• 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!

On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

1.)You rarely use any sort of fact, apparently it's what you have named your OPINION.
2.) At issue isn't "equal rights being granted to gays" but allowing gay marriage. It's hilarious how you accuse others of the very behavior you display religiously.

1.)actually i have used many fact you denying them doesnt change anything, did marriage to cousins exists before it was ended and then started again? yep thats a fact that destroys your failed argument and shows how severely uneducated you are on this topic

2.) actually it is says the state supreme courts that have actually heard the case. Marriage is a fatual right and those courts decided that a ban on it violates equality and was discrimination. once again, you lost to facts and expose your education level on this topic which seem to be very very little.

Facts destroy your failed post and it fails again
and as always if you disagree PLEASE show us any factual logic connecting equal rights being granted to gays leading to a slippery slope of something else, we cant wait to read it!
 
Sorry, everything you say is worthless when you alter the posts of others. Reported.
 
thats an example of hyperbole? wow sorry its not, at least not how you presented. If somebody would say its an "identical" struggle then yes absolutely id agree with you

but they are both civil rights, equality and discrimination issues. and to further that point many black people have used the reference themselves even those not exactly pro-gay and said that while they may not agree with it they could never deny them rights the same way their ancestors were.

gays have been killed, beat, assaulted, fired, disowned, abandon, tortured, not hired, discriminated against, denied rights, branded and denied equality simply for being gay. again not IDENTICAL to what was done to blacks at all but the civil rights and equality moment comparison is definitely there.

and since the OP article is written by a black man equating the likeness to it id say there no hyperbole at all unless one says its identical.

SO again do you have an examples?

No, I don't have specific examples. In fact, I can't articulate well why I don't think that the two struggles are the same, but my feelings are that although the points of discrimination you threw out there are despicable, I just don't think they measure up to separate water fountains, separate bathrooms, riding in the back of busses, and the outright hunting and killing of black people for sport by the KKK. Gay's were never enslaved, and although bigoted people could very well treat gay people horribly if they knew of their orientation, it just doesn't measure up to what blacks went through in this country.

With that said, I don't think that the issue of marriage among gays really effects me one way or the other. I say let em. I don't think the world's poles would flip on its axis if they were allowed to marry, and there are a lot of lawyers that would benefit from the increased amount of divorce proceedings...:lol:
 
Sorry, everything you say is worthless when you alter the posts of others. Reported.

translation you got nothing
i told you before this deflection doesnt work

so just a reminder of what i said last time you tried this deflection and derailment
"I like it, its a convenient and courteous method to assure a poster know exactly what im responding for and it creates less confusion.
If you do not sorry but the solution is easy, simply dont respond to me"

and just a friendly DP participant FYI in case you missed it a mod commented on your concerns
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-stirs-little-public-outcry-nm-w-95-a-10.html

now back on topic

Facts destroy your failed post and it fails again
and as always if you disagree PLEASE show us any factual logic connecting equal rights being granted to gays leading to a slippery slope of something else, we cant wait to read it!
 
Nope, what I posted doesn't require your translation nor your alteration. Your opinions are valueless once you start altering the posts of others.
 
1.)No, I don't have specific examples.
2.)In fact, I can't articulate well why I don't think that the two struggles are the same, but my feelings are that although the points of discrimination you threw out there are despicable, I just don't think they measure up to separate water fountains, separate bathrooms, riding in the back of busses, and the outright hunting and killing of black people for sport by the KKK. Gay's were never enslaved, and although bigoted people could very well treat gay people horribly if they knew of their orientation, it just doesn't measure up to what blacks went through in this country.

3.)With that said, I don't think that the issue of marriage among gays really effects me one way or the other. I say let em. I don't think the world's poles would flip on its axis if they were allowed to marry,

4.) and there are a lot of lawyers that would benefit from the increased amount of divorce proceedings...:lol:


1.) then what motivates to feel the way you do? seems illogical? did my example fit? like i said if people say they are identical then yes i agree that would be a bit hyperbolic
2.) see im just not sure about this. I know people like to use the word same but i don't think they often mean identical at least i ASSUME and i could be wrong. I would GUESS when they say same the mean civil rights, discrimination and fighting for equality.

but yes in general i agree they were not "identical" and i dont think anybody ever MEANS to say they are.
3.) well this is true, it wouldnt effect you any way what so ever unless you chose to let it effect you
4.) well this would certainly seem to be the case, "they" feel gay marriages would be equally successful as hetero marriages.
 
Last edited:
Nope, what I posted doesn't require your translation nor your alteration. Your opinions are valueless once you start altering the posts of others.

translation you got nothing
i told you before this deflection doesnt work
Facts destroy your failed post and it fails again
and as always if you disagree PLEASE show us any factual logic connecting equal rights being granted to gays leading to a slippery slope of something else, we cant wait to read it!
 
Yeah, with the way some keep bringing this up, you'd think polygamy incest and bestiality would be legal in MA Iowa NY etc by now.

Your's and other's attempt to distance your argument for same sex couples to marry from incest, polygamy, and beastiality by calling it a slippery slope and therefore semantically devaluing the correlation is hypocritical and unsuccessful.

These other smaller (and therefore less popular/powerful) groups have been using your arguments for years.... . Their lack of numbers has kept them from being successful with these arguments. But if the current path of acceptance of deviant behaviors that this nation is headed in continues it is not hyperbolic or slippery to expect a similar path to Same Sibling Marriage as taken by Same Sex Marriage.
 
translation you got nothing
i told you before this deflection doesnt work
Facts destroy your failed post and it fails again
and as always if you disagree PLEASE show us any factual logic connecting equal rights being granted to gays leading to a slippery slope of something else, we cant wait to read it!

refer to post #805. Your opinions are valueless.
 
translation you got nothing
i told you before this deflection doesnt work
Facts destroy your failed post and it fails again
and as always if you disagree PLEASE show us any factual logic connecting equal rights being granted to gays leading to a slippery slope of something else, we cant wait to read it!

Marriage is not a fundamental "right" for anyone.
 
refer to post #805. Your opinions are valueless.

Facts destroy your failed post and it fails again
and as always if you disagree PLEASE show us any factual logic connecting equal rights being granted to gays leading to a slippery slope of something else, we cant wait to read it!
 
Proponents of same sex couples getting legally married and their endless quest for "equality" is getting tiring. Trying to apply "equality" to every aspect of life indicates that you don't understand the concept.
 
Marriage is not a fundamental "right" for anyone.

factually FALSE

SCOTUS disagreed with your OPINION 14 times

Video: 14 Supreme Court Rulings on Marriage | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
 
Oh, so once you got marriage defined the way you want, no more changes? That's it?

And, um, interracial marriage bans are a lot more recent than you think.

How old are you, Deuce? I'm curious about why you're apparently assuming that I'm not familiar with history. By the way, I didn't "get" marriage defined; it has been defined as "one man/one woman" all my life...and my great-great-great grandparents' lives and their great-great-great grandparents' lives, and their great-great great grandparents' too. :roll:
 
1.)Proponents of same sex couples getting legally married and their endless quest for "equality" is getting tiring.
2.) Trying to apply "equality" to every aspect of life indicates that you don't understand the concept.

1.)tell that to the 3 states supreme courts that already did so and disagree with your basely false opinion
2.) good thing thats factually not what equal rights for gays is about

your mistake, next time try to understand whats actually going on,
 
1.) then what motivates to feel the way you do? seems illogical? did my example fight? like is adi if people said they are identical then yes i agree that would be a bit hyperbolic
2.) see im just not sure about this. I know people like to use the word same but i don't think they often mean identical at least i ASSUME and i could be wrong. I would GUESS when they say same the mean civil rights, discrimination and fighting for equality.

but yes in general i agree they were not "identical" and i dont think anybody ever MEANS to say they are.
3.) well this is true, it would effect you any way what so ever unless you chose to let it effect you
4.) well this would certainly seem to be the case, "they" feel gay marriages would be equally successful as hetero marriages.

Well, mark your calender J, I think this is about as close to agreement as we have ever been.....Peace!
 
Facts destroy your failed post and it fails again
and as always if you disagree PLEASE show us any factual logic connecting equal rights being granted to gays leading to a slippery slope of something else, we cant wait to read it!

refer to post #805. Your opinions are valueless.

Btw, there are many types of logic, however there is no such thing as "factual logic". And once again, not an equal rights issue (except in YOUR opinion, which you have renedered valueless).
 
Well, mark your calender J, I think this is about as close to agreement as we have ever been.....Peace!

LMAO

thats funny

like i always said we most certainly do not ever have to agree, hell i dont care if we NEVER agree lol. The conversations just have to be clear and honest and genuine.

if either of us are talking opinions then thats what it is but if its facts we are taking thats what it is. To many times people mix that line and dont simply admit it. I myself have done it and admitted i typed a bad sentences of inclusively called something a fact/opinion that shouldn't have been called that.

later
 
refer to post #805. Your opinions are valueless.

Btw, there are many types of logic, however there is no such thing as "factual logic". And once again, not an equal rights issue (except in YOUR opinion, which you have renedered valueless).


the law and courts disagree with your failed opinion
your deflecitons fail again
Facts destroy your failed post
and as always if you disagree PLEASE show us any FACTS equal rights being granted to gays leading to a slippery slope of something else, we cant wait to read it!
 
1.)tell that to the 3 states supreme courts that already did so and disagree with your basely false opinion
2.) good thing thats factually not what equal rights for gays is about

your mistake, next time try to understand whats actually going on,

Neither the SCOTUS nor any US court has the grant to determine "fundamental rights". They only have the grant to determine CONSTITUTIONAL rights. You confuse flowery rah-rah speech for legal precedent.
 
Neither the SCOTUS nor any US court has the grant to determine "fundamental rights". They only have the grant to determine CONSTITUTIONAL rights. You confuse flowery rah-rah speech for legal precedent.

that's a nice opinion of what you think has been said but its meaningless to the facts, but please feel free to make up more lies and strawmen.
Facts destroy your failed post
and as always if you disagree PLEASE show us any FACTS equal rights being granted to gays leading to a slippery slope of something else, we cant wait to read it!
 
Interesting that you use as your authority on the matter an entity that has yet to define the "right" of marriage to be extended to same sex couples. What could be taking them so long?

Likely because a gay man is still a man and is treated exactly like any other man, a gay woman is still a woman and is treated exactly like any other woman. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom