• 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!

To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

ernst barkmann said:
i said i am not against you marrying, and i am not.

i am against government and the force it uses on people which is unconstitutional
Click to expand...

Your all over the place. Also you only pay as taxes for the wages of your employee not their spouse.
 
captainawesome said:
Your all over the place. Also you only pay as taxes for the wages of your employee not their spouse.
Click to expand...

i am a constitutionalists, and by the letter, government has no authority under the constitution to apply force to people to make them do anything, ...unless they have committed a crime, or its a health or safety issue, other wise government forced benefits and teaching children homosexual relationships in schools against one's will ....is unconstitutional.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i am a constitutionalists, and by the letter, government has no authority under the constitution to apply force to people to make them do anything, ...unless they have committed a crime, or its a health or safety issue, other wise government forced benefits and teaching children homosexual relationships in schools against one's will ....is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

So now gay marriage means teaching kids to be gay in school.

You sound paranoid.
 
captainawesome said:
So now gay marriage means teaching kids to be gay in school.

You sound paranoid.
Click to expand...

not what i am saying, ..i stated that government has no authority to force teach anyone something which would be against ones faith ,its unconstitutional.

to give you an example...back in the 1950's government took tax payer money and used it to make anti-homosexual films, that's unconstitutional, becuase they took gay peoples money also, you cant take people's tax money and use it against them.
 
Last edited:
They can celebrate today, but in the end they will be the ones that sadly loose unless they change.
 
captainawesome said:
It is about liberty and equality.

If the will of the people was to reimplement slavery I would be against it. To hell with the will of the people.

My liberty is not dependent on the will of the people. Soon enough we will have SSM.
Click to expand...

It is not about liberty and equality at all, not a bit. It is about a group of people that want to change the definition of marriage to suit them, because they are in a different situation and it just plain does not apply. So, if they yell and scream enough, like children they will get what they want, and screw everyone else and what is right.

It has absolutely nothing in common with slavery. A completely different issue, night and day. You are just desperate to throw slavery in there for the shock value, it has nothing to do with what is going on. What a pitiful comparison.
 
Anthony60 said:
It is about a group of people that want to change the definition of marriage to suit them, because they are in a different situation and it just plain does not apply.
Click to expand...

How does it change the definition of marriage? Does the State dictate how you view everything? If the State declares the sky is red, will you suddenly give up your beliefs that the sky is blue? All that changed was how the State sees marriage, not how your religion defines it or how you define it. The whole "changing the definition of marriage" rhetoric is ridiculous, unless you are saying that the State determines how you think.

And yes, people wanted to change how the State defines marriage in order to suit their situation. Exactly what is wrong with that? How exactly is it going to affect civil marriage for everyone else?
 
disneydude said:
To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California - latimes.com


"Same-sex marriages in California resumed Friday when a federal appeals court lifted a hold on a 2010 injunction, sparking jubilation among gays and cries of lawlessness from the supporters of Proposition 8.


In a surprise action, a federal appeals court cleared the way, bypassing a normal waiting period and lifting a hold on a trial judge’s order that declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional."


Prop H8 is dead!!!! Let Freedom ring!
Click to expand...

It is Prop 8, no hate involved. Just morality.
 
Thrilla said:
how can i be dead wrong if i agree with you that they provided funding?
( it wasn't " in large part".. it was less than 200k... you are confusing the church with individual member donations )


you previously stated the church ran ads , propagandized, and told lies.... each of those claims is false.
you are confusing the campaign with the church.... which are two separate entities altogether.

don't get mad at me... it's not my fault you can't tell the difference between the campaign and the church.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was "individual members". However, anyone who knows anything about the Mormon Church knows the nod and a wink underground things that the Mormon church does to skirt the IRS non-profit issues. The "individual members" were told in no uncertain terms that they were to do the job of the church and donate to the Prop H8 campaign. The Mormon Church DID run ads...propogandandized and told lies. Don't kid yourself. The Mormon church showed just how evil they can be in the prop H8 campaign.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
It is Prop 8, no hate involved. Just morality.
Click to expand...

Why am I not surprised that someone like you would say that. People against inter-racial marriage didn't think they were bigots either. Their opposition was based on "morality" as well. Funny thing.....almost always those who claim to be morally superior are always the most immoral of all. Just like those who are first to shout and proclaim their "Christianity" not the least about the man they proclaim to worship.
 
disneydude said:
Why am I not surprised that someone like you would say that. People against inter-racial marriage didn't think they were bigots either. Their opposition was based on "morality" as well. Funny thing.....almost always those who claim to be morally superior are always the most immoral of all.
Click to expand...

I have it on a higher authority.
 
Anthony60 said:
It is not about liberty and equality at all, not a bit. It is about a group of people that want to change the definition of marriage to suit them, because they are in a different situation and it just plain does not apply. So, if they yell and scream enough, like children they will get what they want, and screw everyone else and what is right.

It has absolutely nothing in common with slavery. A completely different issue, night and day. You are just desperate to throw slavery in there for the shock value, it has nothing to do with what is going on. What a pitiful comparison.
Click to expand...

What is pitiful is watching the few remaining bigots desperately grasping at the final vestiges of government sponsored discrimination. Save your dignity....the war is over.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
It is Prop 8, no hate involved. Just morality.
Click to expand...

Jesus didn't come to Earth to legislate morality. Jesus didn't say "Go into all the world and make sure your governments don't pass laws that allow sin to be legal."
 
davidtaylorjr said:
I have it on a higher authority.
Click to expand...

Scott v. Georgia (1869): "The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."

Bob Jones University, (1998): "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man."

Scott v. Sandford (1857), Chief Justice Taney: "Intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral."

Senator James R. Doolittle (D-WI), 1863: "By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

Lonas v. State (1871): Attorneys argued that intermarriage was "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce the human race in any of the types in which it was created." Tennessee's court agreed, saying that "any effort to intermerge the individuality of the races as a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

State v. Jackson. Missouri (1883): "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."

Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924: The law's stated purpose was to prevent "abominable mixture and spurious issue." It "forbade miscegenation on the grounds that racial mixing was scientifically unsound and would 'pollute' America with mixed-blood offspring."

From a submitted briefing to the Court on Loving v. Virginia: "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist said. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."


Do you get it from the same higher authority as these people?
 
Anthony60 said:
No one was denied the right to marry. If you are a man, you could marry a woman. And a woman could marry a man. So if you are one of those, you had the right to marry.

This was about changing the definition of marriage. So don't come on here claiming people were being denied their constitutional rights, that's just plain wrong. This was about the left using the judiciary to force a majority of the people to comply with the minority's wishes. The state of California voted to keep marriage the same, and one (gay?) judge was able to overturn the will of the people.
So please, I don't want to hear about the rights, of freedom, or will of the people because you are on the wrong side of every one of those points.
Click to expand...

Then no one was being denied their right to marry when it came to interracial marriage bans. If they were a black person, they could marry a black person. If they were a white person, they could marry a white person. So if you are of any race, you had the right to marry. Some simply wanted extra rights to marry outside of their race. They wanted to change the definition of marriage. It was about some people using the judicial system to comply with a minority's (interracial couples') wishes. The state of Virginia and South Carolina and Alabama and many more voted to keep marriage the same, no interracial couples, and a few judges overturned the will of the people.

See how horrible that argument is.
 
CriticalThought said:
"We the People of the United States, in order to perform a more perfect union..."
Click to expand...

... delegate our decision-making authority to people we trust, at least until we no longer trust them, and enshrine certain basic principles in a document that will be difficult to change now and next to impossible as the nation grows.
 
apdst said:
So much for the the voice of the people.
Click to expand...
Right, because homophobic conservatives didn't get their way, therefore the people must have not had a voice. How about the voice of the same sex couples in California and around the nation?
 
apdst said:
Yeah, but it was the pro-gay marriage folks that raised nine kinds of hell that this should be put to a referendum. Then, when things didn't go their way, they through a temper-tantrum. It is what it, bro; ain't no denying it.
Click to expand...

There is a distinct difference between having a referendum and any political process (including but not limited to referendums) where a deluge of cash floods the marketplace of ideas with fear and lies.
 
CriticalThought said:
Scott v. Georgia (1869): "The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."

Bob Jones University, (1998): "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man."

Scott v. Sandford (1857), Chief Justice Taney: "Intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral."

Senator James R. Doolittle (D-WI), 1863: "By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

Lonas v. State (1871): Attorneys argued that intermarriage was "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce the human race in any of the types in which it was created." Tennessee's court agreed, saying that "any effort to intermerge the individuality of the races as a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

State v. Jackson. Missouri (1883): "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."

Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924: The law's stated purpose was to prevent "abominable mixture and spurious issue." It "forbade miscegenation on the grounds that racial mixing was scientifically unsound and would 'pollute' America with mixed-blood offspring."

From a submitted briefing to the Court on Loving v. Virginia: "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist said. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."


Do you get it from the same higher authority as these people?
Click to expand...

All of those have recanted, I believe, and they also say the Bible doesn't directly speak against it. However, the Bible does speak against homosexuality. It's not the same, you compared apples and oranges.
 
ernst barkmann said:
governments make laws and polices in its institutions whenever gay marriage has been had legal in a state.

examples, the state brings in homosexual relationships in the the schools

they direct business that they must pay benefits to SS couples, ...however these infringes on the rights of people.

if government would stop applying force to people to get them to do what government demands, you would see less people against gay marriage, but government is not going to stop, they will continue to violate rights of the people.
Click to expand...

Then your problem is with those additional laws and policies, so you cannot legitimately claim it is same sex couples getting married that affects you, but those additional laws and policies, which you are completely free to complain about. You cannot use them against ssm though because that is not how the laws on equality and rights work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom