• 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!

SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

There have been voices of hate on the preservation of marriage side but that was no reason for activists to snarl and bite the hand offering civil unions with all the trappings and rights of marriage. At this point, your side is spouting more hate-speech than those opposing homosexual marriage. Just reading these forums, it is blatantly obvious.

separate is not equal.

marriage is a civil union.
 
There have been voices of hate on the preservation of marriage side but that was no reason for activists to snarl and bite the hand offering civil unions with all the trappings and rights of marriage. At this point, your side is spouting more hate-speech than those opposing homosexual marriage. Just reading these forums, it is blatantly obvious.

That's from your perspective. From mine, your side is spouting far more hate-speech than mine and has been from the very begining... and just reading these forums it's blatantly obvious. And I've been here for 7 years. There have certainly been hateful folks on my side of the issue, but I would say the ratio is about 4:1 with the "4" being on your side.
 
Wait... so if someone is completely intolerant of someone who is against civil rights towards blacks or Jews, that person TOO is a bigot?

Yes, they would be a bigot. Sometimes being a bigot isn't a bad thing. I'm bigoted towards child molesters and rapists.
 
There have been voices of hate on the preservation of marriage side but that was no reason for activists to snarl and bite the hand offering civil unions with all the trappings and rights of marriage. At this point, your side is spouting more hate-speech than those opposing homosexual marriage. Just reading these forums, it is blatantly obvious.

Listen to yourself. "Bite the hand" that is "offering" civil unions?

These are peoples' rights you are talking about, and you are presenting yourself as the master offering a treat to a pet. And what are you offering, exactly? Separate but "equal." (and it's not really equal, as has already been demonstrated to you) How can you sit there and think of yourself as offering a reasonable compromise? You're offering second-class status and are upset that people aren't grateful. Hah.

And don't give me this "no YOU are the bigots" bull****. You only perceive it that way because you think your argument is morally correct, and therefore not hateful. You don't even see the hate in your own beliefs.

You are demanding two consenting adults not be allowed to marry eachother because it personally bothers you. Imagine if your marriage were subject to my approval.
 
And what are you offering, exactly?

Nothing!

His claim that the opponents of SSM supported civil unions is a lie. The same people who oppose SSM also opposed civil unions.

The Moral Fascists on the right always try to demonstrate their supposed moral superiority by using lies in their arguments
 
Nothing!

His claim that the opponents of SSM supported civil unions is a lie. The same people who oppose SSM also opposed civil unions.

The Moral Fascists on the right always try to demonstrate their supposed moral superiority by using lies in their arguments

Case and point: Rick Santorum.
 
Nothing!

His claim that the opponents of SSM supported civil unions is a lie. The same people who oppose SSM also opposed civil unions.

The Moral Fascists on the right always try to demonstrate their supposed moral superiority by using lies in their arguments

You are making this up as you go along. I didn't say that ALL those who were against gay marriage supported civil unions but MANY did and still would.
 
That's from your perspective. From mine, your side is spouting far more hate-speech than mine and has been from the very begining... and just reading these forums it's blatantly obvious. And I've been here for 7 years. There have certainly been hateful folks on my side of the issue, but I would say the ratio is about 4:1 with the "4" being on your side.

I think bias is skewing your perspective or your perspective takes in a broad scope of time with a lot of change in between. The pro SSM side has been snarling rabidly at anyone and everyone that does not go along with their agenda without question. Count up the references to racists, nzi's and "hate-filled bigots" and see which side has the winning tally.
 
You are making this up as you go along. I didn't say that ALL those who were against gay marriage supported civil unions but MANY did and still would.

Why do those on the right have to use lies to rationalize their imagined moral superiority?

The right wing opponents of SSM were overwhelmingly opposed to gay civil unions.
 
You are making this up as you go along. I didn't say that ALL those who were against gay marriage supported civil unions but MANY did and still would.

Which must be why 20 states have constitutional bans on all same sex unions of any kind? Because so many against gay marriage are for same sex civil unions. :roll:

Only 9 states have bans against same sex marriage only in their constitutions. And in Alaska, people have been trying to pass a ban on civil unions as well, despite already having a ban on marriage in place.
 
Which must be why 20 states have constitutional bans on all same sex unions of any kind? Because so many against gay marriage are for same sex civil unions. :roll:

Only 9 states have bans against same sex marriage only in their constitutions. And in Alaska, people have been trying to pass a ban on civil unions as well, despite already having a ban on marriage in place.

The vitriol and name calling from the left over this has been so vehement and obnoxious that ID vote against civil unions, myself, right now out of pure antipathy. The same left insisting on changing the definition of marriage has been utterly uncaring about gun rights or even protecting babies past the first trimester. There hasn't been any sense of empathy and I think battle lines are merely hardening. My position became more entrenched since the decision and all the subsequent hate-speech from the left. I know it can't be just me. I think its stupid of the left to goad their opponents into stiffer opposition but it seems that is what the intentions are. Whatever. The lines are drawn and positions hardened and I guess we will see how that works out for you. I wonder how many billions you will spend just trying to prove a point.
 
The vitriol and name calling from the left over this has been so vehement and obnoxious that ID vote against civil unions, myself, right now out of pure antipathy. The same left insisting on changing the definition of marriage has been utterly uncaring about gun rights or even protecting babies past the first trimester. There hasn't been any sense of empathy and I think battle lines are merely hardening. My position became more entrenched since the decision and all the subsequent hate-speech from the left. I know it can't be just me. I think its stupid of the left to goad their opponents into stiffer opposition but it seems that is what the intentions are. Whatever. The lines are drawn and positions hardened and I guess we will see how that works out for you. I wonder how many billions you will spend just trying to prove a point.

Yes, it was horrible the way the left compared gays with pedophiles and beastiality while the right held their tongue
 
Yes, it was horrible the way the left compared gays with pedophiles and beastiality while the right held their tongue

Funny. The left actually think it's worse to call someone a bigot or racist than a sexual deviant or pedophile. Go figure.

And one more thing. This kind of nasty and dishonest crap like you just posted again just stiffens the differences. Homosexuals weren't being compared to animal livers and kid touchers. The fact that some arguments homosexual advocates are making would apply as well to kid touchers and animal lovers may be not be a truth you like to hear but it is what it is. It does not however compare them and I don't feel they are comparable behaviors. No one I know does. But you can wind yourself up over it, anyway. That's your prerogative. Just know that folks see that faux indignation for what it is. You aren't fooling anyone.
 
Last edited:
There have been voices of hate on the preservation of marriage side but that was no reason for activists to snarl and bite the hand offering civil unions with all the trappings and rights of marriage. At this point, your side is spouting more hate-speech than those opposing homosexual marriage. Just reading these forums, it is blatantly obvious.

Offering civil unions? States that didn't have same sex marriage and had constitutional amendments against same sex marriage then went on to outlaw civil unions too.

Who is offering civil unions?
 
The vitriol and name calling from the left over this has been so vehement and obnoxious that ID vote against civil unions, myself, right now out of pure antipathy. The same left insisting on changing the definition of marriage has been utterly uncaring about gun rights or even protecting babies past the first trimester. There hasn't been any sense of empathy and I think battle lines are merely hardening. My position became more entrenched since the decision and all the subsequent hate-speech from the left. I know it can't be just me. I think its stupid of the left to goad their opponents into stiffer opposition but it seems that is what the intentions are. Whatever. The lines are drawn and positions hardened and I guess we will see how that works out for you. I wonder how many billions you will spend just trying to prove a point.

Most of these bans were in place before the major fights even started. Don't try it. You can't claim that they were "bullied" into this. It simply isn't true. The states took this position because of disapproval of homosexuality, not because many just didn't want to share the word marriage.
 
Most of these bans were in place before the major fights even started. Don't try it. You can't claim that they were "bullied" into this. It simply isn't true. The states took this position because of disapproval of homosexuality, not because many just didn't want to share the word marriage.

I didn't say they were bullied into it but I'm saying you are pushing people that direction. I've been pushed off the fence. I was actually convinced it was about rights. Only in the last month or so have I been harangued to the point where is support an all out ban on civil unions, gay marriage or anything resembling it. If I'm going to be accused of being a hating bigot then I've got nothing to lose by acting like one. And I've been accused of hate a few times too many merely for arguing that civil unions are a reasonable solution. Screw it. You want a culture war. Then so it is and you pushed me to the other side of it.
 
Offering civil unions? States that didn't have same sex marriage and had constitutional amendments against same sex marriage then went on to outlaw civil unions too.

Who is offering civil unions?

In recent polls there was widespread support for civil unions but a lot less for marriage. If homosexuals haven't been rejecting civil unions for the same of suing for marriage I think that they would be in place in all 50 States very quickly.

I would have supported them. I probably will not going forward. Maybe I'll change my mind if the rhetoric lightens but I'll have to see. Suffice to say that the meme of the sympathetic poor homosexuals deprived of rights has been replaced with militant homosexuals giving this country the finger.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

I disagree. I think government should get their hands out of marriage altogether.

Because as we know, when we let states decide civil rights - discrimination is fine.
 
In recent polls there was widespread support for civil unions but a lot less for marriage. If homosexuals haven't been rejecting civil unions for the same of suing for marriage I think that they would be in place in all 50 States very quickly.

I would have supported them. I probably will not going forward. Maybe I'll change my mind if the rhetoric lightens but I'll have to see. Suffice to say that the meme of the sympathetic poor homosexuals deprived of rights has been replaced with militant homosexuals giving this country the finger.

Do you have a link to those polls?
Because the most recent I have seen is from 2012.
 
I didn't say they were bullied into it but I'm saying you are pushing people that direction. I've been pushed off the fence. I was actually convinced it was about rights. Only in the last month or so have I been harangued to the point where is support an all out ban on civil unions, gay marriage or anything resembling it. If I'm going to be accused of being a hating bigot then I've got nothing to lose by acting like one. And I've been accused of hate a few times too many merely for arguing that civil unions are a reasonable solution. Screw it. You want a culture war. Then so it is and you pushed me to the other side of it.

This is blaming someone else for your position.

But yes, you should have your own honor to lose by acting in such a way.

I've been accused of a lot of things by anti-gay people, including being a pedophile, a pervert, a child molester, a monster, a hater, a bigot, a fag, a freak, someone not deserving of rights or to even live, that I'm going to burn in hell, that God hates me, and so many other things. But I don't hate the other side (although I despise many of the arguments being used). I even understand the positions of "I believe marriage is only between a man and woman", or "marriage is for procreation", or even "God thinks it's a sin". I don't agree with these positions and find them to be awful legal arguments for marriage restrictions, but I do understand how such beliefs develop and are held on to. These arguments, or arguments similar in nature to them, have always been used to justify limitations in laws that are just based on dislike of something or resistance to change.
 
GotW-Civil-Unions-5-13-2013-Pie.jpg
From the above link.
 
In recent polls there was widespread support for civil unions but a lot less for marriage. .

What poll ?

BS News/New York Times Poll. Feb. 8-13, 2012. N=1,197 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

"Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry. OR, There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship."

.

Legal
marriage Civil unions No legal
recognition Unsure
% % % %
2/8-13/12

40 23 31 6

Civil Rights
 

Except for the extreme homosexual activists who are contrary for political purposes, it is safe to say that anyone who supports same-sex marriage would also support a bill introducing civil unions with all the rights of marriage since it would be closer to their view than "no legal recognition". Counting all the people that support gay marriage and civil unions, there is overwhelming support for recognition. Counting only those who would accept nothing but gay marriage..... not so much. And that's the hand the homosexuals seem to want to force - gay marriage or nothing.

Given that stance, I am now inclined to say "nothing". If it's a no compromise position for them, why should anyone else be more compromising?
 
Except for the extreme homosexual activists who are contrary for political purposes, it is safe to say that anyone who supports same-sex marriage would also support a bill introducing civil unions with all the rights of marriage since it would be closer to their view than "no legal recognition". Counting all the people that support gay marriage and civil unions, there is overwhelming support for recognition. Counting only those who would accept nothing but gay marriage..... not so much. And that's the hand the homosexuals seem to want to force - gay marriage or nothing.

Given that stance, I am now inclined to say "nothing". If it's a no compromise position for them, why should anyone else be more compromising?

The poll shows you that your claims are incorrect. More people approve of same sex MARRIAGE, and a decreasing number approve of civil unions.
 
Back
Top Bottom