• 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.

The real debate on gay marriage

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,234
Reaction score
6,340
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
shuamort said:
Using that logic, wouldn't the same thing apply to be convinced to be straight? There's definitely a lot more influence in the world to bring a child up as straight then there is as gay.

No. Straight as I claimed before, is natural. There is no convincing, changing, or enlightenment. Again, this is all in my opinion.

too much hatred for gays to deal with. no fond farewells, just GONE!

labwitch, you are ignoring the debate entirely. There is no HATE here. There is pure honesty. How best to understand the other position?
If you wish to leave, that is your choice.
 

labwitch

New member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
30
Reaction score
2
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A debate, as i learned in lawschool was a give and take. i see no debate toward me here, simply an allegation of arrogance. remind yourselves what an accomplished professional is. my choice you're damn right it is.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
vauge said:
No. Straight as I claimed before, is natural. There is no convincing, changing, or enlightenment. Again, this is all in my opinion.
Natural, defined as occuring in nature? Well, homosexual behavior has been observed in nature, in the animal kingdom. By that definition, heterosexual and homosexual are both natural. You can't convince, change or enlighten a penguin for example.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,234
Reaction score
6,340
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
labwitch said:
my choice you're damn right it is.
Please do not take my words as an invitation to leave. That was not the intent.

You can't convince, change or enlighten a penguin for example.
Niether can a penguin reason, think for him/herself, or react based on emotions.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
vauge said:
Niether can a penguin reason, think for him/herself, or react based on emotions.
Sure they can. For example, without the emotion of fear, a penguin would be eaten by large predators and wouldn't get out of the way.
 

Strangelove

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
74
Reaction score
1
Location
simi valley
labwitch said:
NOT TO MENTION THE FACT THAT I DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THE ARROGANCE CARDS FROM SOMEONE NAMED STRANGELOVE!

"...labwitch, you are ignoring the debate entirely. There is no HATE here. There is pure honesty. How best to understand the other position? ..."


^Thank you.^

This is the constant problem with online debating. Someone is proven wrong, yet they can evade the question or the point.

For liberals, (and some gays) disagreement ='s ' :rolleyes: bigotry'

Their ideas can't stand up, so they either run away or evade. (much like the gays who went judge shopping in Mass.)

whatever.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Strangelove said:
"...labwitch, you are ignoring the debate entirely. There is no HATE here. There is pure honesty. How best to understand the other position? ..."


^Thank you.^

This is the constant problem with online debating. Someone is proven wrong, yet they can evade the question or the point.

For liberals, (and some gays) disagreement ='s ' :rolleyes: bigotry'

Their ideas can't stand up, so they either run away or evade. (much like the gays who went judge shopping in Mass.)

whatever.
Judge shopping? How does one Judge Shop when it comes to the MA supreme court? (answer: they can't).

What other arguments do you have that you think are still standing?
 

Strangelove

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
74
Reaction score
1
Location
simi valley
shuamort said:
No it's not. Please learn some constitutional history, mm'kay? Besides, how could the courts do something illegal.
Same was said when Loving V Virginia came about. "Miscegenation? It's against the bible!" .

Article 1, section 1:

"..All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. .."

Section 7, clause 2:

"..Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;.."

Judges do not create law, congress does. And the state of Massachusetts legislature was circumvented. The case was brought directly to the courts as rebuttal and and cause for remedy. Slick lawyering, I'll grant you that, but nothing more.


I hope you understand the difference between 'legislative and judicial'

You can believe that what your side is doing is legal all you want.....but the overwhelming majority is against gay marriage. That's just fact.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Strangelove said:
Article 1, section 1:

"..All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. .."

Section 7, clause 2:

"..Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;.."

Judges do not create law, congress does. And the state of Massachusetts legislature was circumvented. The case was brought directly to the courts as rebuttal and and cause for remedy. Slick lawyering, I'll grant you that, but nothing more.


I hope you understand the difference between 'legislative and judicial'

You can believe that what your side is doing is legal all you want.....but the overwhelming majority is against gay marriage. That's just fact.
No it's not. Your quotes haven't proven anything. You haven't proven anything. Show me where the judges CREATED the law and not where they INTERPRETED it. I hope you understand the difference between creating and interpreting.

Majority whims. That's a HORRIBLE argument and the precise reason the founding fathers put in protections like an electoral college and made sure that the US wasn't a democracy. If you think that the US is a democracy, you're sorely mistaken.

Moreover, "my side"? I'm an american first. That's my side.
 

Strangelove

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
74
Reaction score
1
Location
simi valley
shuamort said:
No it's not. Your quotes haven't proven anything. You haven't proven anything. Show me where the judges CREATED the law and not where they INTERPRETED it. I hope you understand the difference between creating and interpreting.

Majority whims. That's a HORRIBLE argument and the precise reason the founding fathers put in protections like an electoral college and made sure that the US wasn't a democracy. If you think that the US is a democracy, you're sorely mistaken.

Moreover, "my side"? I'm an american first. That's my side.

hold on. I'm under the impression that you are advocating what happened in Mass. with a judge issuing a ruling, in support of the idea.

I'm under the impression from your posts that you do not understand the roles defined for the legislative and judicial branches. I am not taking the position that judges should ever create laws.

Are we talking past each other?

And I agree, we do not have a pure democracy, we have a representative democracy, as you state. On that issue, you are preaching to the choir.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Strangelove said:
Article 1, section 1:

"..All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. .."

Section 7, clause 2:

"..Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;.."

Judges do not create law, congress does. And the state of Massachusetts legislature was circumvented. The case was brought directly to the courts as rebuttal and and cause for remedy. Slick lawyering, I'll grant you that, but nothing more.


I hope you understand the difference between 'legislative and judicial'

You can believe that what your side is doing is legal all you want.....but the overwhelming majority is against gay marriage. That's just fact.
By your logic, Brown v. Board of Education in '54 was completely illegal. No congress ever passed that law, the Supreme Court interpreted the constitution to say that segregated schools are illegal. So, since you are against judges 'making' law (they actually interpret it, as shuamort points out) you must be outraged that schools today are not segregated.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Strangelove said:
hold on. I'm under the impression that you are advocating what happened in Mass. with a judge issuing a ruling, in support of the idea.

I'm under the impression from your posts that you do not understand the roles defined for the legislative and judicial branches. I am not taking the position that judges should ever create laws.

Are we talking past each other?

And I agree, we do not have a pure democracy, we have a representative democracy, as you state. On that issue, you are preaching to the choir.
I'm stating that I've read the opinon from the MA Supreme Court and I agreed with their findings that the State's constitution's definition of marriage was not inclusive of gender, and as such, the ruling was appropriate. Am I missing something there?

As for the roles defined by leg/jud branches, I've got thorough posts about judicial fiats, Marbury v Madison's 200+ year legacy, and the power of the courts in judging the application and definition of the laws the legislative branch has enacted.

I am happy that we live in a constitutional republic, my favorite quote about it goes something like "democracy should be more than two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner". The US government was set-up to protect the lamb's interests by insuring that the majority rule of the wolves don't harm the lamb.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
shuamort said:
I'm stating that I've read the opinon from the MA Supreme Court and I agreed with their findings that the State's constitution's definition of marriage was not inclusive of gender, and as such, the ruling was appropriate. Am I missing something there?

As for the roles defined by leg/jud branches, I've got thorough posts about judicial fiats, Marbury v Madison's 200+ year legacy, and the power of the courts in judging the application and definition of the laws the legislative branch has enacted.

I am happy that we live in a constitutional republic, my favorite quote about it goes something like "democracy should be more than two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner". The US government was set-up to protect the lamb's interests by insuring that the majority rule of the wolves don't harm the lamb.
A little off topic, but I'd like to point out that our two-party system advocates exactly that. We have two parties, and they decide what to do, so if you're right of the GOP or left of the Dems, you're completely screwed living in the USA.
 

Strangelove

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
74
Reaction score
1
Location
simi valley
anomaly said:
By your logic, Brown v. Board of Education in '54 was completely illegal. No congress ever passed that law, the Supreme Court interpreted the constitution to say that segregated schools are illegal. So, since you are against judges 'making' law (they actually interpret it, as shuamort points out) you must be outraged that schools today are not segregated.

yes I think it's bad law. But not for the reasons liberals assume (racism----------yawn)

I believe in States rights. As ugly as it may be, yes, I think a State should be allowed to segregate and discriminate as it sees fit, as its citizenry tolerates.

Eventually, those who support desegregation (as I do) will over-rule and change the socio-political profile at the state.

Let me be clear, because liberals love to label people as 'bigot' and 'racist' to vindicate their love for fascism:

a liberal in here has already called me a bigot for commenting on the architecture of Iraq. :rofl

I believe that racism is a vile, primitive feature of the human condition. It arrives out of ignorance and isolation.
Yet, I also believe Americans, as free people, should be allowed to be as ugly, as racist as they want to be , short of lynchings and cross burnings.


Our bill of rights protects all speech, as unpopular as it may be.

Brown v. Board may have had the results you like, (as do I)but that kind of decision is why the South revolted in 95 years earlier.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
By that line of thought, Strangelove, you would support a state's right to slavery. Is that how I'm reading it?
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,234
Reaction score
6,340
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Strangelove, are you an extream constitutionalist?

If this is the case Shaumort, I can answer the question (I think).

The answer would be no. There is a federal amendment against it.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vauge said:
Strangelove, are you an extream constitutionalist?

If this is the case Shaumort, I can answer the question (I think).

The answer would be no. There is a federal amendment against it.
Well, if he's an extreme constitutionalist, would he support segregated schools? Sometimes, when a group of people is ignorant enough, we have to teach them of their great error, as happened in the south during the 50's and 60's. Freedom and democracy are great, but ignorance of great magnitude can easily spoil them both.
 

Strangelove

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
74
Reaction score
1
Location
simi valley
vauge said:
Strangelove, are you an extream constitutionalist?

If this is the case Shaumort, I can answer the question (I think).

The answer would be no. There is a federal amendment against it.

Rather a loaded question, don't you think?

One man's perception of 'extreme' is another man's perception of moderation.

I can't really answer that question, it being so rhetorical.

Let's just leave it as an opinion. My opinion is that states should govern their internal affairs. If a state suddenly orders its constituents to wear blue on thursdays under penalty of death, well, then that's where the federal gov't , the constitution and the BOR kick in.

remember- "those powers not enumerated............."
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,234
Reaction score
6,340
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Strangelove said:
Rather a loaded question, don't you think?

One man's perception of 'extreme' is another man's perception of moderation.

I can't really answer that question, it being so rhetorical.

Let's just leave it as an opinion. My opinion is that states should govern their internal affairs. If a state suddenly orders its constituents to wear blue on thursdays under penalty of death, well, then that's where the federal gov't , the constitution and the BOR kick in.

remember- "those powers not enumerated............."
It was not ment to be negative. A good friend of mine is a constitutionalist and very extream about it. If it is not in the constitution (specific words) he wants nothing of it. The reason for the question was to gain a better perspective of your opinion.

What is your opinion on gay marriage?
 

Strangelove

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
74
Reaction score
1
Location
simi valley
vauge said:
What is your opinion on gay marriage?

First, let me say as a disclaimer (since liberals automatically assume conservatives are disciples of Satan...I've already been called a 'bigot' here on another thread :rolleyes: ).....I have no problem with gays. They should be treated as anyone else. Some are good, some are bad.

I don't think they should be denied jobs,housing,loans,power of attorney....etc.

However, I am opposed to gay marriage,gays in the military, adoption, and their inclusion as Boy Scout leaders.

Why that makes me an intolerant Hitler is beyond me.

I was pretty much indifferent to the gay world until they
started
forcing their agenda down our throats through the courts. They are becoming more and more like the fascists they feared for so long. Example: 'hate crime' legislation.

Horrible law.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Strangelove said:
First, let me say as a disclaimer (since liberals automatically assume conservatives are disciples of Satan...I've already been called a 'bigot' here on another thread :rolleyes: ).....I have no problem with gays. They should be treated as anyone else. Some are good, some are bad.

I don't think they should be denied jobs,housing,loans,power of attorney....etc.

However, I am opposed to gay marriage,gays in the military, adoption, and their inclusion as Boy Scout leaders.

Why that makes me an intolerant Hitler is beyond me.

I was pretty much indifferent to the gay world until they
started
forcing their agenda down our throats through the courts. They are becoming more and more like the fascists they feared for so long. Example: 'hate crime' legislation.

Horrible law.
Your statements are contradictory. Either you have a problem with gays or you don't. You say you don't , then you do. Of course, you can't lump everyone into a group. Not every gay filed a court petition. Not every gay is for hate crime legislation (IMHO, a crime is a crime is a crime. Creating an additional penalty based on hate is superfluous).

The Boy Scouts of America are only privately funded, they can hire whom they want as long as its not a protected class.

I would've liked to have served in the Reserves actually. When I graduated from High School, I was 18, in a relationship, and Clinton era's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" hadn't been enacted yet.

As for adoption, that's a tough one. Society, especially in some areas of the country, isn't accepting of gays and lesbians. That could be a tough and possibly dangerous situation for child because of the prejudice against the child's parent(s). Hopefully those prejudices will disappear over time and people can be just people instead of "that gay couple" they could be "that couple". It's really all much ado about nothing.
 

Strangelove

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
74
Reaction score
1
Location
simi valley
shuamort said:
Your statements are contradictory[/B]. Either you have a problem with gays or you don't. You say you don't , then you do. Of course, you can't lump everyone into a group. .

I love the way you claim my statements are 'contradictory', then go on to contradict yourself in the same paragraph.
:rofl :rofl

Classic!
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Strangelove said:
I love the way you claim my statements are 'contradictory', then go on to contradict yourself in the same paragraph.
:rofl :rofl

Classic!
Are you more than one person? Because the statement "Either you have a problem with gays or you don't" wasn't using the plural "you", it was directed at you in particular. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
By the way, Strangelove, your incorrectly applied ad hominem tu quoque for some reason didn't address the debate applied to you either.
 

Strangelove

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
74
Reaction score
1
Location
simi valley
shuamort said:
By the way, Strangelove, your incorrectly applied ad hominem tu quoque for some reason didn't address the debate applied to you either.


ha! which one? the thread has fragmented into multiple topics. (gay marriage, states rights,slavery,constitutional constructionism..etc)

Let's discuss motorcycles. I prefer water-cooled high performance twins.

und du? :D
 
Top Bottom