• 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

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
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

Craigfarmer, you don't want your ideas to be called bigoted, then maybe you change your "open mind".
 

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Squawker said:
It is only incest if the marriage is consummated. Utah is the only state that looks the other way on multiple wives. Most states that I know of have laws against bigamy, but maybe we can find a Judge to rule it unconstitutional to ban it.
Why would you want to waste a judge's time with this drivel? Can't you just leave people alone? Who cares how many wives or husbands someone has? The percentage of people married to more than one person is incredibly minute!

If you have nothing better to do than seeking a judge to ban bigamy then perhaps you might want to consider volunteering your time to a public school who need all the help they can get?
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Squawker said:
It is only incest if the marriage is consummated. Utah is the only state that looks the other way on multiple wives. Most states that I know of have laws against bigamy, but maybe we can find a Judge to rule it unconstitutional to ban it.
Bigamy is not legal in any state. Several federal laws and acts ensure this and kept Utah from becoming a state for some time. There's the Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862, which was followed by the 1874 Poland Act, the 1882 Edmunds Act, and the 1887 Edmunds-Tucker Act. In test cases, the United States Supreme Court declared the acts constitutional. However most states over look this unless there's a fraud charges brought forth with the bigamy charge. Here's a site that will help you find states that are the least likely to prosecute you if you do decide to engage in bigamy.

http://www.polygamy.com/


I have no comment on your impending consummation.
 

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
craigfarmer said:
The beauty of America is that we can use facts and logic to acheive a conclusion. Too often people (recently on the left) have tried to bully the American public to accept a situation or policy that we disagree with through cultural nazism. Ideas like:

"If you don't agree that being gay is not a choice' then your'e hateful, or ignorant...
It is SCIENTIFICALLY IGNORANT to believe that people who are Gay were converted from being straight. There's not one fact you can use to back up a statement like that. UGH!

craigfarmer said:
This topic as in certain other issues like women's true role in our society
I'm dying to know that a woman's true role is? Please, please enlighten us?

craigfarmer said:
or the persistent achievement gap between blacks and whites, l has been under-debated because people fear the consequences of being honest.
Do you mean that white people have more educational advantages than Blacks? No one disputes that. Do you believe that if you raised a black child with a white child that the black child will achieve less?
craigfarmer said:
Now at workplace lunchrooms, it is inappropriate to say:

"I don't want my son to be gay", when at least 85-90% of people believe that.
Who says? I think it is said everyday. I am super liberal, but I prefer that my children be straight. Being gay includes extra challenges that we straight people never have to face. It's hard to be gay. If one or all of my children were gay I would love them just as much as I do now, but if you're asking me if I want them to be gay my answer is no. There is nothing, IMHO politically incorrect about saying that. It seems wrong only to the people who are unable to define anything gay, who are unable to accept anything gay, and who then are afraid of anything gay. Ignorance breeds ignorant comments.

craigfarmer said:
I actually believe we can have a liberal society accepting abnormal people or people with abnormalities, while still declaring and promoting our basic culture.
ABNORMAL? That is a very, very bigotted comment, period. I consider your inability to accept other people for who they are as ABNORMAL. Intellectually, what you just wrote is ABNORMAL. Your constant belief that the "average Joe" disrespects gays or anyone that is not white & Christian is outrageously ugly. Having people who agree with your bigotry does not make it right, it makes it bigotry.
craigfarmer said:
It is incredibly offensive that a simple idea of one man and one woman being a "marriage' and a preferred family unit is attacked as discriminatory and negative.
Discrimanatory? YES! Negative? NO! What a paranoid statement. Show me anyone who thinks that a marriage between a man and a woman is NEGATIVE?

craigfarmer said:
People who disagree with so-called Gay marriage need to take moral stands, and stop granting the principle. Because right now, the leftists in the gay rights movements are winning. They have conquered the language and civil society.
Here are some websites that support your view, give 'em a call, you can gay bash amongst yourself all day long:
http://www.godhatesfags.com/ - This is one that is perfect for you!
http://www.family.org/
http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp
http://www.eagleforum.org/
http://www.rutherford.org/

I also love how you define sinners. truly amazing actually. I always find it very interesting to read posts from people who have your viewpoint, because facts are never used, only hate and fear tactics. Are you also against anti-Christian weddings? Doesn't that create sinners too? Keep posting, please! I mean it! You reinforce my beliefs so much with your thoughts. It also is the best argument I can make about what's wrong with being bigoted....
 
Last edited:

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Looks to me, you pro gay folks just proved Craig's point. When you can't defend yourselves in the debate, you make personal attacks. We aren't bigots because we don't agree with your lifestyle. Why do we need to know what your sexuality is? Why do you insist on making it a public issue? Who cares who you screw in private? If you push your agenda onto others, you have to expect resistance. Name calling doesn't help.
 

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
Squawker said:
Looks to me, you pro gay folks just proved Craig's point. When you can't defend yourselves in the debate, you make personal attacks.
No personal attacks were made. Attacks were made on his beliefs. I didn't call Craig a bigot, I called his beliefs bigoted.

Squawker said:
We aren't bigots because we don't agree with your lifestyle. Why do we need to know what your sexuality is? Why do you insist on making it a public issue? Who cares who you screw in private?
Why are almost all of the threads started under "Gay marriage" by people that don't need to know a person's sexuality? It's very disingenuous to complain about it in your face when you keep bringing it up, doesn't it?

Squawker said:
If you push your agenda onto others, you have to expect resistance. Name calling doesn't help.
Bush is also pushing an agenda too. You have to expect resistance as well.
 

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Squawker said:
Looks to me, you pro gay folks just proved Craig's point. When you can't defend yourselves in the debate, you make personal attacks. We aren't bigots because we don't agree with your lifestyle. Why do we need to know what your sexuality is? Why do you insist on making it a public issue? Who cares who you screw in private? If you push your agenda onto others, you have to expect resistance. Name calling doesn't help.
I was not calling YOU bigoted. I was calling Craig's post bigoted. BIG DIFFERENCE.

You can disagree all you want with being Gay, I do not think that makes you a bigot. I do think someone is a bigot when they call it "abnormal" and that "you're a sinner" if you're Gay. BIG DIFFERENCE.

I applaud you for writing:
"Who cares who you screw in private?" :applaud

That is a VERY Democratic point of view, LIBERAL, actually, and one I agree with. So why would you care if they choose to get married too? Or why would you need an amendment to the Constitution? Why do you need an amendment that bans anything (other than slavery)?
 
Last edited:

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That is a VERY Democratic point of view, LIBERAL, actually, and one I agree with. So why would you care if they choose to get married too? Or why would you need an amendment to the Constitution? Why do you need an amendment that bans anything (other than slavery)?
I tried to point out that we have to draw the line somewhere. Without laws and boundaries we have chaos. One of the arguments for gay marriage was economic. If we have no clear definition of “marriage” and all it entails then I should be able to marry my mother or brother for economic reasons. I love them both. I love my dog to. The slippery slope is a fact in that if we allow one, why not the others? Where is the argument against me marrying whomever I choose?
 

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Squawker said:
I tried to point out that we have to draw the line somewhere. Without laws and boundaries we have chaos. One of the arguments for gay marriage was economic. If we have no clear definition of “marriage” and all it entails then I should be able to marry my mother or brother for economic reasons. I love them both. I love my dog to. The slippery slope is a fact in that if we allow one, why not the others? Where is the argument against me marrying whomever I choose?
I respectfully disagree because the slippery slope that you reference would be, by far and away, the odd exception.

Think of it this way? You're not allowed to marry your significant other by State law. You can't afford health insurance, but your sig. has insurance that would cover a spouse. You end up getting very sick, and cannot get proper health care, you can't afford the medication. To make matters worse, you need surgery, but your sig other can't be there for you because only legal family members are allowed. Can't you see the pain? Can't you see this happening a whole lot more than someone marrying their mother or their dog?

When two people are lifetime partners, shouldn't they have the same rights as all other lifetime partners? Shouldn't they be entitled to the same benefits? Why would you deny someone healthcare? Would you prefer for taxpayers to pay for it rather than private funding?

It seems so cold and cruel to me.
 

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 solution to this?

Allow domestic partnerships for everyone. They get the same legal rights as married couples in everything that way, and then those who are all bent on protecting marraige can still claim their title of "marraige" for themselves.

I can't see people on either side having a problem with this, but then, I often do underestimate the ability of mankind to disappoint me.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I respectfully disagree because the slippery slope that you reference would be, by far and away, the odd exception. Think of it this way? You're not allowed to marry your significant other by State law. You can't afford health insurance, but your sig. has insurance that would cover a spouse. You end up getting very sick, and cannot get proper health care, you can't afford the medication. To make matters worse, you need surgery, but your sig other can't be there for you because only legal family members are allowed. Can't you see the pain? Can't you see this happening a whole lot more than someone marrying their mother or their dog?
Most of the problems can be avoided with legal documents.
When two people are lifetime partners, shouldn't they have the same rights as all other lifetime partners? Shouldn't they be entitled to the same benefits? Why would you deny someone healthcare? Would you prefer for taxpayers to pay for it rather than private funding?
My question was where should we draw the line, and you are avoiding it. On a personal level, I think they should all experience the thrill of a divorce. They will change their view of marriage real quick.
It seems so cold and cruel to me.
They are free to live their life together as they see fit. No one is preventing that. We are discussing who should be allowed to get married.
 

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
Squawker said:
Most of the problems can be avoided with legal documents.
Most isn't all.
Squawker said:
My question was where should we draw the line, and you are avoiding it. On a personal level, I think they should all experience the thrill of a divorce. They will change their view of marriage real quick.
Consenting adults is the line that's been drawn in the sand already. Marriage is a legal contract and legal contracts can only be entered by consenting adults (or by permission of their guardians in some states that allow minors to get married).

Squawker said:
They are free to live their life together as they see fit. No one is preventing that. We are discussing who should be allowed to get married.
I see my life living together with a man to whom I'm married and you're wanting to prevent that.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I see my life living together with a man to whom I'm married and you're wanting to prevent that.
I want a lot of things and society is preventing me from doing it.
 

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Squawker said:
They are free to live their life together as they see fit. No one is preventing that. We are discussing who should be allowed to get married.
Interesting that you used the word "FREE" because avoiding the health care issue is not right. How would you like to be discriminated against when you applied for health care? Gay couples should have all the legal rights as Straight couples, no exceptions, period.

Discrimination, while it has a long ugly history in the USA is decidedly UN-AMERICAN! :thumbdown
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Squawker said:
Most of the problems can be avoided with legal documents.
My question was where should we draw the line, and you are avoiding it. On a personal level, I think they should all experience the thrill of a divorce. They will change their view of marriage real quick.
They are free to live their life together as they see fit. No one is preventing that. We are discussing who should be allowed to get married.
Sorry people are attempting to prevent homosexual couples from living "as they see fit." Esp. if that couple sees fit to live together as a married couple.
 

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
Squawker said:
You have the right to screw anyone you want to over the age of 16 just like I do.
Wrong again Squawker. Eleven states (nine of which voted Republican) have sodomy laws on the books, and four of those states---Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri---have sodomy laws that apply only to homosexuals. So, Squawker, not only should you be careful who you screw, but how and where you screw them. (That is unless you're a corporation, of course, in which case you really can screw anyone you want to.)
 

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
Squawker said:
I tried to point out that we have to draw the line somewhere. Without laws and boundaries we have chaos. One of the arguments for gay marriage was economic. If we have no clear definition of “marriage” and all it entails then I should be able to marry my mother or brother for economic reasons. I love them both. I love my dog to. The slippery slope is a fact in that if we allow one, why not the others? Where is the argument against me marrying whomever I choose?
The slippery slope argument works both ways, which is why its considered fallacious. To you the slope becomes slippery at gay marriage, but that's completely arbitrary on your part. Using the same logic, I could argue that the slippery slope begins with marriage, period. As soon as you allow heterosexuals to marry, pretty soon every Tom, **** and Harry wants to get married. If you really want to stop the slippery slope, outlaw marriage.

Another reason the slippery slope argument is fallacious is that it can be applied to anything. Gun rights: you allow people to own firearms and pretty soon they want bazookas. Free speech: you let people speak their mind freely and pretty soon they're saying dangerous/offensive/stupid things. Religious freedom: you let people worship any damn way they please and pretty soon you've got pro-lifers killing abortion doctors. Do you see why that's a bad argument?

BTW, are you sure you can't marry your sister or your mother? Are there really laws against that?
 

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:
The slippery slope argument works both ways, which is why its considered fallacious. To you the slope becomes slippery at gay marriage, but that's completely arbitrary on your part. Using the same logic, I could argue that the slippery slope begins with marriage, period. As soon as you allow heterosexuals to marry, pretty soon every Tom, **** and Harry wants to get married. If you really want to stop the slippery slope, outlaw marriage.

Another reason the slippery slope argument is fallacious is that it can be applied to anything. Gun rights: you allow people to own firearms and pretty soon they want bazookas. Free speech: you let people speak their mind freely and pretty soon they're saying dangerous/offensive/stupid things. Religious freedom: you let people worship any damn way they please and pretty soon you've got pro-lifers killing abortion doctors. Do you see why that's a bad argument?

BTW, are you sure you can't marry your sister or your mother? Are there really laws against that?

There are laws against that.

http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/news/breaking_news/11261780.htm
 

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
Squawker said:
If you all think it is ok to redefine the meaning of "marriage", can we also have several wives or husbands? Could I also marry my Mother, so I can put her on my insurance policy? It isn't hurting anyone is it?
Now that you mention it, Squawker, why is polygamy illegal exactly? This specious argument invariably gets used by opponents of gay marriage as if it's a given that polygamy is somehow a bad thing. But is it? In a truly free society, what's wrong with a group of consenting adults entering into a social contract with each other? If a man or woman can support several spouses, why don't we let them marry? What's the rational for criminalizing this, Squawker? If marriage is good for one man and one woman, why isn't it good for two men, or two women, or one man and three women, etc. It's not obvious to me why polygamy is illegal. Please enlighten me Squawker.

This is a fallacious slippery slope argument (the same one made by Senator Santorum) equating gay marriage to something universally repugnant like marrying one's mother or marrying one's dog. Gay marriage is between two consenting humans who have no relation to each other.
 

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:
Now that you mention it, Squawker, why is polygamy illegal exactly? This specious argument invariably gets used by opponents of gay marriage as if it's a given that polygamy is somehow a bad thing. But is it? In a truly free society, what's wrong with a group of consenting adults entering into a social contract with each other? If a man or woman can support several spouses, why don't we let them marry? What's the rational for criminalizing this, Squawker? If marriage is good for one man and one woman, why isn't it good for two men, or two women, or one man and three women, etc. It's not obvious to me why polygamy is illegal. Please enlighten me Squawker.

This is a fallacious slippery slope argument (the same one made by Senator Santorum) equating gay marriage to something universally repugnant like marrying one's mother or marrying one's dog. Gay marriage is between two consenting humans who have no relation to each other.
Polygamy is illegal because otherwise I would marry every one of my friends, and demand that they get the same medical care that I get under my health insurance policy.

Alternate reason: One wife is more than enough, who could deal with more? ;)

And why is marrying one's relatives wrong?
 

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
Squawker said:
Looks to me, you pro gay folks just proved Craig's point. When you can't defend yourselves in the debate, you make personal attacks. We aren't bigots because we don't agree with your lifestyle. Why do we need to know what your sexuality is? Why do you insist on making it a public issue? Who cares who you screw in private? If you push your agenda onto others, you have to expect resistance. Name calling doesn't help.
What's this "lifestyle" you keep referring to? And what agenda are you talking about? The agenda of spreading civil liberties to every citizen? That, my friend, is the agenda of the U.S. Constitution.

The definition of bigot is: "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. I'd say advocating the arbitrary denial of civil liberties to a certain group of people simply because they are not like you would classify as intolerant, and thus bigotry. Because opponents of gay marriage don't simply "disagree" with a "lifestyle." If only that were so. No, they want to outlaw that "lifestyle." That's bigotry, period.
 

Mixed View

Active member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
343
Reaction score
1
Location
MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
IndependentTexan said:
Look here is the point. The Federal Marriage Amendment rejects American traditions of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

HEY guess what else goes against life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. ABORTION!

America is messed right now and always will be. We say that the Constitution is the highest law in the land, but yet we contidict ourselves. Both parties ( Conservitives and Liberals) Conservitives don't allow homosexuals to marry which is not someing that displays the Constitution.

Liberals- support killing babies through an abortion and still think they are abiding by the Constituion when it says LIFE, liberty and the persuit of HAPPINESS! I admit, thanks to this debate i beleieve, gays should be allowed to marry and abortion should be illegal.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Now that you mention it, Squawker, why is polygamy illegal exactly? This specious argument invariably gets used by opponents of gay marriage as if it's a given that polygamy is somehow a bad thing. But is it? In a truly free society, what's wrong with a group of consenting adults entering into a social contract with each other? If a man or woman can support several spouses, why don't we let them marry? What's the rational for criminalizing this, Squawker? If marriage is good for one man and one woman, why isn't it good for two men, or two women, or one man and three women, etc. It's not obvious to me why polygamy is illegal. Please enlighten me Squawker.
Probably because most wives would kill their husbands. It evolved over time as we became a civilized society but to be honest with you, why would a man want or need to marry several women and support them? Women in the US are available without payment or commitment.

This is a fallacious slippery slope argument (the same one made by Senator Santorum) equating gay marriage to something universally repugnant like marrying one's mother or marrying one's dog. Gay marriage is between two consenting humans who have no relation to each other.
The argument was based on monetary benefits of Marriage, so why would marrying ones mother or brother be repugnant? Obviously, consummation wouldn’t be a factor.
 
Top Bottom