couples.
Click to expand...

1. I'm not diverting anything. I'm taking it to its logical conclusion. I'm also not talking about minors. You can leave them out. I'm talking about consenting adults. The reason that close family relations can't marry is a medical one but that wouldn't exist in the case of gay marriages. Also, why would these have to necessarily be any more abusive than other marriages? I'm not sure that is so.

2. No, no no. Loving involved a man and a woman wanting to get married in a state already marrying other men and women. It is a true equal protection case. They weren't marrying gays. Nobody was. That required redefining the law and that process needed to stay in the states unless a right to it could be found in the Constitution. I contend that right was manufactured, not discovered.
 
Last edited:
NWRatCon said:
You missed a few years of your limited education, my friend. See, back in the 1860s there was this little skirmish. After it, there were some modifications to the Constitution. Blacks were given citizenship, States were required to follow "equal protection" and "due process" and all. Minor tweaks like that.
Click to expand...

After the civil war unbeliever Southerners established the KKK as a vehicle to ally resistance against republican efforts to help blacks assimilate into every aspect of American life.
 
JasperL said:
No one argues that because "woman" or because "gay", therefore, that a person is qualified to be VP or President. The argument is there are many women and minorities otherwise qualified to be VP or President, and all else equal a positive if someone with a different perspective had a voice at the top of an administration.



I've never read or listened to anyone on the left with that position - that BECAUSE a person is female (or gay or black or Muslim), they support them. Just for example, people have expressed clear preferences for Harris versus Warren versus Gabbard versus other women in the race. That's based on their positions, their agenda, their QUALIFICATIONS!

You're infantilizing those on the left with positions they don't hold - that the only reason anyone voted for Obama was because he's black. If you noticed, he also ran a great campaign, was a tremendous public speaker, and proposed policies supported by 'the left.'

Let's put this another way. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have a problem with someone who is a farmer running, and farmers supporting him because they believe a person who is a farmer will represent their interests if elected. Being a farmer provides a unique perspective on farm issues - that politician has lived it. So why exactly is it irrational somehow for women or blacks to prefer, all else equal, a black or woman who they might believe will represent their interests if elected? It's not irrational. It would only be irrational if the person who is black (or a woman) was otherwise UNqualified for office, and the only reason to support that person is because they are black or a woman. NO ONE holds that position.

Was Obama qualified? Yes. Was Hillary in 2008? Yes! So given that two completely qualified candidates were on the ballot in the primaries, of course blacks may have preferred Obama. I can promise you if some fruitcake like Alan Keyes ran, he wouldn't have garnered the kind of support Obama got because blacks would not have approved of his qualifications, his policy recommendations, and would have determined him UNqualified given their political positions.
Click to expand...

Why does the left rail on endlessly about white males and attribute all sorts of negative traits to them, especially if they are older? If they don't like the fact that they tend to be conservatives, then say so. However, they always revert to their comfort zone which is identity politics. I agree they'll always vote for a white liberal over a black conservative and that is not what I'm addressing.
 
NWRatCon said:
Thanks for demonstrating your incapacity.
Click to expand...

I was simply stating a fact. Making the states observe all the rights in the Constitution only matters for marriage if it is actually a Constitutional right. I don't believe it is or that the gay marriage question was one of equal protection.
 
veritas1 said:
Do you deny that the entire understanding of marriage in this country, without even referencing its long traditions elsewhere, was that it was between one man and one woman? [Maybe, got evidence?] If you deny that, then there is hardly a reason for me to argue for why changing it was done in an un-Constitutional manner.
Click to expand...
Oh, yes, yes there is! It's called a "non sequitur", a logical fallacy. I know you are familiar with that, because you use them so often. I can already tell where this is going to go, but... let me try something.

I suppose you know the current Constitution was not the original organizing document for the United States, right? First there were the
Articles of Confederation. (Okay, if you want to get technical, the Declaration of Independence occurred before that.)
The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States, on November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the Articles of Confederation by all thirteen states did not occur until March 1, 1781. The Articles created a loose confederation of sovereign states and a weak central government, leaving most of the power with the state governments. The need for a stronger Federal government soon became apparent and eventually led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The present United States Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation on March 4, 1789.
Click to expand...

The second Constitution (which we now use), created, instead, a much stronger central government. That was the argument of "the Federalists", and much of The Federalist Papers , the majority produced by Alexander Hamilton. There were, of course, tensions between the "Federalists" and "Anti-Federalists" (later the "Democratic-Republicans"). Ultimately, those tensions resulted in the Civil War, after which secessionist States were brought back into the Union. It also resulted in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. Of import, here, is Section 1:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...
(You see where this is going, right?)

Apparently, also, you have forgotten about the Ninth Amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

So, from my perspective (and, frankly, that of the Constitution itself), people have the inherent right to marry whomever they want, and to prevent that, a government (State or national), has to have a compelling reason to prohibit it. Tradition, or religious proscriptions don't cut it. You ask the wrong question, if you are asking why it is allowed under the Constitution. Rather, the question should be: How is it prohibited?
 
veritas1 said:
Why does the left rail on endlessly about white males and attribute all sorts of negative traits to them, especially if they are older? If they don't like the fact that they tend to be conservatives, then say so. However, they always revert to their comfort zone which is identity politics. I agree they'll always vote for a white liberal over a black conservative and that is not what I'm addressing.
Click to expand...

I don't know who "the left" is or what "they" said, specifically. So I cannot address that comment. And I don't think "they" always do anything. Lots of people on the left, 60 million or more. I know Bernie Sanders is an old white man, and he seems VERY popular among some on "the left." Others like me don't prefer him, but it's got nothing to do with his age or that he's a white male.

That's the problem with creating stereotypes and arguing against them. 60 million or more people don't reduce themselves to these simplistic attitudes you're assigned to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom