• 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

It's up to the states what they want to do. Personally I don't support gay marriage for religious reasons, but don't oppose it either because America is not a theocracy and states have the rights to define marriage.
 
The first time I heard the bullying slogan, "This is a republic, not a democracy" was from a Far Right fringe group in 1969. Before that, we took it for granted that we were a democracy and all the influential people told us so. A republic is an oligarchy, which inevitably turns into a plutocracy or hereditary aristocracy, then collapses from the growing exclusion of those who formerly gave it its strength.


"I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
 
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."


Whoa there Chief:" I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

You forgot some shipmate........The Goat Locker would have never accepted that......
 
Last edited:
Whoa there Chief:" I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

You forgot some shipmate........The Goat Locker would have never accepted that......

No, I got it exactly the way it was written in 1892 before the changes. The Chief's Mess was established on April 1, 1893. (Happy Birthday, brother). Therefore, the Original Mess would have recited it basically like that until the early 1920's.
 
No, I got it exactly the way it was written in 1892 before the changes. The Chief's Mess was established on April 1, 1893. (Happy Birthday, brother). Therefore, the Original Mess would have recited it basically like that until the early 1920's.

Before my time shipmate.............its always been the goat locker for me...........I guess a lot of things have changed since I retired though.................The guys in the goat locker would have got a big kick out of seeing a pregant Chief but I saw one the other day.
 
Before my time shipmate.............its always been the goat locker for me...........I guess a lot of things have changed since I retired though.................The guys in the goat locker would have got a big kick out of seeing a pregant Chief but I saw one the other day.

We still call it the Goat Locker. The Mess is more popular these days tho. There were also pregnant Chief's when you were still active duty. YNC Loretta Walsh was the first female Chief in 1917. I am sure a few managed to get pregnant in the 70 years before you retired. (I used to teach a CPO heritage class. I have a brain full of CPO trivia)

My post was in response that the term "Republic" came about by radicals in 1969. We have been called a Republic for quite a bit longer than that.
 
We still call it the Goat Locker. The Mess is more popular these days tho. There were also pregnant Chief's when you were still active duty. YNC Loretta Walsh was the first female Chief in 1917. I am sure a few managed to get pregnant in the 70 years before you retired. (I used to teach a CPO heritage class. I have a brain full of CPO trivia)

My post was in response that the term "Republic" came about by radicals in 1969. We have been called a Republic for quite a bit longer than that.


well I retired August 1977 and there might have been pregnant chiefs but I never saw one........Oh and I was talking about the "Under God" in the pledge......
 
well I retired August 1977 and there might have been pregnant chiefs but I never saw one........Oh and I was talking about the "Under God" in the pledge......

Under God was added in 1954 during the height of the Red Scare. So if you retired in 77, then I am guessing you graduated HS in 57 or so. So, when you learned the pledge, it did not have " under God" in it. It would have been adder about the 8th or 9th grade.
 
well I retired August 1977 and there might have been pregnant chiefs but I never saw one........Oh and I was talking about the "Under God" in the pledge......

If you retired in 77, chances where you were a kid before they added "Under God" to the pledge. Guess it really wasn't "before your time" old man.
 
well I retired August 1977 and there might have been pregnant chiefs but I never saw one........Oh and I was talking about the "Under God" in the pledge......

Under God was not in the original pledge. It was added later because we were afraid of communists.
 
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
True, but we were told that a republic was just another name for a democracy, no difference. The anti-democratic slogans "mob rule" and "tyranny of the majority" weren't used back then either. A great nation makes a lousy "republic." Being told since then that we are just an irrational and vicious mob and bloodthirst tyrants has sapped our pride. Without pride, the majority will soon have nothing to be proud about anyway. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
 
True, but we were told that a republic was just another name for a democracy, no difference. The anti-democratic slogans "mob rule" and "tyranny of the majority" weren't used back then either. A great nation makes a lousy "republic." Being told since then that we are just an irrational and vicious mob and bloodthirst tyrants has sapped our pride. Without pride, the majority will soon have nothing to be proud about anyway. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Democracy doesn't mean you get to vote on everything. If the majority can vote to take away or deny rights, there aren't any rights.
 
What's the purpose of defining it a "marriage" as opposed to a civil union? Legally, what are the benefits of marriage as opposed to civil unions? Are there any differences?
 
What's the purpose of defining it a "marriage" as opposed to a civil union? Legally, what are the benefits of marriage as opposed to civil unions? Are there any differences?

Civil unions aren't in your face enough. They MUST be recognized as "normal". That's the primary crux of it.

The true issues vary. Yes, a gay partner should have visiting rights in a hospital, and the ability to make medical decisions if there is a civil union in place. However, should a company be required to carry a gay partner on an insurance plan? Should their credit ratings be tied together like a married couple? Should they have to pay the marriage penalty in taxes? And if they split up (which fail at a much higher rate than heterosexual relationships), how do you split the assets? Who gets the kids if they're raised from birth in the same home?
 
Civil unions aren't in your face enough. They MUST be recognized as "normal". That's the primary crux of it.

The true issues vary. Yes, a gay partner should have visiting rights in a hospital, and the ability to make medical decisions if there is a civil union in place. However, should a company be required to carry a gay partner on an insurance plan? Should their credit ratings be tied together like a married couple? Should they have to pay the marriage penalty in taxes? And if they split up (which fail at a much higher rate than heterosexual relationships), how do you split the assets? Who gets the kids if they're raised from birth in the same home?

Why not. If the person wasn't gay and married, they'd have to pay. If you agree to pay for a spouse, a spouse is a spouse. The same rules should apply across the board. We've dealt with high rates among the heterosexual population and we don't have marriage bonds to compare with homosexuals. In any case, there is no need for separate rules.
 
What's the purpose of defining it a "marriage" as opposed to a civil union? Legally, what are the benefits of marriage as opposed to civil unions? Are there any differences?

The main purpose is equality. Creating a separate institution is not equal.
 
If you retired in 77, chances where you were a kid before they added "Under God" to the pledge. Guess it really wasn't "before your time" old man.

If you think it hurts me by calling me and old man your wrong and no it wasn't before my time........I am 74 years old and although I had some health problems last year still work out 3 or 4 times a week and jog on my treadmill...

The point is "Under God" is there now and has been upheld by he SCOTUS when people like you tried to get it thrown out........
 
Civil unions aren't in your face enough. They MUST be recognized as "normal". That's the primary crux of it.

The true issues vary. Yes, a gay partner should have visiting rights in a hospital, and the ability to make medical decisions if there is a civil union in place. However, should a company be required to carry a gay partner on an insurance plan? Should their credit ratings be tied together like a married couple? Should they have to pay the marriage penalty in taxes? And if they split up (which fail at a much higher rate than heterosexual relationships), how do you split the assets? Who gets the kids if they're raised from birth in the same home?

I don't see why those things shouldn't happen. Those are the same issues that heterosexual married couples face so what's the big deal? And when's the last time someone else's marriage was "in your face"?
 
And I got threatened with exclusionist banning. I love Big Brother!

As if your original full quote sounded less biggoted.

The logic is that as long as inferior behavior is shown by a race, then racism should exist. The race card should be discarded from the deck because there is nothing wrong with racism unless applied to groups that behave well and produce much.
 
What's the purpose of defining it a "marriage" as opposed to a civil union? Legally, what are the benefits of marriage as opposed to civil unions? Are there any differences?

Yes, there are some differences as Erod pointed out. Even if there were no practical differences, however, it would be a "separate is not really equal" type of deal.
 
It's up to the states what they want to do. Personally I don't support gay marriage for religious reasons, but don't oppose it either because America is not a theocracy and states have the rights to define marriage.

Peoples' rights and/or equality standards should never be left up to the states.
 
Democracy doesn't mean you get to vote on everything. If the majority can vote to take away or deny rights, there aren't any rights.

Yeah we can pick and chose what to vote on....When you lefties know you will lose a vote (and that happens every time a vote is taken) you want activist judges and legislatures to handle it..........Sorry it don't work that way.
 
Peoples' rights and/or equality standards should never be left up to the states.

People rights are guaranteed by the States, never left up to the States.
 
Back
Top Bottom