• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama, in stand for gay rights, calls for repeal of DOMA

apdst said:
As far as the law is concerned--aside from child support--they can pack their **** and hit the road.
Click to expand...

uhm so can you in that general meaningless sense LMAO

like I said im dealing in reality you are dealing in fantasy
 
apdst said:
You got lucky, is all I have to say. So, ya'll both used the same lawyer?
Click to expand...

damn two more out of those millions you mentioned :D
see how wrong you were
 
Centrist77 said:
sounds to me that the states made SPECIAL laws to STOP gay marriage LMAO

it wouldnt be special it would be equal to anybody objective and honest
Click to expand...

No the law has been from the beginning of this country that marriage is one man one woman
 
apdst said:
You got lucky, is all I have to say. So, ya'll both used the same lawyer?
Click to expand...

I didn't get lucky, I choose to associate with quality people. I didn't see a lawyer, she'd send anything I needed to sign. I remember, with the second wife, we were happy when we to finally put away the paperwork; hell, she'd worked a bit to get that stuff together and we were both relieved to have it off our minds.
 
Last edited:
ptif219 said:
No the law has been from the beginning of this country that marriage is one man one woman
Click to expand...

really? so you are claiming that since americas birth its been that way?
also it was also law once that only whites could married whites, now that all races can marry is that SPECIAL? LMAO

also if you say marriage as been that way in law since the begging why are these EXTRA, NEW and SPECIAL laws needed?????

what a complete joke, there no logic to support calling them "special" thats why its bias and you are not objective on the subject
 
Excuse me, Centrist, but we're talking about me. I make paragraphs and don't spam caps.


;)


And now back to your regularly scheduled programming...
 
ecofarm said:
Excuse me, Centrist, but we're talking about me. I make paragraphs and don't spam caps.


;)


And now back to your regularly scheduled programming...
Click to expand...

I know LOL but that poster falsely claimed earlier and I quote "ALL divorces are ****ed up"

and yes HE bolded all

I was just showing further proof of how wrong his statement was ;)
 
Last edited:
Centrist77 said:
really? so you are claiming that since americas birth its been that way?
also it was also law once that only whites could married whites, now that all races can marry is that SPECIAL? LMAO

also if you say marriage as been that way in law since the begging why are these EXTRA, NEW and SPECIAL laws needed?????

what a complete joke, there no logic to support calling them "special" thats why its bias and you are not objective on the subject
Click to expand...

You are changing the law to give one group special rights
 
ptif219 said:
You are changing the law to give one group special rights
Click to expand...

nope im chaining the law to give EQUAL rights (just like interracial marriage)
and if you want to be dishonest and play silly games I can play silly games too. I can claim the "group" in question would be EVERYBODY, not just gays. Two straight girls/men could marry if they want, the law would be given to them too!!! so again you are WRONG :D

people are adding SPECIAL laws to the books to prevent EQUAL rights, even though you claim those laws are already in place we have to make NEW SPECIAL ones for some odd reason
 
Redress said:
So doing more to rid the country of that putrid piece of dog **** that is DOMA than any other president in history is doing nothing?
Click to expand...

Dood...arent you talking about...like...ONE president? I mean...other than the democrat that signed it...
 
VanceMack said:
Dood...arent you talking about...like...ONE president? I mean...other than the democrat that signed it...
Click to expand...

Haha.

I had to look it up, so I'll share...

The 1996 Republican Party platform endorsed DOMA, referencing only Section 2 of the Act: "We reject the distortion of [anti-discrimination] laws to cover sexual preference, and we endorse the Defense of Marriage Act to prevent states from being forced to recognize same-sex unions."[16] The Democratic Party platform that year did not mention DOMA or marriage.[17]

In a June 1996 interview in the gay and lesbian magazine The Advocate, Clinton said: "I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered."[18] He did not mention the issue in his 2004 autobiography.[19] Over time, Clinton's personal views on same-sex marriage shifted. In July 2009 he said "I personally support people doing what they want to do. I think it's wrong for someone to stop someone else from doing that [gay marriage]."[20] Clinton added that he personally supports same-sex marriage but does not believe it is a "federal question", stating, "I think all these states that do it should do it."[21]

The bill moved through Congress on a legislative fast track and met with overwhelming approval in both houses of the Republican-controlled Congress, passing by a vote of 85–14 in the Senate[22] and a vote of 342–67 in the House of Representatives.[23] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
Click to expand...

Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
ecofarm said:
Haha.

I had to look it up, so I'll share...



Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

"Clinton's personal views on same-sex marriage shifted."

I reckon when you get caught with your sweatpants down around your ankles jerking off and ask a campaign staffer to kiss your weenis, get accused of rape and sexual assault, get proven to be a whorehound, and entice an intern to masturbate with a cigar for your smoking pleasure, it makes sense your views on the actions of others might become a bit more 'liberal'...
 
Last edited:
Brutal.

Dems need to own DOMA.
 
apdst said:
Have you ever gone through a divorce? If not, then you're talking our of your you-know-what.
Click to expand...

You know - you don't have to HAVE HAD a divorce to be directly affected by one. Many children and close friends and relatives experience the banals of divorce quite often - indirectly but quite personally.

So non-divorcees can have an opinion if they'd like.
 
ptif219 said:
You are changing the law to give one group special rights
Click to expand...

No it isn't, it gives rights to BOTH gays and straights. Because you as a straight person can marry someone of the same sex then. Isn't that grand for you?
 
ptif219 said:
You are changing the law to give one group special rights
Click to expand...

Really? Can you show me where any group of people is even mentioned in the law? here it is:

H.R. 3567 amends Section 7 of title 1 in the United States Code to read:

(a) For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.

(b) In this section, the term `State' means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.
Click to expand...
 
Centrist77 said:
nope im chaining the law to give EQUAL rights (just like interracial marriage)
and if you want to be dishonest and play silly games I can play silly games too. I can claim the "group" in question would be EVERYBODY, not just gays. Two straight girls/men could marry if they want, the law would be given to them too!!! so again you are WRONG :D

people are adding SPECIAL laws to the books to prevent EQUAL rights, even though you claim those laws are already in place we have to make NEW SPECIAL ones for some odd reason
Click to expand...

Equal rights for a lifestyle choice? That is not what rights are about.
 
TheNextEra said:
No it isn't, it gives rights to BOTH gays and straights. Because you as a straight person can marry someone of the same sex then. Isn't that grand for you?
Click to expand...

That makes no sense.
 
Last edited:
ptif219 said:
That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Explain why it makes no sense. Work it out. It's the same reason your argument that letting gay people get married is giving them "special rights" is nonsensical.
 
ptif219 said:
Equal rights for a lifestyle choice? That is not what rights are about.
Click to expand...

really now???? LMAO

so when interracial couples made a decision, I mean "lifestyle choice" to marry each other it wasnt about rights?

when women made the decision, I mean lifestyle choice, to be educated, to be bosses, to vote and have jobs it wasnt about rights?

Like I said if you want to be dishonest and play dumb games I can use your false logic against you every single time LMAO you are just to easy, bias and nonobjective not to expose :shrug:

do you every actually address any issues or admit when you are flat out wrong or do you just always talk circles, back pedal and deflect?
 
Last edited:
teamosil said:
Explain why it makes no sense. Work it out. It's the same reason your argument that letting gay people get married is giving them "special rights" is nonsensical.
Click to expand...

No hetrosexuals will not enter a gay marriage.

The law was changed because people make a lifestyle choice. Should we also pass sharia law because muslims want it?
 
ptif219 said:
No hetrosexuals will not enter a gay marriage.

The law was changed because people make a lifestyle choice. Should we also pass sharia law because muslims want it?
Click to expand...

First, most Muslims who live in the US don't want Sharia law to be the law of the land. If they wanted to live in a theocracy, they wouldn't have come here. Second, Sharia law will never be a part of US law (except as a referent for judges and juries to use in establishing various mental states of individuals who are Muslim, and sometimes in arbitration contexts) because it'd be unconstitutional to do so. Third, the gay marriage issue is about equality, and the right to marry the person of your choice. It's essentially the same issue that was decided decades ago in Loving v Virginia, which did away with bans on interracial marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom