Separate but equal argument discussed

[Robert A Whit]

When the issue is homosexuals and marriage, I find the tack taken by some posters is to snort, Equal but separate eh?

Well, let's look at this closely.

Say 5 states do not force citizens but the rest force citizens to pay income taxes.

Compare that to 32 states banning other than a man plus a woman calling it marriage.

Say 10 states do not have laws to stop you from carrying weapons openly.

Say 30 refuse to allow you to openly carry.

Do you then use the same argument of separate but equal?

[DragonStryk72]

When the issue is homosexuals and marriage, I find the tack taken by some posters is to snort, Equal but separate eh?

Well, let's look at this closely.

Say 5 states do not force citizens but the rest force citizens to pay income taxes.

Compare that to 32 states banning other than a man plus a woman calling it marriage.

Say 10 states do not have laws to stop you from carrying weapons openly.

Say 30 refuse to allow you to openly carry.

Do you then use the same argument of separate but equal?

That's NOT Seperate but equal. Learn what the term means, then post. It's like saying pickup truck drivers must have a separate license for their vehicle in order to drive it normally, but that the license is "just like" a driver's license. However, they cannot have a regular driver's license. How is that equal? Sure, an F-150 is certainly different in certain regards than say a 350z, but they're not fundamentally different, like say, a pickup truck to a motorcycle, a boat, or a plane.

Another example: the 60s. white bathrooms, black bathrooms, white public schools, black public schools. Separate but equal does not exist, and never has within a society.

If Civil Unions are "just like" marriage, then why not call it marriage? Or, why not surrender marriage as the term, and just use civil unions, if they're equal, and describe the same set of rules, regulations, and contractual obligations?

In your example, it is different states having completely opposing rulings. In order for the separate but equal argument to apply, it would have to look something like this: Texas allows open carry, but only for dues paying NRA members. Non-NRA members can own guns, sure, but they CANNOT carry them.

[Kathianne]

When the issue is homosexuals and marriage, I find the tack taken by some posters is to snort, Equal but separate eh?

Well, let's look at this closely.

Say 5 states do not force citizens but the rest force citizens to pay income taxes.

Compare that to 32 states banning other than a man plus a woman calling it marriage.

Say 10 states do not have laws to stop you from carrying weapons openly.

Say 30 refuse to allow you to openly carry.

Do you then use the same argument of separate but equal?

Case in point of Bobby and his problem with analogies.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626453#post626453)

When the issue is homosexuals and marriage, I find the tack taken by some posters is to snort, Equal but separate eh?

Well, let's look at this closely.

Say 5 states do not force citizens but the rest force citizens to pay income taxes.

Compare that to 32 states banning other than a man plus a woman calling it marriage.

Say 10 states do not have laws to stop you from carrying weapons openly.

Say 30 refuse to allow you to openly carry.

Do you then use the same argument of separate but equal?




That's NOT Seperate but equal. Learn what the term means, then post. It's like saying pickup truck drivers must have a separate license for their vehicle in order to drive it normally, but that the license is "just like" a driver's license. However, they cannot have a regular driver's license. How is that equal? Sure, an F-150 is certainly different in certain regards than say a 350z, but they're not fundamentally different, like say, a pickup truck to a motorcycle, a boat, or a plane.

Another example: the 60s. white bathrooms, black bathrooms, white public schools, black public schools. Separate but equal does not exist, and never has within a society.

If Civil Unions are "just like" marriage, then why not call it marriage? Or, why not surrender marriage as the term, and just use civil unions, if they're equal, and describe the same set of rules, regulations, and contractual obligations?

In your example, it is different states having completely opposing rulings. In order for the separate but equal argument to apply, it would have to look something like this: Texas allows open carry, but only for dues paying NRA members. Non-NRA members can own guns, sure, but they CANNOT carry them.

I reject that defense. Sorry. I said it clearly.

Marriage has from day one been left to the states. States have since day one made rules.

It has stood the test of a couple centuries.

I am correct. But at least you gave me your ill conceived reply. Thank you.

[fj1200]

When the issue is homosexuals and marriage, I find the tack taken by some posters is to snort, Equal but separate eh?

Well, let's look at this closely.

Say 5 states do not force citizens but the rest force citizens to pay income taxes.

Compare that to 32 states banning other than a man plus a woman calling it marriage.

Say 10 states do not have laws to stop you from carrying weapons openly.

Say 30 refuse to allow you to openly carry.

Do you then use the same argument of separate but equal?

Your argument may hold water if Federalism meant anything anymore.


I reject that defense. Sorry. I said it clearly.

Marriage has from day one been left to the states. States have since day one made rules.

It has stood the test of a couple centuries.

I am correct. But at least you gave me your ill conceived reply. Thank you.

Incorrect. States are no longer the primary force in the determination of who gets what in a marriage contract.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Incorrect. States are no longer the primary force in the determination of who gets what in a marriage contract.

Always so ready to cheer the concept of the all powerful big government(Federal).
Which is why you are so often accused of being a big lib..
and which you always deny.- :laugh2:-Tyr

[fj1200]

Always so ready to cheer the concept of the all powerful big government(Federal).
Which is why you are so often accused of being a big lib..
and which you always deny.- :laugh2:-Tyr

Who said I was cheering it? Just stating a reality. Learn to comprehend.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Who said I was cheering it? Just stating a reality. Learn to comprehend.

I do quite well at comprehending your posts. Had you shown a clear and constant criticism of big government I would have taken your post as "just stating a reality".
As it is you have not and thus I did not. A well reasoned conclusion on my part based upon past evidence.
Perhaps you would do well to follow your own poorly offered advice amigo..:laugh:-Tyr

[fj1200]

I do quite well at comprehending your posts. Had you shown a clear and constant criticism of big government I would have taken your post as "just stating a reality".
As it is you have not and thus I did not. A well reasoned conclusion on my part based upon past evidence.
Perhaps you would do well to follow your own poorly offered advice amigo..:laugh:-Tyr

OMG, then you need to learn to read before learning to comprehend. I'm clearly and constantly criticizing big government all the time. Or you could take up the challenge of pointing out my support of big government. I've been accused by many here but no one has offered proof.

[Robert A Whit]

Your argument may hold water if Federalism meant anything anymore.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626460#post626460)

I reject that defense. Sorry. I said it clearly.

Marriage has from day one been left to the states. States have since day one made rules.

It has stood the test of a couple centuries.

I am correct. But at least you gave me your ill conceived reply. Thank you.





Incorrect. States are no longer the primary force in the determination of who gets what in a marriage contract.

As of today, states are.

[fj1200]

As of today, states are.

No. Check out Federal references to marriage.

[Robert A Whit]

No. Check out Federal references to marriage.

We in CA could not have voted to define marriage if that were true.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

OMG, then you need to learn to read before learning to comprehend. I'm clearly and constantly criticizing big government all the time. Or you could take up the challenge of pointing out my support of big government. I've been accused by many here but no one has offered proof.

O' yes, you are clearly known far and wide as an anti-big government type.:laugh2:

Has it ever occurred to you that your being accused by many here is because you do not present yourself as a conservative anti big government type? Or do you hold that ALL your accusers are dumbshits that ALL simply can not comprehend your many well presented right-wing anti big government posts?
I have seen you criticize obama but more often seen your side with government policies which that lying scum supports too. That you are very clever in how you word your posts fools only the lesser lights reading your words.
I DON'T RECALL EVER SAYING YOU ARE A DUMBSHIT BUT OFTEN STATE THAT YOUR ARE IN THE WRONG.
Others may think that I am quite lax in my not calling you a dumbshit but my generosity often knows no bounds.-:laugh2:--Tyr

[fj1200]

We in CA could not have voted to define marriage if that were true.

:dunno: I don't even know what to say. You brought up separate but equal which is not the state of marriage at the Federal level. The state of CA, and how it chooses to define marriage, might mean absolutely nothing depending on how SCOTUS rules.

[fj1200]

O' yes, you are clearly known far and wide as an anti-big government type.:laugh2:

If you can show otherwise, have at it.


Has it ever occurred to you that your being accused by many here is because you do not present yourself as a conservative anti big government type? Or do you hold that ALL your accusers are dumbshits that ALL simply can not comprehend your many well presented right-wing anti big government posts?
I have seen you criticize obama but more often seen your side with government policies which that lying scum supports too. That you are very clever in how you word your posts fools only the lesser lights reading your words.
I DON'T RECALL EVER SAYING YOU ARE A DUMBSHIT BUT OFTEN STATE THAT YOUR ARE IN THE WRONG.
Others may think that I am quite lax in my not calling you a dumbshit but my generosity often knows no bounds.-:laugh2:--Tyr

If you would feel better about yourself by me calling you, and the others who agree, a dumbs* because you are unable to comprehend how someone can disagree with you and still be a conservative... then, OK, you're a dumbs*. Happy?

And if you can show that I'm in the wrong, have at it.

[fj1200]

I have seen you criticize obama but more often seen your side with government policies which that lying scum supports too.

Almost overlooked this bit; which policies would those be?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If you can show otherwise, have at it.



If you would feel better about yourself by me calling you, and the others who agree, a dumbs* because you are unable to comprehend how someone can disagree with you and still be a conservative... then, OK, you're a dumbs*. Happy?

And if you can show that I'm in the wrong, have at it.

Tis enough for me that others read what has been presented and decide for themselves. I have no need or great desire to prove to you or expand my presented views on it . Should anybody care they can explore your past posts and come to their own conclusions.

Evidence that you yourself presented(your own words) was that many HERE ACCUSE you. Why are you accused (THAT) BY --MANY HERE!??
WHERE THERE IS SMOKE THERE IS FIRE BABY..-:laugh:--Tyr

[fj1200]

Tis enough for me that others read what has been presented and decide for themselves. I have no need or great desire to prove to you or expand my presented views on it . Should anybody care they can explore your past posts and come to their own conclusions.

Evidence that you yourself presented(your own words) was that many HERE ACCUSE you. Why are you accused (THAT) BY --MANY HERE!??
WHERE THERE IS SMOKE THERE IS FIRE BABY..-:laugh:--Tyr

So you can't do it then? That's OK, it's about what I expected.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So you can't do it then? That's OK, it's about what I expected.

I have better things to do than rummage through your old posts to prove that you are what you are.
Simply not that important to me.
As long as it's OK with you then it is fine with me..;)
So much fun yanking your chain a bit on a boring Sunday night..--Tyr

[gabosaurus]

The government needs to get out of the bedroom. No one should care if any human person (of legal age, of course) cares to marry another human person.
I really don't care what your religion says. Many people are not religious. Religion should not be a part of marriage unless the couple involved elect to include such.
If men want to live with men, or women with women, it should be none of your business. No one should be in the position to judge others.

Guess what guys: If you took off pants and closed your eyes, I bet you couldn't tell who was going down on you.
There are tons of guys who want anal sex with women, but they would gag before doing it with a guy.

Get off your high horse and stop being a hypocrite.

[fj1200]

I have better things to do than rummage through your old posts to prove that you are what you are.
Simply not that important to me.
As long as it's OK with you then it is fine with me..;)
So much fun yanking your chain a bit on a boring Sunday night..--Tyr

Being wrong is a better thing? To each their own.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The government needs to get out of the bedroom. No one should care if any human person (of legal age, of course) cares to marry another human person.
I really don't care what your religion says. Many people are not religious. Religion should not be a part of marriage unless the couple involved elect to include such.
If men want to live with men, or women with women, it should be none of your business. No one should be in the position to judge others.

Guess what guys: If you took off pants and closed your eyes, I bet you couldn't tell who was going down on you.
There are tons of guys who want anal sex with women, but they would gag before doing it with a guy.

Get off your high horse and stop being a hypocrite.

How about perverted people doing animals GABS??
SHOULD OUR GOVERNMENT GET BACK INTO THE BEDROOM TO STOP THAT?
WHERE DOES YOUR LIMITS STOP?
And correct straight men would gag before doing it with a guy. Whats new or shocking about that?
Which personality am I replying to here Gabs?
Gabs number one, number two or the muslim loving number three ???-Tyr

[avatar4321]

Nothing separate at all. We all have the right to marry whom we choose. What we don't have the right to do is redefine marriage to accomodate choices that would likewise be unavailable under the very definition of the word.

Trying to redefine a union of two men or two women as a marriage doesn't make it one any more than trying to call a circle a square does. Words have meanings. We don't get to change their meaning in an effort to convince ourself that our actions are justified.

[avatar4321]

The government needs to get out of the bedroom. No one should care if any human person (of legal age, of course) cares to marry another human person.
I really don't care what your religion says. Many people are not religious. Religion should not be a part of marriage unless the couple involved elect to include such.
If men want to live with men, or women with women, it should be none of your business. No one should be in the position to judge others.

Guess what guys: If you took off pants and closed your eyes, I bet you couldn't tell who was going down on you.
There are tons of guys who want anal sex with women, but they would gag before doing it with a guy.

Get off your high horse and stop being a hypocrite.

But the Pro gay marriage movement is trying to get the government INTO their bedroom. They are trying to empower the government to regulate homosexual relationships. If they want the government out of their bedrooms, they wouldn't want the government regulating their unions. They would make their own unions and keep their own commitments.

No one can stop two people from making a covenant with one another. Nor from keeping any commitments they make.

And please tell the thousands of judges that are elected and appointed throughout this nation that no one should be in a position to judge others. They will think you are incredibly foolish.

Oh and btw, if you close your eyes and don't know who is "going down on you" for lack of less crass terminology, then you are sinning just as much as anyone engaging in homosexual activity. The Lord's standards for sexual relationships are very easy to understand. Chastity before marriage and Fidelity afterwards.

[Robert A Whit]

The government needs to get out of the bedroom. No one should care if any human person (of legal age, of course) cares to marry another human person.
I really don't care what your religion says. Many people are not religious. Religion should not be a part of marriage unless the couple involved elect to include such.
If men want to live with men, or women with women, it should be none of your business. No one should be in the position to judge others.

Guess what guys: If you took off pants and closed your eyes, I bet you couldn't tell who was going down on you.
There are tons of guys who want anal sex with women, but they would gag before doing it with a guy.

Get off your high horse and stop being a hypocrite.

Gabby, I agree with government being out of marriage but what if kids get abused or they divorce. Do you then want Government into the marriage business?

Next point and I hope you reply.

Suppose a man and 10 women decide to do what you promote and marry each other, meaning polygamy. Do you also approve that? Is it the business of Government to then be in the marriage business?

Then we have cases of adult women wanting to marry the widowed or divorced father. It happens. You may deny it, but it is true.

We know of a case in the SF Bay area where the mother wanted to marry her son since they had two children and were living as a family. The case was she gave the son up for adoption and had not ever raised him. The thing I figure as a possible reason is she loved the father and the son had a strong resemblance to his birth father. She had not married the father. Who knows, but they both got arrested and the children were taken from them. That is Government being in the business of marriage and private lives.

Can you stand to see two adults who are closely related marry?

What I am saying here is that this all has consequences. When homosexuals marry, there is no argument against polygamy nor incest marriages. It will make them all legal.