• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

Is anti-gay unconstitutional

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
argexpat said:
This is why gays have the right to marry:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If this is "forcing" anything on you, it's the idea that civil liberties are to be extended to everyone, regardless of personal bigotry. If you don't like that, you just don't like democracy.

I can't believe I have to remind a Republican about the very cornerstone of our democracy. Actually, I'm not surprised.
This is the most overused argument I've ever heard.

I'm so sick and tired of explaining this, but here goes.

Just because it says all men have "certain unalienable rights", does it mean that EVERYTHING they construe to be "their right," they get? NO!

If doing something illegal makes them happy, then are they free to pursue happiness however they want? NO!

The whole point of that statement is that people have certain rights which cannot be taken away, but the decision as to what those right are and how they are legislated was left up to the government.

It says all "men." Does that mean that only men deserve all those rights, and women deserve none? Well, the government operated that way for a long time, until it allowed all women the same rights as men through legislation, much the same as it did to minorities with the Civil Rights Act. Again, the government legislated to elaborate on who would receive what "inalienable rights," as it was intended to.

And guess what? The government decided that gay marraige was not one of the rights. The system worked exactly the way it was meant to, so don't claim it's broken because it didn't turn out the way you or I wanted.

I can't believe I had to explain to a Democrat the actual meaning of a quote he was using. Actually, I'm not surprised.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I agree that it is actually a republic, however you misinterpret both the words and intent of the founders.

Judges were intended to rule on legal matters and declare laws unconstitutional if they felt them to be so. They were NOT intended to legislate by themselves. The judiciary does not have the power to make laws out of nothing. If the government passes a law making gay marraige illegal, the court can declare that law unconstitutional. It cannot, however, use that as a spring board to mean that gay marraige IS constitutional.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
RightatNYU said:
I agree that it is actually a republic, however you misinterpret both the words and intent of the founders.

Judges were intended to rule on legal matters and declare laws unconstitutional if they felt them to be so. They were NOT intended to legislate by themselves. The judiciary does not have the power to make laws out of nothing. If the government passes a law making gay marraige illegal, the court can declare that law unconstitutional. It cannot, however, use that as a spring board to mean that gay marraige IS constitutional.
The founders of the Constitution were still around when the 1803 decision of Marbury v Madison occurred, which endowed the courts with the ability to interpret the meaning behind the constitution. It's interpretation that you're confusing with law creation. There's a big difference in that you're believing they're making a silk purse out of the sow's ear when it turns out they've got the fabric on their sewing machine.

If you believe that the SCOTUS has at any point made laws from the bench, please show me the case and we'll go from there.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,178
Reaction score
6,283
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I have not ONCE resorted to name calling in this thread (I was corrected before in another thread by Naughty).

Let us define a bigot:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Dictionary.com

Perhaps it is YOU that has a bigotry toward my opinion?

I can respect your opinion, but as soon as you call me a dork, bigot, and prejudice - it undermines your complete rebuttal. It also shows your lack of respect and dignity. Then when you ask for a pic, and I ask for a reciprocal - you somehow lost the idea. Typical response.

If you're gay you're gay, if you're straight you're straight, and if you're bi you're bi. Nothing is going to change you.

Who said I wanted to CHANGE anyone? That is complete an utter non-sense to even attempt. I just do not want it popular so that youngsters want to BECOME gay. If your gay, bi, or whatever - that is fine with me. I just do not want to see it. I think someone in this thread said "Mind your own business". Absolutely! Keep your business to yourself as well!

If you're confused about your sexuality, there is no harm in experimenting, or waiting until you find yourself.

Regardless of whom they are experimenting with, why give ideas to horny youngsters like "don't know until you try it"? This leads to STD's, teenage pregnancy, and all kinds of social issues.

Sex is becoming like fashion. Who are you wearing today?
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
shuamort said:
The founders of the Constitution were still around when the 1803 decision of Marbury v Madison occurred, which endowed the courts with the ability to interpret the meaning behind the constitution. It's interpretation that you're confusing with law creation. There's a big difference in that you're believing they're making a silk purse out of the sow's ear when it turns out they've got the fabric on their sewing machine.

If you believe that the SCOTUS has at any point made laws from the bench, please show me the case and we'll go from there.
No, I'm actually not confusing the two. The courts have a long history (mainly in recent decades) of overstepping their boundaries and acting as a legislature.

United Steelworkers of America v. Weber (1979) - Supreme Court held that private enterprises could in fact practice racial quotas and preferences. This was an example of the courts expanding a federal law on the books to the private sector, something they had no constitutional right to do.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) - Supreme court overturned Wolf v. Colorado, which said that each state had the right to determine its own threshold for "unreasonable search and seizure." This was an example of the court acting as a legislature, making a policy decision for the states, as noted by the dissenting justices.

A federal Judge in Missouri ordered the state to pay for 2.6 billion dollars in capital improvement in school districts, causing the state, because of the stage of the budget process it was in, to be forced to raise it's taxes immediately. This is an example of a Judge usurping the powers of Congress, the only branch with the power of the purse and taxation.

Do you want more examples?

They might be making a silk purse out of the silk that's already on the machine, but there's a law against them actually making that purse, to use your analogy.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
RightatNYU said:
United Steelworkers of America v. Weber (1979) - Supreme Court held that private enterprises could in fact practice racial quotas and preferences. This was an example of the courts expanding a federal law on the books to the private sector, something they had no constitutional right to do.
Question Presented
Did United and Kaiser Aluminum's training scheme violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race?

Conclusion
No. The Court held that the training scheme was legitimate because the 1964 Act "did not intend to prohibit the private sector from taking effective steps" to implement the goals of Title VII. Since the program sought to eliminate archaic patterns of racial segregation and hierarchy while not prohibiting white employees from advancing in the company, it was consistent with the intent of the law.

It sure looks like interpretation not creation to me.

RightatNYU said:
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) - Supreme court overturned Wolf v. Colorado, which said that each state had the right to determine its own threshold for "unreasonable search and seizure." This was an example of the court acting as a legislature, making a policy decision for the states, as noted by the dissenting justices.
Question Presented
Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment? (May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding?)

Conclusion
The Court brushed aside the First Amendment issue and declared that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court." Mapp had been convicted on the basis of illegally obtained evidence. This was an historic -- and controversial -- decision. It placed the requirement of excluding illegally obtained evidence from court at all levels of the government. The decision launched the Court on a troubled course of determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule.

Wow, so the court agreed with what was written in the Bill of Rights? I still don't see your point nor agree with the dissenting judges there either.

RightatNYU said:
A federal Judge in Missouri ordered the state to pay for 2.6 billion dollars in capital improvement in school districts, causing the state, because of the stage of the budget process it was in, to be forced to raise it's taxes immediately. This is an example of a Judge usurping the powers of Congress, the only branch with the power of the purse and taxation.
You have a case number on this one? After a bit of googling I'm coming up empty.

RightatNYU said:
Do you want more examples?
Sure.
RightatNYU said:
They might be making a silk purse out of the silk that's already on the machine, but there's a law against them actually making that purse, to use your analogy.
You mean that the Supreme Court has been acting illegally and no one has done anything about it? Ever?
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
"The Court held that the training scheme was legitimate because the 1964 Act "did not intend to prohibit the private sector from taking effective steps" to implement the goals of Title VII."

The Act didn't prohibit the private sector from taking steps, but it also wasn't meant to require it. The Supreme Court's ruling in that case set forth a precedent, forcing the private sector's hand. That is legislation by edict.

"Wow, so the court agreed with what was written in the Bill of Rights? I still don't see your point nor agree with the dissenting judges there either."

Show me where in the 4th Amendment it mentions excluding evidence. It was unconstitutional to illegally search a persons home or property, but the laws defining exactly what was and was not legal were defined by the individual states, follow? Therefore, this ruling should have only addressed whether the evidence in this specific case should have been inadmissable under the constitution, which it in fact was. If the ruling had been limited to that, that would be fine. But the ruling stretched beyond that. It actually redefined what was and was not legal for every single state in terms of evidence, overruling the laws on the book in each state. Each state has "its own peculiar problems in criminal law enforcement," as one of the dissenters noticed, but this ruling forced all the states to adhere to a new set of federal laws ill fitted to those problems. That's the issue I have with that case.

Here's a link to a policy paper talking about the case in MO. I don't have the actual case number off the top of my head, but it's explained in here.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298es.html

And yes, I do mean the Supreme Court has been acting illegally and no one has done anything about it. What would be done? The only way for a legislature to overturn a decision is to amend the constitution. The last time it was tried outside of that is when Andrew Jackson said about Marshall's most recent ruling, "Mr. Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

That's all that CAN be done about it.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
RightatNYU said:
"The Court held that the training scheme was legitimate because the 1964 Act "did not intend to prohibit the private sector from taking effective steps" to implement the goals of Title VII."

The Act didn't prohibit the private sector from taking steps, but it also wasn't meant to require it. The Supreme Court's ruling in that case set forth a precedent, forcing the private sector's hand. That is legislation by edict.
Here's the link to Title VII, the bill doesn't make sense and would be worthless if it didn't require the steps. It would have been a gesture instead of a law enacted by congress.

RightatNYU said:
""Wow, so the court agreed with what was written in the Bill of Rights? I still don't see your point nor agree with the dissenting judges there either."

Show me where in the 4th Amendment it mentions excluding evidence. It was unconstitutional to illegally search a persons home or property, but the laws defining exactly what was and was not legal were defined by the individual states, follow? Therefore, this ruling should have only addressed whether the evidence in this specific case should have been inadmissable under the constitution, which it in fact was. If the ruling had been limited to that, that would be fine. But the ruling stretched beyond that. It actually redefined what was and was not legal for every single state in terms of evidence, overruling the laws on the book in each state. Each state has "its own peculiar problems in criminal law enforcement," as one of the dissenters noticed, but this ruling forced all the states to adhere to a new set of federal laws ill fitted to those problems. That's the issue I have with that case.
The exclusionary rule has been around since 1914 that was created by the U.S. congress. So not only was there the constitution, but a law as well that backed up this case. The law predates the SCOTUS decision by 47 years.
RightatNYU said:
Here's a link to a policy paper talking about the case in MO. I don't have the actual case number off the top of my head, but it's explained in here.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298es.html
It looks like the judge ruled that the way the school district was set-up was unconstitutional by means of segregation. A judge has latitude to award damages and in this case, ordered that the situation be remedied. I don't agree with the decision but I agree with the process.
RightatNYU said:
And yes, I do mean the Supreme Court has been acting illegally and no one has done anything about it. What would be done? The only way for a legislature to overturn a decision is to amend the constitution. The last time it was tried outside of that is when Andrew Jackson said about Marshall's most recent ruling, "Mr. Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

That's all that CAN be done about it.
Ahh, Andrew Jackson, should there be something said about the Commander-In-Chief, the head of the enforcement of laws, ignoring what the laws are? You're not going to hold Jackson's feet to the fire for that? (Amongst his other wonderful accomplishments.) Maybe we can coin a new term like Activist President or Presidential Fiat for that. 200+ years of supreme court decisions, almost the length of the country's history under the constitution and it's still a problem? Maybe it's just never been one.
 

chelle

New member
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I believe that if anyone has doubts about what's constitutional and what's not go to infowars.com. Also I am gay and believe that Jesus is my Lord and Savior. I know this...
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,178
Reaction score
6,283
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I've been there... Alex Jones out of Austin - screams too much to listen to on streaming.

:wcm to Debate Politics!

As a gay person and Christian, what is your position?
 

chelle

New member
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Man judges by their own interpretation of ones actions. The Lord judges by the very heart and soul of us. Someones true intentions may not always be seen by his peers but God knows us all down to our very core. I believe that I was born gay and in that same respect am I not one of God's children? If I we are all born into this life innocent and free of sin, why would then God condemn me? He has blessed me with a beautiful daughter and a devoted partner. Don't judge me, lest I judge you... :p
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
chelle said:
Man judges by their own interpretation of ones actions. The Lord judges by the very heart and soul of us. Someones true intentions may not always be seen by his peers but God knows us all down to our very core. I believe that I was born gay and in that same respect am I not one of God's children? If I we are all born into this life innocent and free of sin, why would then God condemn me? He has blessed me with a beautiful daughter and a devoted partner. Don't judge me, lest I judge you... :p
Well said.

Welcome to Debate Politics!
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Before the Steelworkers v Weber, the Civil Rights act stated clearly that "it shall be an unlawful employment practice for any employer to discriminate against any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." After the case, the court interpreted it to absolutely reverse that, allowing racial quotas. They subverted an important part of the Civil rights act by rewriting their own law.

The exclusionary rule isn't the point. The case SHOULD have been decided against the state. The problem was that they took this case and used it as a vehicle to override 50 individual state laws by creating a new federal law. That is the issue.

Judges have latitude to decide in a case, but that example is clear cut. A judge is forcing a county to raise it's taxes. That is not permitted.

Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court decision and paid the political price. That was wrong. However these Justices can do whatever they want and not pay a price. The fact that it is still happening today is ridiculous.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
RightatNYU said:
The exclusionary rule isn't the point. The case SHOULD have been decided against the state. The problem was that they took this case and used it as a vehicle to override 50 individual state laws by creating a new federal law. That is the issue.
The exclusionary rule is the point and that's why the justices included it in their opinion as part of their basis.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
No, you misunderstand me.

Example:

State A's law says that the threshold for legal evidence is, for arguments sake, it cannot be coerced with money, only with promise of money
State B's law says that money can be used.
Exclusionary rule says that if the evidence is obtained illegally according to the laws of the state, then it is inadmissible.
A person is arrested in state A after he was bribed with money.

Thus, in this case, according to the laws, the evidence is inadmissable, which is what the courts should have ruled.

However, the court ruled that not only was it inadmissable, but ALL states must afterwards adhere to state A's threshold, thus changing state B's laws.

That is the problem.
 

IndependentTexan

New member
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
45
Reaction score
1
Location
Dallas, Texas
Look, gay people are everywhere. Some of my friends are gay. I don't agree with their lifestyle but they are some of the nicest people it has ever been my pleasure to know. You can't magicly make a gay person disapear. They are out there and you will see some of them. So why is a wedding ring so out of the question? It doesn't harm us in any way. All it does is give equal rights to them. Gay people shouldn't hide and not go to a public restraunt just because you want them to keep their beliefs to themselves. I think if they want to be married then they should. Right now there isn't any law prohibiting it in the government of the United States. This means that the state governments can't pass laws to prohibit it. I am positive that if you went to a federal court and sued for rights to get married, you would more than likely win the case. Rather you tolerate it or not, I could care less, but the fact is that they are out there, and no matter how much you wish it, they aren't going to just go away.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I'm not saying they should go away, at all. I'm for gay marraige. I just want it to be done right, by legislation rather than judicial fiat, unlike Roe.

You are mistaken though, in that states can in fact pass laws to prohibit gay marraige. I don't know about the federal courts, but then again, the court system is horribly screwed up in our country.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
RightatNYU said:
I'm not saying they should go away, at all. I'm for gay marraige. I just want it to be done right, by legislation rather than judicial fiat, unlike Roe.

You are mistaken though, in that states can in fact pass laws to prohibit gay marraige. I don't know about the federal courts, but then again, the court system is horribly screwed up in our country.
care to provide an example of how screwed up our court system is? Is it screwed up because it examines the laws that govern our country? I would like to know your reasoning...
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Read the 8 million other posts I made in this thread on the last page or two about the court system.

I'm way too tired to explain that again.

Basically, the court has overstepped its constitutional boundaries again and again.

RAFO
 

Urethra Franklin

Folle
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
3,579
Reaction score
979
Location
European Union
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
Urethra-

Well, I'm 6'1", 175, I have sandy blonde hair, I enjoy long walks on the beach....

Sounds good. Shame you're a Republican.


RightatNYU said:
You're right, second hand smoke DOES kill. So are you in favor of banning all smoking in any public places on the grounds that it might kill? That sounds like something a "repressive" state might do.....
No, that's not as "repressive" as being forced to inhale other's smoke. They've done it in Ireland and it's a measure that's been very popular.


RightatNYU said:
So what about morality laws, such as the ones that regulate what can and can't be shown on TV, etc. Porno on TV doesn't hurt anyone, right? You make these broad statements, and then avoid the fact that ironing out the details is impossible......
Right on. I oppose all control, all censorship. People can use the off button, and parents who whinge should be exercising more control. My father knew exactly what I was watching on the TV, because unlike today's spoilt brats we had ONE family TV set in the living room, and that was enough. I didn't have TV in my room. In my room I read BOOKS. Now that would be a novelty for today's youth.

RightatNYU said:
And regarding whether or not they should marry: You're right! I support gay marraige, and I think it would be a good thing, or civil unions at least. But here in a democracy, the best way to do something is through legislation, rather than an overactive judiciary. I support the efforts of individual states or the federal government to push through legislation allowing civil unions, but I do NOT support the efforts of crusading judges, because that's not how our country was intended to be run.......
I don't care how it's achieved, let's just get equality to our gay citizens. We need to agitate for it as hard as possible because the rabid right are nutcases. Ciivil union AND marriage available to gay AND straight - choice for all.
RightatNYU said:
How you lookin, baby girl?
You're wasting your time. I don't do Republicans. You never know what you might catch.
 

Naughty Nurse

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
vauge said:
I guess I do not see the contradiction. Help me out.

1. I do not HATE anyone.
2. I understand that there are differences in sexual preferences.
3. I completely disagree with allowing gay marriage and do not believe it is a 'right'.
4. I think that allowing gay marriage would harm the nation as a whole. Not today, but tommorrow - years from now. Gay marriage would lead to something else worse down the line. What that worse IS, who knows? A majority of youths becoming confused in thier sexual orientation maybe? Simply because it would be considered ok. *
5. I respect everyone's opinion. All I am asking is for others to respect mine.

Urethra, about the pic, let me see what I can come up with. Will you reciprocate?

* Clinton's issue with Monica told the world that oral sex was not sex and it was ok. Now, we have kids under the age of 12 giving oral sex on school buses.

Is this NEW? No way. Is this becoming an acceptable pastime amoung our youths? Yes.
Here's the contradiction:

You don't hate gay people, but you want to deny us the same rights that you take for granted because you think, for some unstated reason, that it is not a 'right'; you state, with no evidence, that we 'choose' our sexuality; you think that gay marriage will, at some unknown point in the future, do some unknown harm to society.

Treating a group of people as second class citizens based on such irrational nonsense is bigotry. Hatred by any other name ....

Vauge, I think you are fundamentally a better person than that, but you just don't want to open your mind.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
No, that's not as "repressive" as being forced to inhale other's smoke.
So you would support the banning of all smoking in all public places? What about if I have two small children at home? Should I be outlawed from smoking in my house because of the danger it poses to my children?

What do you think about this court case?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1899231.stm

In my room I read BOOKS. Now that would be a novelty for today's youth.
I agree. In the short time that I've been growing up, tv has gotten much worse, and kids watch worse shows. I used to watch David the Gnome, now kids watch South Park. I love that show, but not for 7 year olds.

I don't care how it's achieved, let's just get equality to our gay citizens. We need to agitate for it as hard as possible because the rabid right are nutcases. Ciivil union AND marriage available to gay AND straight - choice for all.
I don't generally agree that we should work toward something just becasue nutcases oppose it, otherwise I'd never be able to work with Democrats. I'm all for choice, it should just be done legally, which would make people much more accepting of it than if they feel it is being forced upon them.

You're wasting your time. I don't do Republicans. You never know what you might catch.
Ah well, I'll always have the memories of that one magical night...
 

Urethra Franklin

Folle
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
3,579
Reaction score
979
Location
European Union
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
So you would support the banning of all smoking in all public places? What about if I have two small children at home? Should I be outlawed from smoking in my house because of the danger it poses to my children?

What do you think about this court case?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1899231.stm...
Yes. And parent's shouldn't smoke in front of their kids.


...[/QUOTE]
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
IndependentTexan said:
Look, gay people are everywhere. Some of my friends are gay. I don't agree with their lifestyle but they are some of the nicest people it has ever been my pleasure to know.
What is it about their "lifestyle" you don't agree with? Do your gay friends know this?
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Originally Posted by argexpat
This is why gays have the right to marry:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If this is "forcing" anything on you, it's the idea that civil liberties are to be extended to everyone, regardless of personal bigotry. If you don't like that, you just don't like democracy.

I can't believe I have to remind a Republican about the very cornerstone of our democracy. Actually, I'm not surprised.


RightatNYU said:
This is the most overused argument I've ever heard.
Maybe it’s an overused argument because it’s valid. What is it about extending civil liberties to all citizens you don’t agree with?

RightatNYU said:
I'm so sick and tired of explaining this, but here goes.
Maybe you have to keep explaining it because you're wrong.

RightatNYU said:
Just because it says all men have "certain unalienable rights", does it mean that EVERYTHING they construe to be "their right," they get? NO!
The premise of your argument is fallacious. Gays are not claiming a right they don't now have. They are simply trying to exercise a right they already have, a right other people have that is arbitrarily denied them because of religious and moral bigotry. And courts are finding in their favor not out of some liberal activist zeal, but precisely because there is no valid legal reason to deny them this right. That’s why opponents of gay marriage have resorted to banning it.

RightatNYU said:
If doing something illegal makes them happy, then are they free to pursue happiness however they want? NO!
Another specious argument. You’re comparing gay marriage with criminal activity. Gay marriage isn’t illegal, it’s just not sanctioned by the state (although homosexual acts are still outlawed in many dumb states). If you and your gay partner go down to city hall and ask for a marriage license they’re not going to arrest you (as they would if you asked for some crack), they’ll simply turn you away. Why? Because they only issue marriage licenses---and all the legal and social benefits that go with it---to straight people. Why? Because…because…they just don’t. That’s not a valid legal reason to arbitrarily deny a certain class of people a right enjoyed by everyone else. That’s all the courts have said. If opponents could come up with even a half-assed legal justification for doing this, they might have a chance, but they don’t. Hence the ridiculous gay marriage amendments that are all the rage in the red states. And now they and our own president want to mar our most sacred document by encoding bigotry into it. That’s despicable.

RightatNYU said:
The whole point of that statement is that people have certain rights which cannot be taken away, but the decision as to what those right are and how they are legislated was left up to the government.
Exactly, and if some people have the right to marry, then all people should have the right to marry. And if a majority of people pass a law prohibiting it, then it’s the duty of a judge to strike it down. Otherwise our Constitution and the rights it protects are meaningless.

RightatNYU said:
It says all "men." Does that mean that only men deserve all those rights, and women deserve none? Well, the government operated that way for a long time, until it allowed all women the same rights as men through legislation, much the same as it did to minorities with the Civil Rights Act. Again, the government legislated to elaborate on who would receive what "inalienable rights," as it was intended to.
Exactly, the point is to expand the umbrella of civil rights, not restrict them, which is what opponents of gay marriage want. Sometimes civil rights are extended through legislation, and sometimes through court rulings, often a combination of both. And if the legislature passes a law that’s unconstitutional, it’s the judiciary’s job to strike it down. It’s one of those “checks” that’s part of the checks and balances you may have learned about in school, and it’s why our system works.

RightatNYU said:
And guess what? The government decided that gay marriage was not one of the rights. The system worked exactly the way it was meant to, so don't claim it's broken because it didn't turn out the way you or I wanted.
Really? When? Where? You should let Republicans know, because they’re all in a tizzy over court rulings in Massachusetts and California in favor of gay marriage. Again, you're missing the point: gay marriage isn't the right, marriage is the right, and gays are arbitrarily denied that right for no good reason.

P.S. I never claimed the system was broken (see above). On the contrary, the system is working: slowly but surely, the enlightened states are seeing the error of their ways and moving toward allowing gay marriage, and thus fulfilling the promise of the Constitution and the spirit of individual liberty this country was founded on.

RightatNYU said:
I can't believe I had to explain to a Democrat the actual meaning of a quote he was using. Actually, I'm not surprised.
It’s funny that because I express views contrary to Republican dogma you assume I’m a Democrat. Believe it or not, the range of political thought is richer that the myopic left/right dichotomy you’ve bought into. You should check it out.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom