Judge Roy Moore vs Chris Cuomo on States Rights, the Constitution, and Marriage

[OReich]

LOL. Some troll just got outed!

Yeah im Maybemaybenot, I got into my old account again. You act like I committed some offense because you're a paranoid fanatic who reads sinister intentions into any disagreement.

And don't use your stupid paranoid bullshit to avoid discussing the constitution. Does the EP clause ban states from discriminating based on gender or race? Let's see if you can carry a real discussion.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Even atheist Stephan Moleneaux understands that there is a difference between same heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage and that society has a greater interest in protecting heterosexual marriage.

But this isn't a valid argument for not permitting gay marriage, any more than it would be an argument for not permitting marriages between couples who don't want or can't have children.

Hetero marriage isn't going to be adversely affected by allowing gays to marry.

 

[jmdrake]

Yeah im Maybemaybenot, I got into my old account again. You act like I committed some offense because you're a paranoid fanatic who reads sinister intentions into any disagreement.

And don't use your stupid paranoid bullshit to avoid discussing the constitution. Does the EP clause ban states from discriminating based on gender or race? Let's see if you can carry a real discussion.

You're a troll regardless of which account you use. That said, is Stephan Moleneaux wrong for stating that society has a stronger interest in heterosexual marriage since they are more likely to have kids and without proper parenting those kids might grow up to be hooligans? You seem afraid to address that point. Could it be because you know that it proves you wrong and moots your "what about interracial marriage" argument? Also you seem afraid to address my point that almost all marriages are interracial anyway because most people are actually mixed raced. Why are you afraid to address that? Scare that it will again show you have no intelligent argument? Because you don't.

 

[OReich]

You're a troll regardless of which account you use. That said, is Stephan Moleneaux wrong for stating that society has a stronger interest in heterosexual marriage since they are more likely to have kids and without proper parenting those kids might grow up to be hooligans? You seem afraid to address that point. Could it be because you know that it proves you wrong and moots your "what about interracial marriage" argument? Also you seem afraid to address my point that almost all marriages are interracial anyway because most people are actually mixed raced. Why are you afraid to address that? Scare that it will again show you have no intelligent argument? Because you don't.

There you go, "troll troll troll," and refusal to even discuss whether the constitution bans gender/race discrimination. Your heterosexual = good argument, over procreation, is baseless. Where do you see a law saying ppl have to have kids if they get married? Where do you see a law saying infertile couples or individuals can't get married? That's because those laws don't exist. You bring up parenting, but in reality hetero parents are likely to be worse because they have unwanted children. Keeping unwanted children leads to bad parenting, putting them up for adoption is bad because very few get adopted... but wait... gays ADOPT!

Which brings us to the benefits of gay marriage: relationship stability (so less diseases spreading) and adoption of unwanted children.

But again, you refuse to discuss the constitution. You bring up how interracial marriage bans were silly because we're all interracial. Good point, except it doesn't back up your argument in anyway. The law banning interracial marriage still blocked ppl from getting married. So... you're pointing out the silliness, you're not explaining how this helped anyone in any way. If anything, you're proving my pt: you refuse to acknowledge that the constitution bans gender/race discrimination.

 

[jmdrake]

But this isn't a valid argument for not permitting gay marriage, any more than it would be an argument for not permitting marriages between couples who don't want or can't have children.

Hetero marriage isn't going to be adversely affected by allowing gays to marry.

I take it you didn't actually watch the video either. For the record Stephan is quite pro gay even to the point of being down on Christians for even thinking homosexuality is wrong. His point wasn't that gay marriage should be "banned". Rather it's that society has more of an interest in heterosexual marriage. And yes he addressed the "childless couple" point you are raising, which is why I know you didn't watch the video.

Also gay marriage is NOT banned. That's a lie that your side keeps propagating. Any two people of the same sex can get married without being arrested. Any three people that try to marry, gay or straight, can be arrested. Any close relatives who try to marry can be arrested. This isn't an insignificant point. When you realize that the argument isn't "Should X be banned" but rather "is society helped if Y is supported" then all of a sudden it's a different ball of wax. Gasoline cars so far have not been banned. (Thankfully) But right now people get a tax break for electric cars. Now personally I don't think the government should be involved in people's decision to buy cars or to get married. But it's disingenuous to pretend an electric car is the same as a gasoline car and it's silly to pretend that a gay marriage is the same as a heterosexual marriage. Again please actually watch the video! Sure, some people can't have kids. And some people don't want to have kids. But on average a hetero couple is far more likely to have kids than a gay couple. It's a good thing if the hetero couple that has what Stephan apparently sees as a "ticking time bomb of potential hooliganism" stays together. So....do things to help that happen just in case they might have kids.

 

[jmdrake]

There you go, "troll troll troll," and refusal to even discuss whether the constitution bans gender/race discrimination.

Wrong. I already discussed it. You are ignoring my arguments and repeating your same baseless assertions all over again. What's the point of an interracial marriage ban when most people are actually interracial themselves? That's right. There isn't any! On the flipside that interracial couple that you aren't allowing the benefit of marriage can steadily have kids. Those kids, without a stable home, can grow up to be hooligans. That's the entire point of Stephan's video (minus any reference to interracial couples, but that doesn't matter.) Really, your argument is like say "Why is there a tax credit for electric cars and hybrid cars but no tax break for gasoline cars? That's a violation of equal protection!"

Keeping unwanted children leads to bad parenting, putting them up for adoption is bad because very few get adopted... but wait... gays ADOPT!

That's nice. And when they do they can get the same tax breaks that single people can get when they adopt. Hey, say if a father and daughter go in together and "adopt" a baby their brother/son left when he died? Of course they can't be "married" because...well that's just "wrong."

 

[Sonny Tufts]

I take it you didn't actually watch the video either.

Sorry, I did. And he never came up with a reason why gay marriage shouldn't be permitted if hetero marriage is permitted. His main point (aside from the fact that society has a greater interest in preserving hetero marriages) was that government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all.

Also gay marriage is NOT banned.

Bullshit. Try getting a marriage license in the state where I live. It can't be done, because the law doesn't permit it. Hell, a gay couple married in a state that recognizes gay marriage can't even get divorced here, because that would mean the state would have to recognize the marriage in the first place, and the law won't allow that.

It's not a question of criminal law; it's whether the state will allow and recognize gay marriage from a civil law standpoint.

 

[jmdrake]

Sorry, I did. And he never came up with a reason why gay marriage shouldn't be permitted if hetero marriage is permitted. His main point (aside from the fact that society has a greater interest in preserving hetero marriages) was that government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all.

Except gay marriage is permitted. It's just not state recognized. Stephen's point wasn't that gay marriage should be banned. It isn't despite your protestations to the contrary. His point is that gay marriage is significantly different enough from straight marriage that society's interest in promoting it is less. It's dishonest of you and maybemaybenot to drone on an on about how the pseudo ban on gay marriage is the same as the actual you could be arrested ban on interracial marriage but then when I point out that even someone who is pro gay can see the different level of legitimate societal interest in the two you fall back with the lame "Well he didn't say ban it" argument. Nobody's said "ban" it. It's not banned.

Bullshit. Try getting a marriage license in the state where I live.

Only a total idiot believes that the inability to get a license for something means that something is banned. If something is banned then you get arrested for it! Marijuana in most states is banned. Polygamy is banned. Incest, even between consenting adults, is banned. Interracial marriage used to be banned. That's right. Loving v. Virginia was because the interracial couple was arrested. That doesn't happen to a gay couple that gets married in any state. The case law on polygamy is that you can get arrested for even purporting to get married to more then one person at a time even if it's a private ceremony and you don't apply for a license. Cry me a river over the fact that you can't get a license for something that you really don't need a license for anyway. The real issue is, can you get the level of "benefits" for a gay marriage and a straight one. Personally I believe the state should be totally decoupled from marriage by getting rid of involvement in people's private lives pro or con. But quit pretending an electric car and a gasoline car are the same. And quit pretending that if you don't get the same benefit for one that you do for another that one is somehow "banned."

Several states have now decriminalized medical marijuana. If marijuana isn't covered under Obamacare or other public health benefits does that mean that marijuana is actually "banned"? Of course not.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Yeah im Maybemaybenot, I got into my old account again.

Why? You already have another active account.

You act like I committed some offense because you're a paranoid fanatic who reads sinister intentions into any disagreement.

It's not paranoia when the trolling people make it public information. Especially when a government proclaims they will troll. I would not call it "sinister," but Israel is spending US aid dollars on nonsense.

Nice try playing the conspiracy card. It's all in the open:

Israel is looking to hire university students to post pro-Israel messages on social media networks — without needing to identify themselves as government-linked, officials said Wednesday.

*

The Israeli prime minister's office said in a statement that students on Israeli university campuses would receive full or partial scholarships to combat anti-Semitism and calls to boycott Israel online. It said students' messages would parallel statements by government officials.

*

...the office was looking to budget $778,000 for the project, and that the national Israeli student association would select participants from a pool of applicants.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...media/2651715/







.