• 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!

Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

Navy Pride said:
but you are defined by your race and a woman can marry a man not vice versa nor can you have 2 husbands............that is just a fact.......open the door for one you open it for all kinds of marriages...............why should others be denied if gays are allowed to marry
Click to expand...

I'm not defined by my race either, nor my sex. I am defined by the person I am, you know the whole content of you character thing. I should be allowed to marry the person I love, end of story. And I'm not playing that sick slippery slope what if game with you, because you won't ever accept that it is illogical, so why bother?
 
Navy Pride said:
it gives no rights either way my wanna be conservative..........still playing both sides against the middle huh..........don't you ever get tired of doing that...........you forget I know you Dan from way back.......
Click to expand...

wow only 146 posts until the name calling started from you because I have a difference of opinion......and you call me the intolerant one...............what a joke.

Just paraphrasing your own post. Looks like he who smelt it dealt it.
 
Redress said:
Are you familiar with the 14th amendment or any of the legal arguments involved in this case? If not, do you really think you should be commenting on the legal aspects?
Click to expand...

Of course I am and its sad that amendment is used as a point for gay marriage when the originators never planned for it to be involved in marriage either way, but the originators would roll over in their graves if they knew that it was being used to justify gay marriage.
 
Your Star said:
No it's how one of my best friends in high school described Sundays.

He's black if that makes you feel any better.
Click to expand...

Ok but I doubt if black people would like to be stereotyped as eating KFC all the time....
 
Navy Pride said:
Of course I am and its sad that amendment is used as a point for gay marriage when the originators never planned for it to be involved in marriage either way, but the originators would roll over in their graves if they knew that it was being used to justify gay marriage.
Click to expand...

The amendment is being used properly in these cases, and that is the law should be applied equally for every citizen of the USA.
 
Navy Pride said:
Of course I am and its sad that amendment is used as a point for gay marriage when the originators never planned for it to be involved in marriage either way, but the originators would roll over in their graves if they knew that it was being used to justify gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Actually, the originators would have said it's none of the government's business. For a wannabe Conservative, you sure like to stick your nose into peoples' business, don't you? :mrgreen:
 
Navy Pride said:
Ok but I doubt if black people would like to be stereotyped as eating KFC all the time....
Click to expand...

He said it :lol:

Besides my family ate KFC every weekend and I'm paler than a Canadian during winter :lol:
 
Your Star said:
I'm not defined by my race either, nor my sex. I am defined by the person I am, you know the whole content of you character thing. I should be allowed to marry the person I love, end of story. And I'm not playing that sick slippery slope what if game with you, because you won't ever accept that it is illogical, so why bother?
Click to expand...


so should one be allowed to have 2 wives or husbands? should people be allowed to marry within the family (Non sexual for benefits allowed) That is the bucket of worms you open if you allow gay marriage.............Why should they be denied? I doubt if you will answer me.....the left never does except to call us Bigots or Homophobes when they have no other snwer......
 
Your Star said:
He said it :lol:

Besides my family ate KFC every weekend and I'm paler than a Canadian during winter :lol:
Click to expand...

I can't believe you don't know that stereotype that racists lay on black people........I will take your word for it but I would not go into that black church offering the congregation a bunch of KFC or watermelon for that matter.Just some friendly advice........
 
Navy Pride said:
so should one be allowed to have 2 wives or husbands? should people be allowed to marry within the family (Non sexual for benefits allowed) That is the bucket of worms you open if you allow gay marriage.............Why should they be denied? I doubt if you will answer me.....the left never does except to call us Bigots or Homophobes when they have no other snwer......
Click to expand...

It's not a bucket of worms at all. As you stated before, the Constitution does not even address the issue at all. The Bible does, but the US was created as a secular nation.
 
danarhea said:
Actually, the originators would have said it's none of the government's business. For a wannabe Conservative, you sure like to stick your nose into peoples' business, don't you? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...



As I said earlier, people can't be trusted to decide for themselves what marriage is, who they should marry. Navy's a big government kind of guy. Only the government knows best. There has to be law to prevent people from deciding for themselves.
 
Redress said:
Edit: about your last paragraph: DOMA is almost certainly going to be overturned(the vast majority of legal scholars all agree with this, including most conservative ones). When DOMA is overturned the federal government will have to recognize those married as married, which carries an insane number of benefits under federal law. Civil unions do not carry those federal benefits.
Click to expand...

Assuming status quo, can you explain to me why this would be good for gays in states that currently deny civil unions equal benefits under law? It seems to me that it would disallow a "compromise" between the two sides in the form of equal benefits without changing the definition of marriage.

Question to homosexual DPers: Is this even a compromise you would ever be willing to make? "Separate but equal" so to say. Is this a major point of contention you have with President Obama?
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
so should one be allowed to have 2 wives or husbands? should people be allowed to marry within the family (Non sexual for benefits allowed) That is the bucket of worms you open if you allow gay marriage.............Why should they be denied? I doubt if you will answer me.....the left never does except to call us Bigots or Homophobes when they have no other snwer......
Click to expand...

Show me how allowing SSM will lead to those things? Those are completely different to SSM, and are strawmen, a logical fallacy. You have no argument going down this train of thought. Of course you have no argument on any train of thought, but you should know that by now.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
Assuming status quo, can you explain to me why this would be good gays in states that currently deny civil unions equal benefits under law? It seems to me that it would disallow a "compromise" between the two sides in the form of equal benefits without changing the definition of marriage.

Question to homosexual DPers: Is this even a compromise you would ever be willing to make? "Separate but equal" so to say. Is this a major point of contention you have with President Obama?
Click to expand...

Separate but equal, is inherently unequal. It's against the Constitution, so it should not be law, if we wish to continue to be a nation of laws.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
Assuming status quo, can you explain to me why this would be good for gays in states that currently deny civil unions equal benefits under law? It seems to me that it would disallow a "compromise" between the two sides in the form of equal benefits without changing the definition of marriage.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, I am not following what you are asking. Could you rephrase that please.
 
Navy Pride said:
I can't believe you don't know that stereotype that racists lay on black people........I will take your word for it but I would not go into that black church offering the congregation a bunch of KFC or watermelon for that matter.Just some friendly advice........
Click to expand...

Oh, I know the stereotypes, I just don't give them any credence.

And what are you talking about? That is a delicious meal!
 
Navy Pride said:
Because they rule against the will of the people........If they can do it on this issue they can do it on anything..that is the scary part.........
Click to expand...

The "will of the people" isn't always right.
 
Your Star said:
Oh, I know the stereotypes, I just don't give them any credence.

And what are you talking about? That is a delicious meal!
Click to expand...

I play music on some Sundays at the Second Church of Christ Holiness here in Houston. I am 1 of 3 or 4 white people in the whole church. And yes, fried chicken has been at every single picnic I have been to there. It's finger licking good. :mrgreen:
 
Navy Pride said:
so should one be allowed to have 2 wives or husbands? should people be allowed to marry within the family (Non sexual for benefits allowed) That is the bucket of worms you open if you allow gay marriage.............Why should they be denied? I doubt if you will answer me.....the left never does except to call us Bigots or Homophobes when they have no other snwer......
Click to expand...

Don't!
Go!
Down!
The!
Slippery!
Slope!

Anyways...In the future people will look upon Navy pride for what he is...a "hater"
Similar to the way many view those who were against civil rights
 
danarhea said:
I play music on some Sundays at the Second Church of Christ here in Houston. I am 1 of 3 or 4 white people in the whole church. And yes, fried chicken has been at every single picnic I have been to there. It's finger licking good. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Nothing like the south!
 
Your Star said:
Separate but equal, is inherently unequal. It's against the Constitution, so it should not be law, if we wish to continue to be a nation of laws.
Click to expand...

Whether it's against the Constitution is the legal debate, and the status quo is that it's constitutional. Can I assume you would never accept "separate but equal" even if it meant the same legal benefits? Is this a single-issue for you? How do you reconcile your support for Obama with your belief that he stands for unequal, unconstitutional treatment of you?
 
1Perry said:
The "will of the people" isn't always right.
Click to expand...


The will of the people has sometimes been a mob, which is why we are not a direct democracy, but a republic.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
Whether it's against the Constitution is the legal debate, and the status quo is that it's constitutional. Can I assume you would never accept "separate but equal" even if it meant the same legal benefits? Is this a single-issue for you? How do you reconcile your support for Obama with your belief that he stands for unequal, unconstitutional treatment of you?
Click to expand...

Do you have a better alternative available?
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
Whether it's against the Constitution is the legal debate, and the status quo is that it's constitutional. Can I assume you would never accept "separate but equal" even if it meant the same legal benefits? Is this a single-issue for you? How do you reconcile your support for Obama with your belief that he stands for unequal, unconstitutional treatment of you?
Click to expand...

The status quo? You better show me some evidence of that. I do not see a bit of that in the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom