Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Does anyone read the constitution?

tylergraham95
Posts: 1,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 11:47:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I feel like so many people tout about how proud they are to be an American, and how they love the country, but seem to lack understanding of the constitution.

Take this example: A Republican man who is very much for Gun rights but very against Gay rights. If you ask him to justify his support of gun rights, he bases his argument on the second amendment (which is understandable). But if you ask him to justify why he is against gay marriage, he will either A) Base his argument on his religion or B) Give you some bullsh*t about the sanctity of marriage because he doesn't want to admit it's about religion.
In making the second argument, does he just simply forget about the establishment clause of the first amendment? Is there anyone who is against gay marriage on a religious basis (That is, against the legalization of it) that understands/has read the establishment clause???
"we dig" - Jeanette Runquist (1943 - 2015)
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 5:29:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 11:47:21 AM, tylergraham95 wrote:
I feel like so many people tout about how proud they are to be an American, and how they love the country, but seem to lack understanding of the constitution.

Take this example: A Republican man who is very much for Gun rights but very against Gay rights. If you ask him to justify his support of gun rights, he bases his argument on the second amendment (which is understandable). But if you ask him to justify why he is against gay marriage, he will either A) Base his argument on his religion or B) Give you some bullsh*t about the sanctity of marriage because he doesn't want to admit it's about religion.
In making the second argument, does he just simply forget about the establishment clause of the first amendment? Is there anyone who is against gay marriage on a religious basis (That is, against the legalization of it) that understands/has read the establishment clause???

I read it. I'm against Gay Marriage for many reasons. My religion is a basic, but I've never used it in an argument against a non-Christian.

You know many religions are against Gay Marriage. And the Establishment Clause doesn't say government must reject Religion... Just that there can not be a state religion.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 7:37:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I base gun rights on many different reasons. Many, including the Constitution.

I am anti-gay, but I'm also anti-government-telling-you-who-you-are-and-what-to-do. I think gaiety is downright disgusting and unethical, and almost every gay I've ever met has been one of the in-your-face types, but I am also not going to go out of my way to make (or keep) gaiety illegal. And because I'm not religious I don't base my opinion on religion--although I reference it sometimes, after all, if the Bible puts gaiety on the same level as murder, that means something.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 7:54:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 7:37:15 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
I think gaiety is downright disgusting

What do you have against joyfulness?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 8:05:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 7:54:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/19/2013 7:37:15 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
I think gaiety is downright disgusting

What do you have against joyfulness?

Joyfulness? I have no problem with joyfulness. It's guys buttfucking other guys that I have a problem with.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 8:23:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 11:47:21 AM, tylergraham95 wrote:
I feel like so many people tout about how proud they are to be an American, and how they love the country, but seem to lack understanding of the constitution.

Sometimes, but it's probably less than you might think.

Take this example: A Republican man who is very much for Gun rights but very against Gay rights. If you ask him to justify his support of gun rights, he bases his argument on the (which is understandable). But if you ask him to justify why he is against gay marriage, he will either A) Base his argument on his religion or B) Give you some bullsh*t about the sanctity of marriage because he doesn't want to admit it's about religion.

Well, the far right is just stupid. I normally try to avoid insults, but I can't really sum it up with a better word.
In making the second argument, does he just simply forget about the establishment clause of the first amendment? Is there anyone who is against gay marriage on a religious basis (That is, against the legalization of it) that understands/has read the establishment clause???

Probably.

To answer your title though, many people do read the constitution when their rights may be infringed. Anytime a SOPA-esque bill, or some form of gun control bill shows up, I know that it's unconstitutional, because I have read the constitution, and applied basic logic to interpret it in a rational way. Certain other amendments that I have yet to have infringed, but see as possibly being infringed would be the amendment that refers to "cruel and unusual punishment" as I specifically pay attention to the use of the term "and" instead of "or" in the amendment.

All that being said, I really don't know much about the Constitution itself outside the Bill of Rights, and the other amendments. That's just mainly due to the fact that it's all about how the government is run, and not the rights of the people, so it is going to be of lesser interest to me.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 8:41:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 8:05:17 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 12/19/2013 7:54:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/19/2013 7:37:15 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
I think gaiety is downright disgusting

What do you have against joyfulness?

Joyfulness? I have no problem with joyfulness. It's guys buttfucking other guys that I have a problem with.

Except that "gaiety" has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuals, fvcktard.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 11:28:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 8:41:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/19/2013 8:05:17 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 12/19/2013 7:54:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/19/2013 7:37:15 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
I think gaiety is downright disgusting

What do you have against joyfulness?

Joyfulness? I have no problem with joyfulness. It's guys buttfucking other guys that I have a problem with.

Except that "gaiety" has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuals, fvcktard.

...wait, did I read that right?
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
tylergraham95
Posts: 1,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 11:45:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 5:29:11 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/18/2013 11:47:21 AM, tylergraham95 wrote:
I feel like so many people tout about how proud they are to be an American, and how they love the country, but seem to lack understanding of the constitution.

Take this example: A Republican man who is very much for Gun rights but very against Gay rights. If you ask him to justify his support of gun rights, he bases his argument on the second amendment (which is understandable). But if you ask him to justify why he is against gay marriage, he will either A) Base his argument on his religion or B) Give you some bullsh*t about the sanctity of marriage because he doesn't want to admit it's about religion.
In making the second argument, does he just simply forget about the establishment clause of the first amendment? Is there anyone who is against gay marriage on a religious basis (That is, against the legalization of it) that understands/has read the establishment clause???

I read it. I'm against Gay Marriage for many reasons. My religion is a basic, but I've never used it in an argument against a non-Christian.

You know many religions are against Gay Marriage. And the Establishment Clause doesn't say government must reject Religion... Just that there can not be a state religion.

But creating laws based on a religion would forward or strengthen the religion, therefore violating the establishment clause. Just like the government can only donate to religiously affiliated schools in certain ways (ways that neither advance nor hinder the religion at hand). This doctrine is held up in countless court cases, such as Engel v. Vitale. I don't see how this doctrine doesn't apply here? Keeping gay marriage illegal and restricting gay rights advances religions that are against gay rights (specifically, Christianity).
"we dig" - Jeanette Runquist (1943 - 2015)
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 11:47:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes, I have read it several times. I always find it insightful and powerful.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Macgreggor
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 11:57:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"I have a problem with people who take the Constitution loosely and the Bible literally."
Bill Maher

"Well, it is very important, and the great idea of setting up an organism is so as to defeat the domino result. When, each standing alone, one falls, it has the effect on the next, and finally the whole row is down. You are trying, through a unifying influence, to build that row of dominoes so they can stand the fall of one, if necessary."
----Eisenhower

I thought your explanation and answer was excellent
Mac
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 2:32:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 11:47:21 AM, tylergraham95 wrote:
I feel like so many people tout about how proud they are to be an American, and how they love the country, but seem to lack understanding of the constitution.

Take this example: A Republican man who is very much for Gun rights but very against Gay rights. If you ask him to justify his support of gun rights, he bases his argument on the second amendment (which is understandable). But if you ask him to justify why he is against gay marriage, he will either A) Base his argument on his religion or B) Give you some bullsh*t about the sanctity of marriage because he doesn't want to admit it's about religion.
In making the second argument, does he just simply forget about the establishment clause of the first amendment? Is there anyone who is against gay marriage on a religious basis (That is, against the legalization of it) that understands/has read the establishment clause???

Utilizing your logic, you must be advocating the abolishment of marriage as a government-sanctioned institution, because you see marriage only in the context of a religious rite.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 2:34:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 11:47:21 AM, tylergraham95 wrote:
But if you ask him to justify why he is against gay marriage, he will either A) Base his argument on his religion or B) Give you some bullsh*t about the sanctity of marriage because he doesn't want to admit it's about religion.

Wrong. This is the argument coming from a top Conservative intellectual:

The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.

In a free society, vast numbers of things are neither forbidden nor facilitated. They are considered to be none of the law's business.

Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that the law had no business interfering with relations between consenting adults. Now they want the law to put a seal of approval on their behavior. But no one is entitled to anyone else's approval.

Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.

In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.

-- Thomas Sowell (Economist/Political Theorist)

http://townhall.com...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 2:39:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right -- as heterosexual Americans already have -- to see government and society affirm our lives."
-- Jeff Levi (homosexual spokesperson 1987 before the National Press Club in Washington)


http://www.conservapedia.com...
http://www.infowars.com...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 10:23:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Bill Maher has a problem with a loose interpretation of the constitution? I find that hard to believe ha
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
AngstChrist
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 10:38:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Guns for gays. Im all for it. Maybe that's a good way to prevent gay bashing. In fact, a great group, known as the Pink Pistols, promotes this very idea.

I base MY support on supporting guns and gays and guns FOR gays on the premise that a) its constitutionally protected and B) more importantly, self defense, be it from a gay basher or rights bashing Federal government, is a fundamental HUMAN RIGHT.

At 12/19/2013 5:29:11 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/18/2013 11:47:21 AM, tylergraham95 wrote:
I feel like so many people tout about how proud they are to be an American, and how they love the country, but seem to lack understanding of the constitution.

Take this example: A Republican man who is very much for Gun rights but very against Gay rights. If you ask him to justify his support of gun rights, he bases his argument on the second amendment (which is understandable). But if you ask him to justify why he is against gay marriage, he will either A) Base his argument on his religion or B) Give you some bullsh*t about the sanctity of marriage because he doesn't want to admit it's about religion.
In making the second argument, does he just simply forget about the establishment clause of the first amendment? Is there anyone who is against gay marriage on a religious basis (That is, against the legalization of it) that understands/has read the establishment clause???

I read it. I'm against Gay Marriage for many reasons. My religion is a basic, but I've never used it in an argument against a non-Christian.

You know many religions are against Gay Marriage. And the Establishment Clause doesn't say government must reject Religion... Just that there can not be a state religion.
DudeStop
Posts: 1,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 10:52:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 8:05:17 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 12/19/2013 7:54:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/19/2013 7:37:15 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
I think gaiety is downright disgusting

What do you have against joyfulness?

Joyfulness? I have no problem with joyfulness. It's guys buttfucking other guys that I have a problem with.

Gay marriage is not all a form of lust. It is a form of love and should therefor deserve our respect... (To an extent, you don't have to attend the guys wedding but you also shouldn't be arguing stupid things about his sexuality) Also, even if we did assume it was purely lust based, you fail to realize that human beings mostly have sex for pleasure purposes rather than reproduction purposes.
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 10:58:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 10:52:42 AM, DudeStop wrote:
At 12/19/2013 8:05:17 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 12/19/2013 7:54:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/19/2013 7:37:15 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
I think gaiety is downright disgusting

What do you have against joyfulness?

Joyfulness? I have no problem with joyfulness. It's guys buttfucking other guys that I have a problem with.

Gay marriage is not all a form of lust. It is a form of love and should therefor deserve our respect... (To an extent, you don't have to attend the guys wedding but you also shouldn't be arguing stupid things about his sexuality) Also, even if we did assume it was purely lust based, you fail to realize that human beings mostly have sex for pleasure purposes rather than reproduction purposes.

Yes, because I was saying guys buttfuck each other to have kids, because that's possible, you know?
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
DudeStop
Posts: 1,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 11:02:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 10:58:10 AM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 12/20/2013 10:52:42 AM, DudeStop wrote:
At 12/19/2013 8:05:17 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 12/19/2013 7:54:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/19/2013 7:37:15 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
I think gaiety is downright disgusting

What do you have against joyfulness?

Joyfulness? I have no problem with joyfulness. It's guys buttfucking other guys that I have a problem with.

Gay marriage is not all a form of lust. It is a form of love and should therefor deserve our respect... (To an extent, you don't have to attend the guys wedding but you also shouldn't be arguing stupid things about his sexuality) Also, even if we did assume it was purely lust based, you fail to realize that human beings mostly have sex for pleasure purposes rather than reproduction purposes.

Yes, because I was saying guys buttfuck each other to have kids, because that's possible, you know?

? mmm I think you thought I you said that gay people can have kids for some reason.... I don't know why your brain "Works" that way, but whatever.

I'm simply saying that the argument that gay people can't have kids is stupid. Because humans, when having sex, mostly do so for pleasure rather than reproduction. So it is not that big a deal that gays can't have kids.

Why do you have a problem with guys doing it with the same gender, but not people doing it with the opposite gender?
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 3:57:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 11:02:44 AM, DudeStop wrote:
At 12/20/2013 10:58:10 AM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 12/20/2013 10:52:42 AM, DudeStop wrote:
Gay marriage is not all a form of lust. It is a form of love and should therefor deserve our respect... (To an extent, you don't have to attend the guys wedding but you also shouldn't be arguing stupid things about his sexuality) Also, even if we did assume it was purely lust based, you fail to realize that human beings mostly have sex for pleasure purposes rather than reproduction purposes.

Yes, because I was saying guys buttfuck each other to have kids, because that's possible, you know?

? mmm I think you thought I you said that gay people can have kids for some reason.... I don't know why your brain "Works" that way, but whatever.

No, I'm saying we all know that people usually have sex for pleasure.

I'm simply saying that the argument that gay people can't have kids is stupid. Because humans, when having sex, mostly do so for pleasure rather than reproduction. So it is not that big a deal that gays can't have kids.

Why do you have a problem with guys doing it with the same gender, but not people doing it with the opposite gender?

Because that's not the way it's supposed to be. I don't look at the same sex and think, "oh, yeah." I look at the opposite sex and think, "hell yeah." And guess what? I don't have some kind of assbackwards biological fuckup in my brain.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
tylergraham95
Posts: 1,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 5:18:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 2:32:25 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/18/2013 11:47:21 AM, tylergraham95 wrote:
I feel like so many people tout about how proud they are to be an American, and how they love the country, but seem to lack understanding of the constitution.

Take this example: A Republican man who is very much for Gun rights but very against Gay rights. If you ask him to justify his support of gun rights, he bases his argument on the second amendment (which is understandable). But if you ask him to justify why he is against gay marriage, he will either A) Base his argument on his religion or B) Give you some bullsh*t about the sanctity of marriage because he doesn't want to admit it's about religion.
In making the second argument, does he just simply forget about the establishment clause of the first amendment? Is there anyone who is against gay marriage on a religious basis (That is, against the legalization of it) that understands/has read the establishment clause???

Utilizing your logic, you must be advocating the abolishment of marriage as a government-sanctioned institution, because you see marriage only in the context of a religious rite.

Marriage (as far as government goes) should be only the ability for two people to be legally bound together in order to easily share insurance benefits, and the other legal implications of marriage. Nothing about religion. Of course, some people will get married for a religious reason, which is fine. This does not mean that the government is either advancing or hindering religion, as many religious people don't marry, and many non-religious people do marry. It has become a facet of culture rather than just religion.
"we dig" - Jeanette Runquist (1943 - 2015)
tylergraham95
Posts: 1,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 5:20:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 2:34:56 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/18/2013 11:47:21 AM, tylergraham95 wrote:
But if you ask him to justify why he is against gay marriage, he will either A) Base his argument on his religion or B) Give you some bullsh*t about the sanctity of marriage because he doesn't want to admit it's about religion.

Wrong. This is the argument coming from a top Conservative intellectual:

The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.

In a free society, vast numbers of things are neither forbidden nor facilitated. They are considered to be none of the law's business.

Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that the law had no business interfering with relations between consenting adults. Now they want the law to put a seal of approval on their behavior. But no one is entitled to anyone else's approval.

Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.

In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.

-- Thomas Sowell (Economist/Political Theorist)

http://townhall.com...

I did not mean to imply that all republicans and/or conservatives made this argument. This type of argument is just the one I see most commonly made by those against gay rights but for gun rights. There are many prominent republicans who are against gay marriage on a religious basis.
"we dig" - Jeanette Runquist (1943 - 2015)
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 5:30:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 5:18:17 PM, tylergraham95 wrote:
At 12/20/2013 2:32:25 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/18/2013 11:47:21 AM, tylergraham95 wrote:
I feel like so many people tout about how proud they are to be an American, and how they love the country, but seem to lack understanding of the constitution.

Take this example: A Republican man who is very much for Gun rights but very against Gay rights. If you ask him to justify his support of gun rights, he bases his argument on the second amendment (which is understandable). But if you ask him to justify why he is against gay marriage, he will either A) Base his argument on his religion or B) Give you some bullsh*t about the sanctity of marriage because he doesn't want to admit it's about religion.
In making the second argument, does he just simply forget about the establishment clause of the first amendment? Is there anyone who is against gay marriage on a religious basis (That is, against the legalization of it) that understands/has read the establishment clause???

Utilizing your logic, you must be advocating the abolishment of marriage as a government-sanctioned institution, because you see marriage only in the context of a religious rite.

Marriage (as far as government goes) should be only the ability for two people to be legally bound together in order to easily share insurance benefits, and the other legal implications of marriage. Nothing about religion. Of course, some people will get married for a religious reason, which is fine. This does not mean that the government is either advancing or hindering religion, as many religious people don't marry, and many non-religious people do marry. It has become a facet of culture rather than just religion.

Given this framing of marriage, I'd have to ask you 1) why government would have to get involved in this?, and 2) why must things like insurance benefits be shared?

IMHO the only real reason for government involvement in marriage is that the government and its constituency see itself as having an interest in taking care of children, and it's extremely difficult to question that heterosexual marriage facilitates child-bearing and thus child-rearing, whereas the opposite is true for gay marriage.

Without children into the picture, IMHO there's no reason for there to be any of these "marriage benefits"...after all, I can just room with my friends and we share rent, etc...but we're not "married".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Federalist-Republican2016
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 9:09:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well, if you're a Christian, I would definitely suggest you never read the 2nd written U.S. Constitution because it involves nothing on Christianity. Example is the Bill of Rights....it allows the freedom of religion written when the U.S. should make its official religion, Christianity.
Sincerely...Caleb D. Baker & Thomas D. Hall, Jr. respectively
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 9:32:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 9:09:14 PM, Federalist-Republican2016 wrote:
Well, if you're a Christian, I would definitely suggest you never read the 2nd written U.S. Constitution because it involves nothing on Christianity. Example is the Bill of Rights....it allows the freedom of religion written when the U.S. should make its official religion, Christianity.

Why should it do that?
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 10:10:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have indeed read the Constitution. Many conservatives and liberals are much happier when the government enforces what they want regardless of constitutionality. Banning guns (which, to be fair, I have not heard beyond the banning of assault rifles ) and banning gay marriage (because Heaven forbid two consenting adults be allowed to legally express their love!) are but two prominent examples.

The conservatives who use the Bible when talking about gays and the 2nd Amendment when discussing gun rights are generally (but not always) the same conservatives who would support a Christian theocracy and argue that the Constitution does not say separation of church and state.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 11:50:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Correlation is not causation. Just because people who are stupid enough to be homophobes are therefore stupid enough to be religious and happen to find justifications for their homophobia in their religious texts, that doesn't mean their homophobia is derivative of their religion. Religious people try to root everything in their religion, after all, including uncontroversial things like love and charity.
tylergraham95
Posts: 1,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 1:15:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 5:30:41 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/20/2013 5:18:17 PM, tylergraham95 wrote:
At 12/20/2013 2:32:25 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/18/2013 11:47:21 AM, tylergraham95 wrote:
I feel like so many people tout about how proud they are to be an American, and how they love the country, but seem to lack understanding of the constitution.

Take this example: A Republican man who is very much for Gun rights but very against Gay rights. If you ask him to justify his support of gun rights, he bases his argument on the second amendment (which is understandable). But if you ask him to justify why he is against gay marriage, he will either A) Base his argument on his religion or B) Give you some bullsh*t about the sanctity of marriage because he doesn't want to admit it's about religion.
In making the second argument, does he just simply forget about the establishment clause of the first amendment? Is there anyone who is against gay marriage on a religious basis (That is, against the legalization of it) that understands/has read the establishment clause???

Utilizing your logic, you must be advocating the abolishment of marriage as a government-sanctioned institution, because you see marriage only in the context of a religious rite.

Marriage (as far as government goes) should be only the ability for two people to be legally bound together in order to easily share insurance benefits, and the other legal implications of marriage. Nothing about religion. Of course, some people will get married for a religious reason, which is fine. This does not mean that the government is either advancing or hindering religion, as many religious people don't marry, and many non-religious people do marry. It has become a facet of culture rather than just religion.

Given this framing of marriage, I'd have to ask you 1) why government would have to get involved in this?, and 2) why must things like insurance benefits be shared?

IMHO the only real reason for government involvement in marriage is that the government and its constituency see itself as having an interest in taking care of children, and it's extremely difficult to question that heterosexual marriage facilitates child-bearing and thus child-rearing, whereas the opposite is true for gay marriage.

Without children into the picture, IMHO there's no reason for there to be any of these "marriage benefits"...after all, I can just room with my friends and we share rent, etc...but we're not "married".

That is a good point, but homosexual couples will still want to raise children (even if they're not their genetic offspring) as couple, as two parents. Of course, marriage may not be exactly crucial in this respect, but marriage is still a cultural norm that the vast majority of americans partake in, and therefore the government should no place a ban on gay marriage. In regard to your point about why should the government place governance over gay marriage at all, I would say perhaps it shouldn't. Perhaps people should be legally bound to each other only in child raising settings. If government did indeed have no real involvement in marriage then gays could still get married at many churches.
"we dig" - Jeanette Runquist (1943 - 2015)
tylergraham95
Posts: 1,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 1:17:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 11:50:34 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
Correlation is not causation. Just because people who are stupid enough to be homophobes are therefore stupid enough to be religious and happen to find justifications for their homophobia in their religious texts, that doesn't mean their homophobia is derivative of their religion. Religious people try to root everything in their religion, after all, including uncontroversial things like love and charity.

Oh boy, someone whose never taken a statistics class but has heard the hackneyed phrase that so many love to squeal. That's not even my point. I'm not looking at the "real" reason they are against gay rights. I'm looking at what they say is the reason. Typically, religion.
"we dig" - Jeanette Runquist (1943 - 2015)