• 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!

New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

Then I guess you are right...Obama is a bigot and homophobe and you should rally the troops and go glitter bomb his ass but please for the love of GOD stop selling Out your beliefs and cause in the name of partisanship. It's pathetic and you ought to be embarrassed.

Hear Hear ..........:cool:
 
Then I guess you are right...Obama is a bigot and homophobe and you should rally the troops and go glitter bomb his ass but please for the love of GOD stop selling Out your beliefs and cause in the name of partisanship. It's pathetic and you ought to be embarrassed.

Ummm...he has done more for LGBT equal rights then anyone else...and he doesnt fight against SSM....and dont see how im selling out my beliefs exactly. Please for the love of god actually read what I write next time and respond to it instead of your preconceived notion of what I do and dont believe.
 
I don't go to church, nor do I need to. I don't care what the majority of blacks think. They are no more entitled to discriminate than any other race.

Gays are not a race!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
I do not believe the citizens were called upon to vote on an issue very often. But they have been given the opportunity to vote on what marriage ought to mean to them, in their state. When the people speak the state has the responsibility to listen. Overturn the will of the people too often and the citizens will rise up to punish you. When unaccountable men in black robes overturn the will of the people they ought to be punished just as severely.

Convince us instead. Anything else borders on tyranny.

Funny how you refuse to address the point that many states had laws against interracial marriage in the 1960s and they were voted on in the proper way. In fact, many polls from that time period showed that many felt that interracial marriage should be against the law. If there would have been a complete voter referendum, as is being called for now in almost every state, on whether to allow/ban interracial marriage, it likely would have been the will of the majority to continue to ban interracial marriages, particularly in the South.

The SCOTUS stepped in via Loving v VA and struck down interracial marriage laws. This is likely what will eventually happen with state laws banning same sex marriage since the only difference is that instead of the characteristic the restriction is based on being race it is now sex.

That is absolutely why we have a US Constitution in the first place. To try to ensure the majority cannot vote away rights of minority groups.
 
Gays are not a race!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sexuality is not the characteristic that is being restricted when it comes to anti-same sex marriage laws, sex is.

Although sexuality is protected against discrimination too.
 
Ummm...he has done more for LGBT equal rights then anyone else...and he doesnt fight against SSM....and dont see how im selling out my beliefs exactly. Please for the love of god actually read what I write next time and respond to it instead of your preconceived notion of what I do and dont believe.

And with the help of God he might just lose the election over it........... I don't believe the bible clutching gun toting good people of Eastern Ohio and Western Pa (two states he has to have to be elected) want no part of gay marriage.
 
And with the help of God he might just lose the election over it........... I don't believe the bible clutching gun toting good people of Eastern Ohio and Western Pa (two states he has to have to be elected) want no part of gay marriage.

You guys have already tried to label Obama as being against SSM so now you feel that this position is going to lose him votes in those places? This doesn't make any sense at all.

I bet you most people don't care either way whether same sex marriage is made legal, even many of those who are religious.
 
This is why Obama is blasted for being anti-gay.

I have a hard time believing any of the Republican nominee's would give this kind of speech.

 
And with the help of God he might just lose the election over it........... I don't believe the bible clutching gun toting good people of Eastern Ohio and Western Pa (two states he has to have to be elected) want no part of gay marriage.

Thats what I thought about Iowa but hey...
 
Stick with me. When an individual state votes on the issue and a [strike]majority[/strike] prevailing plurality of actual voters in that state decides why would the courts involve themselves?

U.S. and state electoral contests are not majoritarian, but plurality votes. An electoral candidate or ballot initiative need not obtain explicit majority support, and no effort is made to assess whether or not majority support has been obtained or not.

The people have a right to determine the laws and the mores of their state.

Governments deal in laws, not mores. Obviously, popular mores can and do influence policy, but they are not policy. As for determining the laws of their state, as things currently stand the voters of a state do NOT actually have a legal right to set any law they wish; there are still substantial constraints on which legislation they may propose, and how they may go about supporting it.

I know the homosexuals and their supporters want to equate the right to marry with a right to life, liberty, and property.

Many do, but there's no need to go into abstractions and ideals. The plain fact of the matter is that heterosexuals have their marriages recognized by law, and homosexuals do not. UNLIKE discrimination in early childhood education (for example, you're not allowed to work with young children if convicted of certain offenses), there is NO RATIONAL BASIS for legally recognizing the marriages of hetero couples while denying such recognition to homosexual couples. There is no grounds for LEGAL policy justification for recognizing hetero marriages which doesn't apply just as well to homosexual marriages.

Perhaps one day it will be viewed that way. When your side loses at the ballot you ought to have the decency to spend more time changing hearts and minds.

That's incredibly arrogant, entitled, and easy to say when you can take for granted what others must struggle for. Segregationist "whites" said the same thing of equal legal rights for people of color, i.e. Oh Just Wait and Make Your Case...

HELL NO. Justice deferred is justice denied. More to the point, the notion that politically vulnerable groups (whether numerically minor or not) must wait around for equality to come from the eventual enlightenment and change in attitudes among a privileged population completely ignores the fact that the privileged group has no substantive stake in the matter. It costs hetero couples nothing to have homosexual marriages legally recognized, while it costs homosexual couples denied recognition quite a lot: socially, financially, and legally.

You diminish the legitimacy of the state when unelected, unaccountable people overthrow the will of the people as evidenced by a vote.

So if a plurality of voters wants something -- no matter how LITTLE or even nonexistent a stake they have in the matter -- you're OK with making that the prevailing policy?

For example, let's say the state you live in proposes a ballot initiative which bans you, specifically, from all auto travel. The only car ride you're allowed to have is in a squad car if you get arrested. Let's say it turns out many people (or at least enough to soundly achieve victory in the initiative process) are dead set in favor of the law. Are you truly OK with that?!? You don't see anything wrong with it?
 
And with the help of God he might just lose the election over it...........
Or maybe with the help of God he just might win the election over it.
One can never truly predict what God is going to do.

I don't believe the bible clutching gun toting good people of Eastern Ohio and Western Pa (two states he has to have to be elected) want no part of gay marriage.
Well maybe they themselves should not engage in gay marriage and not get in the way of those want to.
 
You guys have already tried to label Obama as being against SSM so now you feel that this position is going to lose him votes in those places? This doesn't make any sense at all.

I bet you most people don't care either way whether same sex marriage is made legal, even many of those who are religious.

I am saying if Hussein Obama changes his position on SSM before the election that is why its so imperative to get him out because God forbid if he is reelected he can change his stance on the issue.....

You are wrong again about that......The silent good people with high morals and family values will speak up as they always have.
 
Or maybe with the help of God he just might win the election over it.
One can never truly predict what God is going to do.


Well maybe they themselves should not engage in gay marriage and not get in the way of those want to.

God willing we will never defile the name of Holy Matrimony for SSM
 
I am saying if Hussein Obama changes his position on SSM before the election that is why its so imperative to get him out because God forbid if he is reelected he can change his stance on the issue.....

You are wrong again about that......The silent good people with high morals and family values will speak up as they always have.

So you're saying that I don't have high morals or family values because I don't agree with you? How very judgmental of you. Must be a nice view from that high moral ground you stand on huh?
 
So you're saying that I don't have high morals or family values because I don't agree with you? How very judgmental of you. Must be a nice view from that high moral ground you stand on huh?

Well you got 2 strikes on you in that you believe in infanticide in the womb and gay marriage...................Especially the butchery in the womb........It boggles the mind how anyone could sleep at night after the 42,000,000 innocent defenseless babies that have been killed since 1972.
 
Last edited:
Well you got 2 strikes on you in that you believe in infanticide in the womb and gay marriage...................Especially the butchery in the womb........It boggles the mind how anyone could sleep at night after the 42,000,000 innocent defenseless babies that have been killed since 1972.

It boggles my mind that you claim to be such a kind individual when you openly criticize those who disagree with you.
 
It boggles my mind that you claim to be such a kind individual when you openly criticize those who disagree with you.

And of course you have never criticized me right........Do you know what a HYPOCRITE is? Look in the mirror...........
 
Nope. Many LGBT people have high morals, and family values. The overwhelming majority in all actuality.

I am not really talking about them..............I am talking about the "Feel Good Liberals" that stick their nose in where its not wanted..............What is ironic if you did not practice your in your face militancy which turns off a lot of people that might be sympathetic to your cause.........
 
I am not really talking about them..............I am talking about the "Feel Good Liberals" that stick their nose in where its not wanted..............What is ironic if you did not practice your in your face militancy which turns off a lot of people that might be sympathetic to your cause.........

Hmm...kinda like you giving a crap about whether or not they get married?
 
Ummm...he has done more for LGBT equal rights then anyone else...and he doesnt fight against SSM....and dont see how im selling out my beliefs exactly. Please for the love of god actually read what I write next time and respond to it instead of your preconceived notion of what I do and dont believe.
Chicken **** answers are chicken ****. Oh...theres no problem with protesting at mormon churches or attacking republicans for daring to believe the exact same way as Obama...but liberals dont have the balls to protest black churches, Hispanic groups, democrat politicians. Gutless...spineless. Pathetic.
 
I am not really talking about them..............I am talking about the "Feel Good Liberals" that stick their nose in where its not wanted..............What is ironic if you did not practice your in your face militancy which turns off a lot of people that might be sympathetic to your cause.........

Yes, you are talking about them.
 
Back
Top Bottom