• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Give gays their rights!

eja2721 said:
By the way, i'm am NOT gay, i just believe they deserve their rights.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a privilage bud. sorry to break it to you. Did you know that the main people fighting for gay marriage are loyers. Do you know why?
 
satinloveslibs said:
Marriage is a privilage bud. sorry to break it to you.
Click to expand...
From Black's Law Dictionary:
RIGHT: "Rights are defined generally as 'powers of free action.' And the primal rights pertaining to men are enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality, and existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law."

PRIVILEGE: "A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A peculiar right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others.""

So, by definition, a privilege is a right.

satinloveslibs said:
Did you know that the main people fighting for gay marriage are loyers. Do you know why?
Click to expand...
Did you know that the main people fighting for rights in courts are lawyers? Do you know why? Because they actually know the law.

Go figure, eh?
 
Gays should be allowed to marry. It's up to the church whether or not they get married in the church. That's as far as the church's power should go. I really don't want to see another Inquisition because the church had too much power. Remember "separation of church and state"? What ever happened to that?
 
shuamort said:
From Black's Law Dictionary:
RIGHT: "Rights are defined generally as 'powers of free action.' And the primal rights pertaining to men are enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality, and existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law."

PRIVILEGE: "A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A peculiar right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others.""

So, by definition, a privilege is a right.


Did you know that the main people fighting for rights in courts are lawyers? Do you know why? Because they actually know the law.

Go figure, eh?
Click to expand...

I thought that was pretty amusing too.

Do you know who the main people fighting for rapists and murderers in courts are too? LAWYERS!

DAMN THEM TO HELL
 
satinloveslibs said:
Marriage is a privilage bud. sorry to break it to you. Did you know that the main people fighting for gay marriage are loyers. Do you know why?
Click to expand...

You're right. Marriage is a privilege, one that each individual church has the right to bestow on whomsoever it chooses.

However, the tax breaks and other rights that come with being "married" according to the government are not privileges. They are rights. And if the government chooses to separate the institution of marriage from its legal decisions, it will be more in line with our Constitution.
 
satinloveslibs said:
Did you know that the main people fighting for gay marriage are loyers. Do you know why?
Click to expand...
More divorces?
 
RightatNYU said:
I thought that was pretty amusing too.

Do you know who the main people fighting for rapists and murderers in courts are too? LAWYERS!

DAMN THEM TO HELL
Click to expand...
You know why they fight for those people? It is their job and they are bound by a code of ethics that they swear on. That code of ethics states that they fight for whoever their client is. It also says that if they are told by those people they are defending that they are guilty, they can opt out of defending them. Now, that is honorable and it holds up the integrity of the judicial system by insuring that everyone has a fair trial.

Lawyers tend to be more liberal. True, that's why they give money to Democrats and support them. For example, Jack Girardi, a wealthy lawyer from Los Angeles provided planes for Edwards during his run at the white house before being beaten by Kerry. But it is not because they are liberal that they defend those that society does not want to be defended. It is their job because that is their proscribed job in the judicial system.

Oh, and my entire family is lawyers, so Damn you to hell because I am training to be one as well. Am I kidding? Yeah, probably, I have found that, with the exception of this post, you are level-headed.
 
ShamMol said:
You know why they fight for those people? It is their job and they are bound by a code of ethics that they swear on. That code of ethics states that they fight for whoever their client is. It also says that if they are told by those people they are defending that they are guilty, they can opt out of defending them. Now, that is honorable and it holds up the integrity of the judicial system by insuring that everyone has a fair trial.

Lawyers tend to be more liberal. True, that's why they give money to Democrats and support them. For example, Jack Girardi, a wealthy lawyer from Los Angeles provided planes for Edwards during his run at the white house before being beaten by Kerry. But it is not because they are liberal that they defend those that society does not want to be defended. It is their job because that is their proscribed job in the judicial system.

Oh, and my entire family is lawyers, so Damn you to hell because I am training to be one as well. Am I kidding? Yeah, probably, I have found that, with the exception of this post, you are level-headed.
Click to expand...


I know and agree with you. I was joking. It seems so dumb to have people yell at lawyers just for doing their job.
 
RightatNYU said:
I know and agree with you. I was joking. It seems so dumb to have people yell at lawyers just for doing their job.
Click to expand...
They are a critical part of the judicial system that would just be a rubber stamp for prosecutors without them. I had hoped you were joking...
 
I agree gays deserve their rights, especially marriage and all the benefits that society provides. It is my belief that society must accomidate all persons that are legal residents of that state (thinking globally). For us to deny the rights of any citizen places us into anything but a free state/government. So, how do we fix this problem in our societies?

It is my belief that each state should be responsible for it's own people. And that legislation should be passed on a state and local level to allow these rights to all individuals.
 
Laternater said:
I agree gays deserve their rights, especially marriage and all the benefits that society provides. It is my belief that society must accomidate all persons that are legal residents of that state (thinking globally). For us to deny the rights of any citizen places us into anything but a free state/government. So, how do we fix this problem in our societies?

It is my belief that each state should be responsible for it's own people. And that legislation should be passed on a state and local level to allow these rights to all individuals.
Click to expand...

You say you think the state should 'accomadate' all persons. Does this include those that want to sleep with animals (bestilality?)
 
Montalban said:
You say you think the state should 'accomadate' all persons. Does this include those that want to sleep with animals (bestilality?)
Click to expand...
Animals do not have the ability to consent to that behavior. I'll just pre-emptively say neither do children with an adult either.
 
shuamort said:
I'll just pre-emptively say neither do children with an adult either.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree with you but, would not the same 'rights' agument apply?
 
vauge said:
I wholeheartedly agree with you but, would not the same 'rights' agument apply?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I follow what you're asking.
 
shuamort said:
I'm not sure I follow what you're asking.
Click to expand...

In using the 'rights' argument for marrage, why can't a youngster claim that it's against their 'rights' to marry another person? Abliet family or otherwise. Age is discriminatory, why is that arguement being swept under the rug when in it's truely the same context.
 
vauge said:
In using the 'rights' argument for marrage, why can't a youngster claim that it's against their 'rights' to marry another person? Abliet family or otherwise. Age is discriminatory, why is that arguement being swept under the rug when in it's truely the same context.
Click to expand...
I've posted this before but here's a link to the Age of Consent details for every country and every state. I don't see it being "swept under the rug" as much as it's just not that relevent to the discussion. The amount of things that minors can't do in this country is numerous and it's assumed that when someone gets to the age of majority that they can make their own decisions.
 
shuamort said:
I've posted this before but here's a link to the Age of Consent details for every country and every state. I don't see it being "swept under the rug" as much as it's just not that relevent to the discussion. The amount of things that minors can't do in this country is numerous and it's assumed that when someone gets to the age of majority that they can make their own decisions.
Click to expand...

The point is, minors do indeed have rights. But there are certain priviledges that the state will not allow them to do drive - marry etc...

Why cannot a state make the same decision based on marriage of two adults?
 
vauge said:
The point is, minors do indeed have rights. But there are certain priviledges that the state will not allow them to do drive - marry etc...

Why cannot a state make the same decision based on marriage of two adults?
Click to expand...
A better question is, why SHOULD a state get involved in the private life of its adult citizens? I guess I don't want a government in my business or bedroom.
 
shuamort said:
A better question is, why SHOULD a state get involved in the private life of its adult citizens? I guess I don't want a government in my business or bedroom.
Click to expand...
Good point shuamort, but you also have to realize that the state has no impeding interest in seeing that there is no gay marriage-which is usally required to help them step in and stop it. If you are comparing the rights of homosexuals to minors you have a long way to come before you realize what the debate is about. Each of these people who we are talking about are consentin adults who wish to marry, not minors, not wookies, just consenting adults. Age can be discriminatory, but that isn't the issue here. What is at issue is the rights of consenting adults and there is no compelling interest for the state or federal government to step in and stop them from getting married.
 
shuamort said:
A better question is, why SHOULD a state get involved in the private life of its adult citizens? I guess I don't want a government in my business or bedroom.
Click to expand...

Again, that is the choice of the state.

Why should the government get involved in the seatbelt issue?
The state is requiring me to wear one - that is my personal space.
Because it's required to do so.
 
If you don't put your seatbelt on, you could die.

The government shouldn't have to step in and say you should wear a seatbelt, you should just do it. If you don't police yourself, the government can and should do it for you.

Two chicks getting married does not effect your body's health. It may produce certain physiological changes in men, but other than that, you're okay.

There is nothing wrong with the government endorsing a long term monogamous between two consenting adults. I don't see where there is a problem.
 
I agree about the seatbelt BG.

But, the reason I mentioned that was because it truely is a private issue and the gov't is involved. Not much different with marriage. It's private and the gov't is indeed involved.
 
vauge said:
Again, that is the choice of the state.

Why should the government get involved in the seatbelt issue?
The state is requiring me to wear one - that is my personal space.
Because it's required to do so.
Click to expand...
Because it has a compelling intersest in your saftey, which enables it to pass legislation to require you to keep safe.
 
Because it has a compelling intersest in your saftey, which enables it to pass legislation to require you to keep safe.
Click to expand...
They should do the same for Homosexuals then.
I don’t know why gay marriage has to be talked to death. The people for it are not going to budge, and the people against it are not going to budge. Every time it comes up I get more angry and bitter about having the Gay agenda imposed on me and my family. Marriage will do nothing for the gay community, and will cost taxpayers millions in health care costs. For every responsible, committed, person like our Shuamort, there are ten on the other side. The lifestyle of the common homosexual is not pretty, and people who promote it are doing those who follow a disservice. It is wrong to allow our young people to believe it is a normal and acceptable lifestyle, which they may wish to experiment with.
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom