• 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!

After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

yes i have heard your opinion on this before a few times and my reply is always the same, marriage is a right and im glad government protects my contract, i wouldnt have it any other way. :shrug:

With the authority to protect your contract comes the authority to deny the contracts of others. There's no need for the government to get involved contractual matters. That's what lawyers are for.

We should be able to obtain a marriage contract--not a license--from any clergyman and that clergyman should be able to marry anyone he wants.

It's ironic that the big government folks ate the ones doing the most bitching about the government screwing people over.
 
1.)With the authority to protect your contract comes the authority to deny the contracts of others. There's no need for the government to get involved contractual matters. That's what lawyers are for.

2.)We should be able to obtain a marriage contract--not a license--from any clergyman and that clergyman should be able to marry anyone he wants.

3.) It's ironic that the big government folks ate the ones doing the most bitching about the government screwing people over.

1.) yes you have stated this before and i said no thanks to that inane idea because a laywer is typically way to late and cost to much money or be unaffordable. Not to mention theres somethings marriage do that cant be accomplished any other way and as easily. And man of the things that can be accomplished other ways arent as legally banding. AGain no thanks! im very happy the government protects my contracts, rights and privileges and i wouldnt have it any other way. Im glad they protect me and my family. its just logical.

2.) i dont know how it works in every state but many people can get certified to marry others and it should never be limited to just clergymen ever. Legal marriage has nothgin to do with them and clergymen already can marry whoever they want religiously just not legally.

3.) this has nothgin to do with me
 
ummmm, could you(meaning the left in general) stop comparing EVERY supposed social injustice to inter-racial marriage?!?! It's just gotten so freaking old at this point and it waters down the civil rights movement in general. I'm pretty sure if the NRA used the same tactics you seem to rely on to get laws passed you would be screaming bloody murder. But since they are things you WANT to be law you don't care how it's done(vote or no vote), is that it?

not good. not good

Bans on interracial marriage is basically the most valid comparison, hence why it is so often brought up. And no, i don't care how equality is achieved.
 
If you are required by law to get a government issued marriage license, marriage is no longer a right, therefore, the government should get out of the marriage business.

Yes, the government should get out of marriage. So you as a conservative should be against ANY politician wanting government to stay in the business of marriage. But since you as a conservative supported the GOP you are a hypocrite. Nuff said you're dismissed.
 
If you are required by law to get a government issued marriage license, marriage is no longer a right, therefore, the government should get out of the marriage business.

The bigots only started saying this when they realized that their precious word might soon be used by other people.
 
With the authority to protect your contract comes the authority to deny the contracts of others. There's no need for the government to get involved contractual matters. That's what lawyers are for.

We should be able to obtain a marriage contract--not a license--from any clergyman and that clergyman should be able to marry anyone he wants.

It's ironic that the big government folks ate the ones doing the most bitching about the government screwing people over.

And it's ironic that the "small government" folks are the ones supporting the government's screwing people over.
 
And it's ironic that the "small government" folks are the ones supporting the government's screwing people over.

You're right, but I'm not icluded in their ranks, so any dig at me with that comment was a tactical failure.
 
Yes, the government should get out of marriage. So you as a conservative should be against ANY politician wanting government to stay in the business of marriage. But since you as a conservative supported the GOP you are a hypocrite. Nuff said you're dismissed.

As usual, agree with the Libbos and you still get called names.
 
Because it isn't marriage.

I agree!

Anything that makes it more difficult for these sodomites to get any benefits is a good thing as far as I am concerned. The more difficult we can make it on these people the better!
 
The bigots only started saying this when they realized that their precious word might soon be used by other people.

Your attitude is what will--thankfully--spell the end of Libboism. Sooner or later, everyone is goubg to be your enemy...even the people who agree with you.
 
As usual, agree with the Libbos and you still get called names.

As usual, you get called on your crap and you resort to libbo this and libbo that. Conservative mantra
 
No, what I'm fine with is people voting and having their beliefs put into law on social issues. I view it as tyranny to override that process because a minority didn't get their way in some states.

So you believe that inter-racial marriage should be put to a popular vote?
You believe that it would be ok if a state voted to prohibit marriage between people of two different religions?
You believe it would be ok for a state to ban marriages for infertile couples?
How about if a state wanted to define marriage as "A man and a woman not over 40"?

Or really Digs....are you just ok with states banning gay marriage? Isn't that really where you are coming from. You really aren't ok with people voting and having their beliefs put into law on social issues at all. Just this one.
 
As usual, you get called on your crap and you resort to libbo this and libbo that. Conservative mantra

Agreeing with Libbos is crap? Ya know...you may be onto something there.

And you wanna call ME a hack?? LOL!
 
I agree!

Anything that makes it more difficult for these sodomites to get any benefits is a good thing as far as I am concerned. The more difficult we can make it on these people the better!
So if sodomy is the problem, do you favor prohibiting heterosexual sodomy?
 
Agreeing with Libbos is crap? Ya know...you may be onto something there.

And you wanna call ME a hack?? LOL!

Im not a libbo. However You voted for Romney, care to tell us how that agrees with libbos?
 
I can't help it if you guys don't accept the facts. I'm not going through all of that again, no need, you are closed minded.

Since your little interchange with Agent J started with you claiming that homosexuality is immoral... and since we know that morality is relevant, he's right. You've already been proven wrong. But as far as facts go, I'd like to see some of the "facts" that you claim you've posted on this issue.
 
You're moving the goal posts now. No one said grade school kids were being shown how to fist another boy, BUT, they are being taught homosexual normalcy WHICH is a matter of opinion with no shred of scientific fact.

Tim, Tim, Tim. We've been over this many times. Homosexuality has been proven to be normal. Just because you don't accept it as such, just because you refuse to acknowledge the designations of all of the world's major psychological, medical, and scientific groups that it is, doesn't alter that it IS.


Now, I'm sure you'll say that peer reviewed studies from this psychological associate vs. that psychological association are facts, but can we at least agree that many people do NOT assign the same level of scientific discipline to the social sciences, as they do to the more commonly accepted hard sciences that rely on repeatable and unequivocal data?

Not many people. People like you who don't like the results that the studies reveal.
 
BUT, in order to have exempt status, YOU (as in the church) will need to follow the law of the state via discrimination. It's an end around the constitution for organizations that oppose SSM, BUT still not completely out of the realm of possibility.


Tim-

Tim, this issue has been brought up before, and been debunked before. Churches do not have to accept any member they do not want to, nor do they need to perform weddings of anyone if they do not want to. I've seen several people post this slippery slope fallacy and it most often belongs in the Conspiracy Theory Forum for all the veracity it has. It's nothing but another false scare tactic of what the "evil gays" will do. But tell you what. Post ONE legitimate and accurate situation in the US where the church was compelled to do something like this, and perhaps I will consider your point of having some validity.
 
ummmm, could you(meaning the left in general) stop comparing EVERY supposed social injustice to inter-racial marriage?!?! It's just gotten so freaking old at this point and it waters down the civil rights movement in general. I'm pretty sure if the NRA used the same tactics you seem to rely on to get laws passed you would be screaming bloody murder. But since they are things you WANT to be law you don't care how it's done(vote or no vote), is that it?

not good. not good

We use it because it is so applicable, because it is the same damn thing. The NRA couldn't use it because it has nothing to do with what they are lobbying for, while marriage rights, and civil rights in general are EXACTLY what we are arguing for.
 
ummmm, could you(meaning the left in general) stop comparing EVERY supposed social injustice to inter-racial marriage?!?! It's just gotten so freaking old at this point and it waters down the civil rights movement in general. I'm pretty sure if the NRA used the same tactics you seem to rely on to get laws passed you would be screaming bloody murder. But since they are things you WANT to be law you don't care how it's done(vote or no vote), is that it?

not good. not good

im guessing since the comparison is logical and similar it will never end untill equality is achieved.
Of course it bothers those that are against equality because it destroys just about any opposition and shinse a light on how silly arguing against it is and how wrong it is. Its good, very good.
 
Fact: most states ban SSM, these bans are legal and haven't changed (with one exception, California where existing same sex unions would be nullified).
Fact: I have backed up my statements, I have pointed to the SSM bans in other states and the legality of DOMA when concerning a state's right to redefine marriage to include SSM.
Here is the fact: the chart is old because Cali is likely to become a SSM approving state, but this is what is factually correct concerning marriage in the states.

Stop throwing around the word "fact." It doesn't make you magically right. Also, recognize where your opinions are exactly that, opinions. It's your opinion that SSM is an equal rights issue or somehow on par with racial discrimination. That's not a fact, that's your opinion and your view.

Wrong Digs....it IS a FACT. Read Kennedy's opinion. He clearly indicated that while states are free to define marriage they MUST do so in a manner that doesn't violate the 5th Amendment. Even Scalia knows the days of government sponsored discrimination are numbered.
 
Like Jim Crow laws were just "social issues"? Like inter-racial marriage defied the societal notion of marriage 40 years ago, and instead of letting people get on with their lives without government intervention, we should have let other people decided their future(or lack thereof) by putting it up to a vote? Which would never have passed back then, and still wouldn't pass even in some states today.

Yeah, sounds like freedom alright.

Seriously, SSM is not the same as Jim Crow and Brown vs Board. It's an illogical comparison similar to those who are anti-SSM bringing up polygamy, bestiality, incest, and any other sexual issue that is not similar to SSM.

Freedom is allowing people to vote and have their beliefs heard. As of now state SSM bans are constitutional, people have that freedom. What is not freedom is to violate the voting rights of others, force them to go against their beliefs and impose morality upon societies that have decided that same sex unions are not within the definition of marriage. Freedom is not having those who loose in a democratic battle screaming and crying about feeling discriminated (when it isn't illegal) and then forcing their beliefs into law upon the majority. That is tyranny. Forcing states that have banned SSM to accept it is tyranny. It violates the principals of the people in that state and imposes a moral code upon people that have rejected such. In an identical way it would also be tyrannical to do so to a state that has approved of SSM but forcing them to go against that.
 
Last edited:
Seriously, SSM is not the same as Jim Crow and Brown vs Board. It's an illogical comparison similar to those who are anti-SSM bringing up polygamy, bestiality, incest, and any other sexual issue that is not similar to SSM.

Freedom is allowing people to vote and have their beliefs heard. As of now state SSM bans are constitutional, people have that freedom. What is not freedom is to violate the voting rights of others, force them to go against their beliefs and impose morality upon societies that have decided that same sex unions are not within the definition of marriage. Freedom is not having those who loose in a democratic battle screaming and crying about feeling discriminated (when it isn't illegal) and then forcing their beliefs into law upon the majority. That is tyranny. Forcing states that have banned SSM to accept it is tyranny. It violates the principals of the people in that state and imposes a moral code upon people that have rejected such. In an identical way it would also be tyrannical to do so to a state that has approved of SSM but forcing them to go against that.

According to what you just posted, then overturning interracial marriage bans was tyranny digsbe. The Loving decision was, according to this argument, a violation of freedom. Because interracial marriage bans were put into place for many of the same reasons that same sex marriage bans were put into place, imposition of a moral code. Those that opposed interracial marriage by far felt that it was morally objectionable to be in an interracial relationship. Even many blacks felt those bans belonged in place or at least opposed such relationships.
 
Back
Top Bottom