• 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!

Sen. Braun open to U.S. Supreme Court rescinding ruling that legalized interracial marriage

Those pushing for increased states rights obviously have little understanding as to just how intertwined the national economy is at this time.

If a state rules that interracial and gay marriage are illegal, what would it do when the delivery truck driver bringing in product to the local supermarket happens to be married to a person of the same sex or of a different race?

If a state rules that marijuana possession is a major felony, what would it do to a person driving from a state when the weed is legal to another state where it is legal?

We already are seeing attempts by a couple states to criminalize abortions to the extent that a woman receiving a legal abortion in one state would be arrested in returning to her home.

What happens to a state that loses tourists and other business owing to its increased laws and regulations governing acts that are legal in other states?
 
TheParser said:
Well, if this were a federation of truly independent states, each state could pass any law it wanted,

There would be no federal Supreme Court.

State A might allow abortion, but it might be a felony in state B.

State C might have no bail for sucker punchers, but it might be a felony in state D.

Americans could then move to the state where they would feel most comfortable.
Click to expand...
That wouldn't be a nation, that would be a divided group of states. Rational people don't want that.
 
Somerville said:
Those pushing for increased states rights obviously have little understanding as to just how intertwined the national economy is at this time.

If a state rules that interracial and gay marriage are illegal, what would it do when the delivery truck driver bringing in product to the local supermarket happens to be married to a person of the same sex or of a different race?

If a state rules that marijuana possession is a major felony, what would it do to a person driving from a state when the weed is legal to another state where it is legal?

We already are seeing attempts by a couple states to criminalize abortions to the extent that a woman receiving a legal abortion in one state would be arrested in returning to her home.

What happens to a state that loses tourists and other business owing to its increased laws and regulations governing acts that are legal in other states?
Click to expand...
A house divided against itself cannot stand. It is amazing that after 150 years people still don't get it.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new—North as well as South. Have we no tendency to the latter condition? Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination— piece of machinery so to speak—compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linco...el of Mark,him, Every kingdom divided against
 
CaughtInThe said:
you can enjoy sex with or without birth control.
Click to expand...
I never argued otherwise. What I am saying though is that you should not have the option to enjoy it without birth control. Because that is selfish, it denies society the children that they have a right to have.

The other massive problem of course is that the leftist want sex indoctrination, That is supposedly focused on avoiding pregnancy. I would re-formulate the sex ed curriculum, and it would have just two rules 1) ride raw
2) don’t pull out.
 
TheParser said:
Some people think that maybe the future of this country lies in more states' rights.

It would become a federation of states.

People could then move to a state that has their particular cultural values.

It would be a win-win for everyone.
Click to expand...
You mean Confederation
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I never argued otherwise. What I am saying though is that you should not have the option to enjoy it without birth control. Because that is selfish, it denies society the children that they have a right to have.

The other massive problem of course is that the leftist want sex indoctrination, That is supposedly focused on avoiding pregnancy. I would re-formulate the sex ed curriculum, and it would have just two rules 1) ride raw
2) don’t pull out.
Click to expand...
This is why you post on the internet and don't hold any power in government
 
TheParser said:
Some people think that maybe the future of this country lies in more states' rights.

It would become a federation of states.

People could then move to a state that has their particular cultural values.

It would be a win-win for everyone.
Click to expand...


Do you know what the word "United"means?

What you describe is not a United States.

You do know the name of our nation is the United States of America don't you?
 
TheParser said:
Some people think that maybe the future of this country lies in more states' rights.

It would become a federation of states.

People could then move to a state that has their particular cultural values.

It would be a win-win for everyone.
Click to expand...

People could then move to a state that has their particular racial and gender prejudices.

The 10 US states with the most hate groups | TheHill​

https://thehill.com › changing-america › respect › 5785...
Oct 26, 2021 — "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which defines a hate group as an organization that attacks or maligns an entire class of people, ... According to the civil rights organization's estimations, the top 10 states with the most hate groups in 2020 per capita are: Montana, Tennessee, Nebraska, Arkansas, New Hampshire, Alabama, Virginia, South Carolina, Idaho, and Nevada.

Montana has six hate groups, including two anti-Muslim groups, two white nationalist groups, a racist skinhead organization, and a chapter of the Proud Boys — a self-described brotherhood of Western chauvinism that spreads “anti-political correctness” and “anti-white guilt” agenda, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Without breaking down the groups per capita, California has the most hate groups with 74. The state is followed by Florida, 68, Texas, 54, New York, 37, Pennsylvania, 36, Tennessee, 34, Virginia, 33, Georgia, 29, North Carolina, 29, and Arizona, 26.

(Tennessee population is only 6,916,897 )

With a population of a little more than 1 million, Montana has six hate groups per million civilians in the state, whereas no other state has five per group per million civilians. Almost 85 percent of Montana’s population is white, according to the U.S. Census. In total, there are 838 hate groups in the country. Compared to 2018, which had 1,020 active hate groups, there has been a decrease. However, groups are communicating online through encrypted platforms making it more difficult to trace.."
 
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle said:
There is good reason to oppose federal anti-lynching laws, and that’s because the federal government should not possess plenary power and does not under the constitution of 1787. Although that’s moot point since the constitution of 1787 is not the de facto constitution.

In addition despite a lot of handwringing, lynching is not a major issue in the US. It has not been one for almost a century now, and even when lynchings were occurring in the south many whites were lynched as well. So the narrative used to support federal power grab is usually false.

I think over a century from the end of the civil war to world war 2 there were maybe a couple of thousand lynchings total. More people are murdered in America every year then were ever lynched
Click to expand...
Not a major issue? The communists used that as a major anti-American trope. There is a significant difference between a murder that involved police investigation and prosecution, and a lynching that resembled a company picnic, complete with children in attendance, an incident that was not prosecuted. (A southern friend of mine who remembered the times said it was a rite of passage for a white kid to attend his first lynching.). A couple of thousand lynchings, when there was an alternative of a trial, is not chicken feed. How would you feel if your son was hanged by a mob and the state refused to prosecute anyone? And yes, the relative small minority of whites lynched in the South dwarfed the total lynchings of all people in the North, which is an eloquent statement about the sickness of post-Reconstruction Southern white culture. The assholes even made postcards of lynchings. I assume that the Nazis approved.
 
Liberal7360 said:
Do you know what the word "United"means?

What you describe is not a United States.

You do know the name of our nation is the United States of America don't you?
Click to expand...
The old comment was that it used to be “the United States are…”. That changed to the ungrammatical but more accurate, “the United States is…”
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I never argued otherwise. What I am saying though is that you should not have the option to enjoy it without birth control. Because that is selfish, it denies society the children that they have a right to have.

The other massive problem of course is that the leftist want sex indoctrination, That is supposedly focused on avoiding pregnancy. I would re-formulate the sex ed curriculum, and it would have just two rules 1) ride raw
2) don’t pull out.
Click to expand...
Since when does society have a right to children? And if society has a right to my kids it should reimburse me for their care and education. Figure its about 300K per kid.
 
Last edited:
TheParser said:
Some people think that maybe the future of this country lies in more states' rights.

It would become a federation of states.

People could then move to a state that has their particular cultural values.

It would be a win-win for everyone.
Click to expand...

And guess who would be moving to the white ethno-state...
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Contraceptives should absolutely be banned because they encourage selfish behavior.

Young people should be told to enjoy themselves raw and not pull out, and also get married because society should have the right to expect children from them.
Click to expand...

Rights of society? That's some commie talk right there.
 
Gaius46 said:
since when does society have a right to children? And if society has a right to my kids it should reimburse me for their carr and education. Figure its about 300K per kid.
Click to expand...

EMN is evidence of the political horseshoe theory. He has far more in common with Stalin and Mao than the vast majority of liberals and leftists.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I never argued otherwise. What I am saying though is that you should not have the option to enjoy it without birth control. Because that is selfish, it denies society the children that they have a right to have.

The other massive problem of course is that the leftist want sex indoctrination, That is supposedly focused on avoiding pregnancy. I would re-formulate the sex ed curriculum, and it would have just two rules 1) ride raw
2) don’t pull out.
Click to expand...
Because humans are just animals and that is what animals do? I thought humans were special beings created by God and in his image? Clearly you do not believe that.
BTW "Safe sex is taught to avoid much more than just pregnancy. But we are just dumb animals so who cares?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom