• 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!

Is it bigotry when someone opposes SSM?

which ones are bigots?


  • Total voters
    65
I know it's hard for some to grasp, but it is possible that some people simply disagree with SSM and bigotry has nothing to do with it. Mind blowing, I know.

Personally, I don't give a crap, either way. Make it legal, keep it illegal, whatever, just make a decision so I know what to expect.

What I did find disingenuous, though, was the timing and quickness of Obama's transformation. Not the notion that he changed his mind in and of itself, but the timing and suddenness (during an election campaign). Yeah, that comes off as real sincere. /sarcasm
 
A person might favor same-sex marriage in his own state, and yet defend the right of people in other states not to allow it. I am not particularly concerned whether my own state authorizes same-sex marriage, or whether some other state does, or not. My concern is their right to decide the issue for themselves, and not to have a Supreme Court decision cook up a new constitutional "right" and force it on the whole country. The Court did that forty years ago in Roe v. Wade, which every constitutional scholar in the U.S. knows is one of the most arbitrary, irrational, result-oriented decisions the Supreme Court has ever made.

The Court also did so with Loving, yet few if any say Loving was the SCOTUS cooking up a new "right" and forcing it on the whole country, which at this point in time is fewer people than when it was the Loving decision.
 
Yes, I am.
I disagree with you on this, then.

Edit: Although it might be more accurate to say I see no point in opposing it.
 
The Court also did so with Loving, yet few if any say Loving was the SCOTUS cooking up a new "right" and forcing it on the whole country, which at this point in time is fewer people than when it was the Loving decision.

What are you claiming the Court did in Loving v. Virginia? No one claims the Court was cooking up a new right in that case, for the simple reason that it was not doing anything of the kind.

The Lovings had gone to D.C. to get married and then returned to live in Virginia as man and wife. They were then convicted under state laws that made what they had done a crime. The Court held Virginia's antimiscegenation laws unconstitutional because it found they were specifically designed to enforce white supremacy--which placed it right in the bulls-eye of the state actions the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to target.

Loving was not a very difficult decision. The Court had recognized in earlier cases that the right of one man and one woman to marry is fundamental, and any law that made that act a crime solely because of the race of the actor was obviously unconstitutional.

The proponents of the homosexual agenda are trying to ride on the coattails of the black civil rights movement, apparently hoping that no one understands the Constitution well enough to see how nonsensical their claims are. The Fourteenth Amendment was no more meant to make homosexuals a specially protected class than it was to do that with seniors, the poor, or the left-handed.
 
What are you claiming the Court did in Loving v. Virginia? No one claims the Court was cooking up a new right in that case, for the simple reason that it was not doing anything of the kind.

The Lovings had gone to D.C. to get married and then returned to live in Virginia as man and wife. They were then convicted under state laws that made what they had done a crime. The Court held Virginia's antimiscegenation laws unconstitutional because it found they were specifically designed to enforce white supremacy--which placed it right in the bulls-eye of the state actions the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to target.

Loving was not a very difficult decision. The Court had recognized in earlier cases that the right of one man and one woman to marry is fundamental, and any law that made that act a crime solely because of the race of the actor was obviously unconstitutional.

The proponents of the homosexual agenda are trying to ride on the coattails of the black civil rights movement, apparently hoping that no one understands the Constitution well enough to see how nonsensical their claims are. The Fourteenth Amendment was no more meant to make homosexuals a specially protected class than it was to do that with seniors, the poor, or the left-handed.

But the SCOTUS did not simply overturn their conviction and only strike down criminal laws against interracial marriage. They struck down civil bans of interracial marriage as well. The fourteenth amendment covers all citizens, including homosexuals, and it most definitely covers sex/gender, which is the determining factor used to restrict people and how they are treated unequally under the law.

For not a difficult decision, they didn't get a decision in their favor til the SCOTUS and had more people in the country who disagreed that they should be allowed to marry, and it wasn't even just white racists.
 
But the SCOTUS did not simply overturn their conviction and only strike down criminal laws against interracial marriage. They struck down civil bans of interracial marriage as well.

That's correct. If you think that affects the constitutional issue in some way, you haven't said what it is.

The fourteenth amendment covers all citizens, including homosexuals

It covers persons who are first cousins, too. But that doesn't mean a state's marriage law violates equal protection or substantive due process by not allowing those persons to marry each other. Same with polygamy. The Fourteenth Amendment covers a man and the three women he would like to marry at the same time, too, and yet it is not violated by a state law prohibiting that marriage.

and it most definitely covers sex/gender, which is the determining factor used to restrict people and how they are treated unequally under the law.

I'm aware that some of the lower federal courts have bought the argument that marriage laws that exclude partners of the same sex call for the intermediate review standard the Supreme Court has applied to laws that discriminate on the basis of sex. I think that argument is very weak, and I think the Supreme Court does too. It has never even implied in its "gay" decisions that it was prepared to use any heightened standard of review.
 
That's correct. If you think that affects the constitutional issue in some way, you haven't said what it is.

It covers persons who are first cousins, too. But that doesn't mean a state's marriage law violates equal protection or substantive due process by not allowing those persons to marry each other. Same with polygamy. The Fourteenth Amendment covers a man and the three women he would like to marry at the same time, too, and yet it is not violated by a state law prohibiting that marriage.

I'm aware that some of the lower federal courts have bought the argument that marriage laws that exclude partners of the same sex call for the intermediate review standard the Supreme Court has applied to laws that discriminate on the basis of sex. I think that argument is very weak, and I think the Supreme Court does too. It has never even implied in its "gay" decisions that it was prepared to use any heightened standard of review.

Because it shows that the SCOTUS was not just referring to restrictions that brought on criminal penalties, and that they in fact affect the laws of recognition of marriage, that equal protection applies to such laws that only deal with marriage recognition by a state.

And although I believe first cousins will be the next major battle we see when it comes to marriage, I do see the "reasoning" given for restricting marriage for first cousins and closer as possibly being related to a government interest, which would be not encouraging relationships that are most likely to come from undue influence and to prevent the births of children when there is an absolute known increase (particularly for relations as close as parent/child or siblings) of risk of children born with genetic defects known to be true for just their blood relation. I honestly could care less if these restrictions are maintained or not, but I doubt anyone pushing for these things are likely to make a good argument for them like is made for same sex marriage.

Limiting the number of spouses a person can have to only one is easily shown to further a government interest in the economy, in avoiding conflictions when it comes to medical decisions or recogntiion of legal next of kin, and some other areas.

I doubt the SCOTUS will not strike down same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional under the 14th. They have already established the precedence for doing so, reaffirming that it is likely with their latest decision to not grant cert against decisions that struck down same sex marriage bans in so many states.
 
A person might favor same-sex marriage in his own state, and yet defend the right of people in other states not to allow it. I am not particularly concerned whether my own state authorizes same-sex marriage, or whether some other state does, or not. My concern is their right to decide the issue for themselves, and not to have a Supreme Court decision cook up a new constitutional "right" and force it on the whole country. The Court did that forty years ago in Roe v. Wade, which every constitutional scholar in the U.S. knows is one of the most arbitrary, irrational, result-oriented decisions the Supreme Court has ever made.

What about Brown v Board 1954? Do you think that should have been left up to the states?
 
What about Brown v Board 1954? Do you think that should have been left up to the states?

I am just tired of Roe v Wade being brought up in these discussions, particularly when somewhere before that the same poster has likely said that same sex marriage supporters were trying to compare the cases to Loving wrongly (in their opinion) and that they are nothing alike. There is so much more in common between the current same sex marriage debate and the interracial marriage debate that it is ridiculously obvious, whereas the Roe v Wade case, abortion in general, is in no way comparable except for that currently the largest groups that oppose both abortion and same sex marriage tend to be the same people, highly religious people who want to ban others from doing all sorts of things they personally find "immoral".

What the current same sex marriage argument has in common with interracial marriage argument of the past:

It's against God.
It's unnatural.
Children are harmed from such relationships.
Marriage has always been like this.
Large portions of the population against it (90% of the US population was against interracial marriage when the Loving decision was made).
Both involve marriage.
Both involve legal relationships.
Neither involve provable harm done to anyone.
Both argued using a slippery slope fallacy

Now for the abortion argument

It kills a living being
It is a selfish choice
It is murder, which is against God
Support for and against has remained pretty steady, before and after the decision, even to this day.

em2ppsxl3umuxhckg1blra.jpg GayMarriageGraph.jpg pr070816ii.gif


One of these things is not like the other two. In fact, I could take off dates and titles from two of them and they would be hard to see which was which. Yet, the other could not be mistaken for them.
 
Personally, I don't give a crap, either way. Make it legal, keep it illegal, whatever, just make a decision so I know what to expect.

I can see how the depriving/extending of rights for an entire group should revolve around the impatience of someone who "doesn't give a crap" and isn't even a part of said group

/s

Thanks for the thoughtful contribution, but i sincerely don't give a crap what you want in this regard

(insert something about how centrism and compromise re: civil rights always fails)
 
I can see how the depriving/extending of rights for an entire group should revolve around the impatience of someone who "doesn't give a crap" and isn't even a part of said group

/s

Thanks for the thoughtful contribution, but i sincerely don't give a crap what you want in this regard

(insert something about how centrism and compromise re: civil rights always fails)

Can I not give a crap that you don't give a crap about his not giving a crap? Please?
 
Can I not give a crap that you don't give a crap about his not giving a crap? Please?

I don't give a crap about he *wants*, which is to resolve it so he doesn't have to hear of it, which must be an unbearable burden indeed, extreme selfishness notwithstanding

But go ahead, misconstrue what i said and don't give a crap, and i promise not to give a crap in turn
 
Are you sure you want to enter the ****-storm?

Nothing can be worse than married to my ex-wife... except having her as an ex-wife... so, yeah. A ****storm sounds like fun.
 
I don't give a crap about he *wants*, which is to resolve it so he doesn't have to hear of it, which must be an unbearable burden indeed, extreme selfishness notwithstanding

But go ahead, misconstrue what i said and don't give a crap, and i promise not to give a crap in turn

I don't give a crap if you think that I misconstrued your crap... so go ahead and don't give a crap in return. I assure you sir, that I will not be giving a crap... at . all .
 
Because it shows that the SCOTUS was not just referring to restrictions that brought on criminal penalties, and that they in fact affect the laws of recognition of marriage, that equal protection applies to such laws that only deal with marriage recognition by a state.

And although I believe first cousins will be the next major battle we see when it comes to marriage, I do see the "reasoning" given for restricting marriage for first cousins and closer as possibly being related to a government interest, which would be not encouraging relationships that are most likely to come from undue influence and to prevent the births of children when there is an absolute known increase (particularly for relations as close as parent/child or siblings) of risk of children born with genetic defects known to be true for just their blood relation. I honestly could care less if these restrictions are maintained or not, but I doubt anyone pushing for these things are likely to make a good argument for them like is made for same sex marriage.

Limiting the number of spouses a person can have to only one is easily shown to further a government interest in the economy, in avoiding conflictions when it comes to medical decisions or recogntiion of legal next of kin, and some other areas.

I doubt the SCOTUS will not strike down same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional under the 14th. They have already established the precedence for doing so, reaffirming that it is likely with their latest decision to not grant cert against decisions that struck down same sex marriage bans in so many states.

Just as you did before, and as I have seen other people do many times, you are grasping at anything you think might justify continuing to deny these other people the rights you insist it unconstitutional to deny to homosexuals. It's easier to sell people on the notion that there is some constitutional right to same-sex marriage, if you can convince them the constitutional right would only extend to homosexuals--and no further. But it would not stop there.

The supporters of incestuous marriages--especially between same-sex partners--would have a strong argument. What conceivable legitimate government interest would be served, for example, by a law that allowed two people of the same sex to marry each other if they were second cousins, but not if they were first cousins? What basis would there be for the argument about preventing genetic defects in offspring, when the incestuous marriage partners were the same sex?

I don't see any reasonable basis for thinking marriages between first cousins, for example, are likely to be the result of some earlier undue influence. In most cases, they would not even have been raised in the same household. And even if people--siblings, for example--are raised in the same household, no undue influence would need to be involved to make them want to marry each other at some point. Here's one of many possible hypotheticals.

Each of two sisters might have had some homosexual inclinations without any incestuous contact of any kind ever taking place in their home. One of both might then have experimented independently with lesbian sex after leaving home without ever telling the other. Hardly unheard of. One or both might very well have put that aside and gone on to get married or have exclusive relationships with men. Hardly unheard of either.

Now, say in their fifties, the sisters find themselves divorced or unattached, their paths cross, and as they spend time together talking intimately, they for the first time develop a romantic attraction to each other. This grows until they eventually want to marry each other. No undue influence at all would ever have occurred in their case, and yet you would deny them the marriage they want because it might occur in some cases.
 
Just as you did before, and as I have seen other people do many times, you are grasping at anything you think might justify continuing to deny these other people the rights you insist it unconstitutional to deny to homosexuals. It's easier to sell people on the notion that there is some constitutional right to same-sex marriage, if you can convince them the constitutional right would only extend to homosexuals--and no further. But it would not stop there.

The supporters of incestuous marriages--especially between same-sex partners--would have a strong argument. What conceivable legitimate government interest would be served, for example, by a law that allowed two people of the same sex to marry each other if they were second cousins, but not if they were first cousins? What basis would there be for the argument about preventing genetic defects in offspring, when the incestuous marriage partners were the same sex?

I don't see any reasonable basis for thinking marriages between first cousins, for example, are likely to be the result of some earlier undue influence. In most cases, they would not even have been raised in the same household. And even if people--siblings, for example--are raised in the same household, no undue influence would need to be involved to make them want to marry each other at some point. Here's one of many possible hypotheticals.

Each of two sisters might have had some homosexual inclinations without any incestuous contact of any kind ever taking place in their home. One of both might then have experimented independently with lesbian sex after leaving home without ever telling the other. Hardly unheard of. One or both might very well have put that aside and gone on to get married or have exclusive relationships with men. Hardly unheard of either.

Now, say in their fifties, the sisters find themselves divorced or unattached, their paths cross, and as they spend time together talking intimately, they for the first time develop a romantic attraction to each other. This grows until they eventually want to marry each other. No undue influence at all would ever have occurred in their case, and yet you would deny them the marriage they want because it might occur in some cases.

I have said consistently that I actually wouldn't care if there were exceptions made for siblings who wish to get married. I think a major exception to incest laws now should be those siblings who are separated until teenage years or adulthood and who want to be married, an exception that has been made in the past (although I think it was in another country).

I've said many times that there is no reasonable basis of undue influence over first cousin marriages and that that is a very good reason why such restrictions need to go away, even be struck down, because the states' case would be very weak for first cousin and further out restrictions when it comes to marriage.

I honestly wouldn't care if any close relations were able to get married. I wouldn't fight for it. I would fight against siblings and parent/child marriages (allowing for exceptions like the example) but would keep my argument solely to the harm that such relationships can cause. If that isn't enough, it isn't enough. Doesn't harm me. I just don't see it really getting much support overall in the first place, which really is a major factor here. Same sex couples would still be struggling against these laws if support for such relationships being recognized was not as high.

But the reason that it would extend for same sex couples is going to be different for why it might extend for other couples, because a Constitutional challenge under equal protection requires arguments for why something should or should not be restricted for those groups. And the arguments are different (at least to an extent) for why marriage should or should not be restricted by sex/gender than it is for why it should or should not be restricted by close relations that already exist or number of people involved or to any person/thing that cannot enter into other contracts or consent to sexual relationships.
 
People who oppose SSM want to deny rights to minority groups they don't like. This is pure, spiteful bigotry.

Well that's great. We'll put you down, then, for being a proud supporter of pedophilia rights!! They are a minority, correct?
 
Last edited:
Well that's great. We'll put you down, then, for being a proud supporter of pedophilia rights!! They are a minority, correct?

what does child rape have to do with equal rights?
 
Well that's great. We'll put you down, then, for being a proud supporter of pedophilia rights!! They are a minority, correct?

I know you think homosexuality is synonymous with child rape but you're pretty much the only person who thinks that. Keep hating.
 
I know you think homosexuality is synonymous with child rape but you're pretty much the only person who thinks that. Keep hating.

Well, they're both sins, but that's not the point.

Your original fulmination was:

RabidAlpaca: "People who oppose SSM want to deny rights to minority groups they don't like. This is pure, spiteful bigotry."

So, are you a supporter of (minority) pedophilia rights or not?

If you are then you code of morality is bankrupt.

If you aren't then that falsies your statement above.

So which is it? Answer the question?
 
Your original fulmination was:

"People who oppose SSM want to deny rights to minority groups they don't like. This is pure, spiteful bigotry."

So, are you a supporter of (minority) pedophilia rights or not?

If you are then you code of morality is bankrupt.

If you aren't then that falsies your statement above.

So which is it? Answer the question?


thats still illogical since you are comparing child rape to equal rights
focus on the word RIGHTS which totally destroys your mentally retarded, inaccurate and inane comparison

since child rape isnt a right and marriage is your dishonest post completely fails, your mistake
 
Back
Top Bottom