|
United States5162 Posts
On March 02 2013 21:53 Ryuhou)aS( wrote:I'll preface this by saying, i do believe gays should be allowed to marry, but i don't believe churches should be forced to go against their beliefs to give gays a marriage "ceremony" in their church. You can't just take away one person's rights in order to give another person rights. And as wrong as their (the religious anti-homosexuality) belief is, you can't make laws forcing a religion to change or make laws forcing people to change their religious beliefs (that's definitely in the constitution). It's not about people being for/against any certain religion, it's about making laws for/against any certain religion. The only point I really think a lot of you are missing is Show nested quote +
The administration said unequivocally in a friend-of-the-court brief filed late on Thursday that gay marriage should be allowed to resume in California, where citizens voted to bar it in a 2008 referendum known as Proposition 8.
and Show nested quote +The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overturn California's This is a dangerous precedent. The problem is, it's setting up the Supreme Court to be the #1 power over all laws of the country, basically throwing out the "checks and balances" that our government is supposed to have. After this, what's to stop the supreme court from doing away with congress? or the president? or elections? What if Obama(or any other president) asks the supreme court to do away with the law saying a president can only run for presidential election twice? (this is a bad summary..it actually says something about not being in the office of presidency more than 8 years, or if they came into the office during another presidents term [ie when Kennedy was shot] with 2 or more years left in that term, they can only run and gain the office for 1 more term of 4 years) What if they do this, the people actually vote Obama (or any other president) out of office, then he asks the supreme court to overturn that vote? My point is, if it's something that was voted on, by the citizens, then you can't just throw it out the door arbitrarily like that. It should have to be voted on again, and again, and again, until it passes. We shouldn't just be making laws to force beliefs onto people (either religious or non-religious or whatever they may be). We should be more focused on educating and persuading people that they should vote for something like gay marriage being allowed, not against. And by this i don't mean railing, name-calling, or stuff like that, it should be logical, and respectful, while still being persuasive (by using words to change one's belief) and the massive amount of yelling and name-calling I see from both sides of the argument, is only going to cause further disruption and separation, not cohesiveness and unity.
A vote by a majority of people doesn't mean you can make a law for anything - that leads to the tyranny of the majority. People should be guaranteed certain rights, and even if a lot of people don't agree that those people should have rights that doesn't make it legal(see the civil rights movement). This isn't about the supreme court deciding on any law, of which many of the things you spoke of would require constitutional amendments, only ones which affect peoples' right, such as Roe vs Wade or Brown vs The Board of Education. And while Obama is asking it to be overturned, in reality the discrimination between gays and straights under marriage would be examined under the equal protection clause of the constitution, and not simply overruled because Obama asked for it.
And by saying you can't forbid gay people to marry doesn't mean you have to do it yourself. Gay people should have the same legal marriage as straight people, but Churches shouldn't have to marry them. I would hope that would be the change, but UK did/is trying to go the other route.
|
On March 01 2013 14:25 Roman666 wrote:
Unfortunate it is, that the ban of homosexual marriages in California will start the debate of ability of a state to write its own law vs. federal regulation. While I have nothing against homosexual folks, I hate federal institutions sticking their noses into smaller communities rights to self decision. You mean smaller communities' right to "self decision" on somebody else's rights?
|
There isn't much discussion about the actual case in this thread. Here's a link that explains the possible holdings the court could reach:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/the-courts-five-options-in-the-california-marriage-case/
It really doesn't mean much that Obama's administration has filed a brief in this case. The court has been receiving literally hundreds of briefs from various groups. Obama's lawyers are just making the same arguments that numerous other parties are making.
|
Your arguments:
On March 02 2013 19:37 Geneq wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll* And other people getting same-sex marriage affects you how, exactly?
On March 02 2013 19:12 urashimakt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll* You've touched upon something more interesting there than you know. Being against "gay marriage" or "guns" is a pretty ambiguous statement. More exact statements could be I am against "two men marrying each other" and "being shot by a person using a gun". One of those things involves and affects you, the other doesn't.
On March 02 2013 19:09 nttea wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll* So true! They are really similar, like if someone with issues can get a gun then shoots someone with it... other people get hurt! And if some faggots marry it's all unnatural and shit so god will smite us with lightning bolts.
On March 02 2013 19:08 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll* While I see where your coming from I really hope your not serious. The issue is not as simple as that for many people I agree. . You comparison is awful, guns in households increase likelihood of accidental death or a suicide, and they can be used to harm other individuals. This is not to say that there is not a good use for guns, but come on... Lgbtq groups being suppressed by our society causes suicides, quite a bit, gay teens have a very alarming suicide rate and sometimes though not as often at all, violent crimes against them for their sexuality. More acceptance within our laws will set an example that it's ok., I'm not just talking about marriage equality here, I'm talking people not being accepted by their parents and communities and friends. People losing their jobs or careers over sexual orientation. If you could stick with, it's more complicated than that, maybe I'm being too technical. Props to Obama I hope real chsnge comes from this, and not just gay marriage, that is only a small part of the change needed to bring equality to the united states.
On March 02 2013 19:07 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll* Because... if you are against guns... and even if you don't own a gun... others with guns can still shoot you!
His argument: "If you don't like gay marriage then don't get gay married."
It's called illustrating absurdity by being absurd, fucking morons.
Hopefully one day you people can learn to make the distinction between legitimate arguments and fucking retarded arguments. Nah, I won't keep my hopes up.
User was warned for this post
|
On March 03 2013 02:15 rusedeguerre wrote:Your arguments:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 19:37 Geneq wrote:On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll* And other people getting same-sex marriage affects you how, exactly? Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 19:12 urashimakt wrote:On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll* You've touched upon something more interesting there than you know. Being against "gay marriage" or "guns" is a pretty ambiguous statement. More exact statements could be I am against "two men marrying each other" and "being shot by a person using a gun". One of those things involves and affects you, the other doesn't. Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 19:09 nttea wrote:On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll* So true! They are really similar, like if someone with issues can get a gun then shoots someone with it... other people get hurt! And if some faggots marry it's all unnatural and shit so god will smite us with lightning bolts. Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 19:08 BlueBird. wrote:On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll* While I see where your coming from I really hope your not serious. The issue is not as simple as that for many people I agree. . You comparison is awful, guns in households increase likelihood of accidental death or a suicide, and they can be used to harm other individuals. This is not to say that there is not a good use for guns, but come on... Lgbtq groups being suppressed by our society causes suicides, quite a bit, gay teens have a very alarming suicide rate and sometimes though not as often at all, violent crimes against them for their sexuality. More acceptance within our laws will set an example that it's ok., I'm not just talking about marriage equality here, I'm talking people not being accepted by their parents and communities and friends. People losing their jobs or careers over sexual orientation. If you could stick with, it's more complicated than that, maybe I'm being too technical. Props to Obama I hope real chsnge comes from this, and not just gay marriage, that is only a small part of the change needed to bring equality to the united states. Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 19:07 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll* Because... if you are against guns... and even if you don't own a gun... others with guns can still shoot you! His argument: "If you don't like gay marriage then don't get gay married." It's called illustrating absurdity by being absurd, fucking morons. Hopefully one day you people can learn to make the distinction between legitimate arguments and fucking retarded arguments. Nah, I won't keep my hopes up.
In my logic class I learned to spot sound and valid arguments and, as far as I can tell, this argument is the platonic form of a syllogism.
|
I have absolutely nothing against gay people, I come for a community with a very large gay population..
but having said that, I am ENTIRELY against the government sticking their nose into this issue. The constitution grants them no such power to do this. I cant see this as anything except another example of the government trying to do more than it has the right to.
|
Why some people always bring up though "oh, but the Churches shouldn't be forced to marry same-sex couples" thing as if it's even a question. It isn't. Such a provision isn't ever being forced by the secular government, and never actually has been anywhere, be it in North America or Europe or whatever. It's just a stupid and asinine red herring that people just love to throw out every single time this conversation pops up.
|
On March 03 2013 02:27 Aveng3r wrote:
I have absolutely nothing against gay people, I come for a community with a very large gay population..
but having said that, I am ENTIRELY against the government sticking their nose into this issue. The constitution grants them no such power to do this. I cant see this as anything except another example of the government trying to do more than it has the right to.
Wasn't the Constitution also created to prevent the tyranny of the majority? Specifically, discrimination against Quakers during its time?
|
On March 03 2013 02:27 Aveng3r wrote:
I have absolutely nothing against gay people, I come for a community with a very large gay population..
but having said that, I am ENTIRELY against the government sticking their nose into this issue. The constitution grants them no such power to do this. I cant see this as anything except another example of the government trying to do more than it has the right to.
?
The government is supposed to protect the rights of citizens. If some group (gay people) is being discriminated against, then it's the role of the SC/government to rectify that. I'm not sure what you think would happen if the government didn't stick its nose into the gay marriage issue. More than likely, gays wouldn't be able to marry.
|
How this still is an issue, I will never understand.
|
Austria24417 Posts
Good. He's starting to use his status as president to get his message across.
|
This really isn't that big of a deal, other than it marks Obama speaking out in a direct and specific way about the gay marriage issue, which has been rare as far as I know. Other than that, the Supreme Court will probably vote the same way it would normally. The President saying this isn't going to make Justice Scalia more liberal.
Edit: The Supreme Court Justices also don't have terms and election results to worry about. The only thing Obama can really do to influence the Supreme Court is to appoint new Justices if some our current Justices retire within his term.
And I don't see how this negatively affects democracy, the Supreme Court isn't stepping outside of its jurisdiction, all they can do is hear cases. And the President is entitled to express his opinion publicly, I'm sure you'll read statements from senators saying which way the Supreme Court should vote, even though they don't have an actual say in the matter.
|
If they keep up this pace of 'progressing' on gay marriage, maybe by another ten years they will finally give gay people the rights they should have had for around thirty years now, when public opinion first started to really turn around on viewing them as people.
|
On March 03 2013 02:52 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 02:27 Aveng3r wrote:
I have absolutely nothing against gay people, I come for a community with a very large gay population..
but having said that, I am ENTIRELY against the government sticking their nose into this issue. The constitution grants them no such power to do this. I cant see this as anything except another example of the government trying to do more than it has the right to. ? The government is supposed to protect the rights of citizens. If some group (gay people) is being discriminated against, then it's the role of the SC/government to rectify that. I'm not sure what you think would happen if the government didn't stick its nose into the gay marriage issue. More than likely, gays wouldn't be able to marry.
Im small government.. the concept of the president asking the supreme court to overturn the popular vote of a state is ridiculous. Where are the checks and balances when this is happening??
|
Austria24417 Posts
On March 03 2013 03:55 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 02:52 Shiori wrote:On March 03 2013 02:27 Aveng3r wrote:
I have absolutely nothing against gay people, I come for a community with a very large gay population..
but having said that, I am ENTIRELY against the government sticking their nose into this issue. The constitution grants them no such power to do this. I cant see this as anything except another example of the government trying to do more than it has the right to. ? The government is supposed to protect the rights of citizens. If some group (gay people) is being discriminated against, then it's the role of the SC/government to rectify that. I'm not sure what you think would happen if the government didn't stick its nose into the gay marriage issue. More than likely, gays wouldn't be able to marry. Im small government.. the concept of the president asking the supreme court to overturn the popular vote of a state is ridiculous. Where are the checks and balances when this is happening??
They went out the window during the Bush era.
You may be right that it's a drastic form of action but it has to be. Things have to change and in a nation where nothing ever changes, if all this does in the end is spark discussion, it'll already have been a good thing.
Civil rights are threatened by Proposition 8. It may have been a popular vote that decided it but I seriously have to ask myself if the population should be allowed to threaten those in the first place.
|
I fail to se how someone can view and push their way of life and life choises upon anyone else but themselfs.
It's just silly to make people feel unwanted/out of place in a sociaty based on what gender they wish to share beds with.
I just cannot belive that there are people out there that whould rather see their own nighbours living unhappy and alone instead of in a giving and loving relationship.
|
On March 03 2013 02:52 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 02:27 Aveng3r wrote:
I have absolutely nothing against gay people, I come for a community with a very large gay population..
but having said that, I am ENTIRELY against the government sticking their nose into this issue. The constitution grants them no such power to do this. I cant see this as anything except another example of the government trying to do more than it has the right to. ? The government is supposed to protect the rights of citizens. If some group (gay people) is being discriminated against, then it's the role of the SC/government to rectify that. I'm not sure what you think would happen if the government didn't stick its nose into the gay marriage issue. More than likely, gays wouldn't be able to marry.
This, if the government didn't stick it's nose in to many social issues in this country, they would still be issues. You honestly might still have slavery, women might still not have the vote, etc.
Our government is supposed to intervene, see the supreme court, when they determine that a state law is violating the constitutional rights of an american citizen. In this case, it's my opinion that they are, regardless of anyones feelings on the subject.
You will see equal rights granted either by judicial interpretation or by constitutional amendment, for all sexual orientations some day in this country. Unless there is an apocalypse or something.
|
Am I the only one hoping the new pope will be in favor of gay marriage. Hence changing this entire discussion by removing the only "argument" against.
|
On March 03 2013 05:27 henkel wrote:
Am I the only one hoping the new pope will be in favor of gay marriage. Hence changing this entire discussion by removing the only "argument" against.
Sure I'm hoping for that too. I am also hoping for a blowjob from Scarlett Johanssen. I have a hard time figuring out which one is more likely.
|
On March 03 2013 03:55 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 02:52 Shiori wrote:On March 03 2013 02:27 Aveng3r wrote:
I have absolutely nothing against gay people, I come for a community with a very large gay population..
but having said that, I am ENTIRELY against the government sticking their nose into this issue. The constitution grants them no such power to do this. I cant see this as anything except another example of the government trying to do more than it has the right to. ? The government is supposed to protect the rights of citizens. If some group (gay people) is being discriminated against, then it's the role of the SC/government to rectify that. I'm not sure what you think would happen if the government didn't stick its nose into the gay marriage issue. More than likely, gays wouldn't be able to marry. Im small government.. the concept of the president asking the supreme court to overturn the popular vote of a state is ridiculous. Where are the checks and balances when this is happening??
Suppose popular vote declared the systematic hunting and killing of black people to be permissible. Should the SC intervene?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
