• 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]

apdst said:
Damn near a carbon copy of Progressiveism/Liberalism.
Click to expand...

Oooookay. Are you going to deny the Holocaust next? Historical revisionism tends to set off my gag reflex.
 
ernst barkmann said:
add business to that also..:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Just as bigots had to allow people they don't like to marry, bigots in business have to allow people they don't like to frequent their establishment.
 
Boo Radley said:
Just as bigots had to allow people they don't like to marry, bigots in business have to allow people they don't like to frequent their establishment.
Click to expand...

wrong, government has no authority in marriage, and government has no authority to control ones property.

dont worry friend, i will get you turned around sooner of later....you will see the light of day!
 
ernst barkmann said:
wrong, government has no authority in marriage, and government has no authority to control ones property.

dont worry friend, i will get you turned around sooner of later....you will see the light of day!
Click to expand...

They do both. But the wrong here is to those discriminated against. Not the bigots in both arenas. ;)
 
CriticalThought said:
Nero and Elagabalus. Not exactly a historical secret. In fact, it is something Christians usually use to argue against same sex marriage because Nero was kind of a huge ass to Christians and he was allegedly into some pretty freaky stuff.
Click to expand...

and you think the actions of the two most demented roman emperors in history is GOOD for your argument?! Couldn't find a gay marriage in Caligula's closet? a pity
 
apdst said:
Oh, so you DO want the givernment in the marriage biz? Read the Constitution lately?
Click to expand...

I said it wasn't the majorities business. The government just has to treat everyone's the same.
 
Boo Radley said:
Just as bigots had to allow people they don't like to marry, bigots in business have to allow people they don't like to frequent their establishment.
Click to expand...

sorry you failed with this

how can liberals.say this: is unconstitutional for a state government and its people to ban SSM, because states believe that SSM i will be harmful to the institution of marriage, ..while denying SS couples there rights.

but in the same breath say.......its constitutional for the people and its state government, to ban discrimination becuase its is harmful to a person, .....while infringing on the rights of property owners?
 
JoeTrumps said:
and you think the actions of the two most demented roman emperors in history is GOOD for your argument?! Couldn't find a gay marriage in Caligula's closet? a pity
Click to expand...

Yeah...I think I just made that argument. The point was that same sex marriage has existed before. In fact it was Christian emperors who passed the first same sex marriage ban. So in a sense, this is a debate that has gone on as long as marriage has been codified by law.
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry you failed with this

how can liberals.say this: is unconstitutional for a state government and its people to ban SSM, because states believe that SSM i will be harmful to the institution of marriage, ..while denying SS couples there rights.

but in the same breath say.......its constitutional for the people and its state government, to ban discrimination becuase its is harmful to a person, .....while infringing on the rights of property owners?
Click to expand...

It's clear you don't know what's being argued. You keep framing it wrong, trying to twist it into something not really argued. I argue it's not right nor legal to discriminate. That us consistent with both arguments. Read it slower. Take in what us actually being said.
 
winston53660 said:
When it comes to laws and equal representation I think they should be there. After all that is why we have government, right?
Click to expand...

Sure, but get government out of our marriages.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's clear you don't know what's being argued. You keep framing it wrong, trying to twist it into something not really argued. I argue it's not right nor legal to discriminate. That us consistent with both arguments. Read it slower. Take in what us actually being said.
Click to expand...

sure i am, you have said government can make laws to take away rights of people, becuase of discrimination..using statutory laws.

but you also said. goverment cannot make laws which take away the rights of people to marry, becuase that's discrimination ,even though those laws are constitutional amendments to a states constitution.

whats in play here, the rights of people which the government cannot make any law to take away rights of the people, unless a crime has been committed, or its health and safety issue
 
ernst barkmann said:
sure i am, you have said government can make laws to take away rights of people, becuase of discrimination..using statutory laws.

but you also said. goverment cannot make laws which take away the rights of people to marry, becuase that's discrimination ,even though those laws are constitutional amendments to a states constitution.

whats in play here, the rights of people which the government cannot make any law to take away rights of the people, unless a crime has been committed, or its health and safety issue
Click to expand...

I said the government can't discriminate. They can't. Keep focused. It's all about not discriminating.
 
Boo Radley said:
I said the government can't discriminate. They can't. Keep focused. It's all about not discriminating.
Click to expand...

here, is you famous 14th amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


even your amendment recognizes the right to property!

discrimination laws are statutory laws.

Statutory law or statute law is written law (as opposed to oral or customary law) set down by a legislature (as opposed to regulatory law promulgated by the executive or common law of the judiciary) or by a legislator (in the case of an absolute monarchy).[1] Statutes may originate with national, state legislatures or local municipalities. Statutory laws are subordinate to the higher constitutional laws of the land.
 
apdst said:
Britannica? That's your source? LOL!

The National Socialists created universal healthcare in Germany. They had extensive welfare. They supported labor unions. Not to mentio, Hitler was a socialist, anyway. There's nothing Conservative about the National Socialists.
Click to expand...

Like I said, take it up with Britannica. You WANT to believe they were not conservative, so no source is going to be good enough to convince you otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom