• 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!

Texas Gay Marriage Ban Latest to Be Struck Down[W:97]

1.)Facts? you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass.
2.)A Civil union can be defined as whatever you want
3.), your problem is you want to ignore that reality and not go through the work of defining a civil union.
4.)Instead you want to overturn centuries of precedence and common law.

1.)Yes! give us that anger its awesome
2.) 100% false.
facts disagree with you and prove you 100% wrong so do court cases, Facts win again
3.) see #2
4.) actually this is exactly what makes it a fact that Civil unions are not equal to marriage.

I love it please keep doubling down on this none sense its awesome

facts win again
 
LOL so states can allow rape? thank you for this post because it just helps prove us all right, thank you so much

i cant wait to tell people that states can allow rape whenever they want

That isn't even worth a response
 
1.)Yes! give us that anger its awesome
2.) 100% false.
facts disagree with you and prove you 100% wrong so do court cases, Facts win again
3.) see #2
4.) actually this is exactly what makes it a fact that Civil unions are not equal to marriage.

I love it please keep doubling down on this none sense its awesome

facts win again

There are no facts that you offer, just opinions, the SC will provide the facts if they rule on the definition of marriage. The only fact that is legitimate is that states have laws on the books defining marriage. Some allow SSM whereas others don't. You are easily confused as to what is an opinion and what is a fact. Civil Unions can be whatever the people want and the state and Federal Govt. agree to. there is no reason that a civil union cannot have the same benefits as being married.
 
1.)There are no facts that you offer, just opinions, the SC will provide the facts if they rule on the definition of marriage.
2.)The only fact that is legitimate is that states have laws on the books defining marriage.
3.)Some allow SSM whereas others don't.
4.)You are easily confused as to what is an opinion and what is a fact.
5.)Civil Unions can be whatever the people want and the state and Federal Govt. agree to. there is no reason that a civil union cannot have the same benefits as being married.

1.)except for the court cases and facts that prove you wrong. Civil union s are factually not equal to marriage, keep saying otherwise and each post will be wrong
2.) yes some do, meaningless lol
3.) see #2
4.) you keep saying this but havent provided any examples, therefor its a failure
5.) once again facts, LAWS and court cases prove you wrong. Civil unions are factually not equal to a marriage, once again your opinion cant change this fact but i love that you keep posting they are, it exposes your posts for the factual failure they are.

defend your factually false claim

tell us how a civil union grants the rights of marriage
tell us how a civil union grants the almost 1200 rights and protections marriage does, tell us how it grants the states rights and protections also, I cant wait to read this!
 
Who's not equal? No one can marry someone of the same sex heterosexual or otherwise. That sounds pretty equal.

Which is why women are not equal to men (I, because I am a woman, cannot marry another woman, but any man can) and men are not equal to women (my brother, because he is a man, cannot marry a man, but any woman can). This makes everyone have more equality giving everyone the ability to marry regardless of their sex/gender.
 
This just makes me laugh because here (a little bit) and on other forums, people have staunchly declared that TX would never allow SSM. They esp. relied proudly on it being explicitly written into their state constitution.

I laughed at them then too. If I start reading about TX seceding over it (again), I'll laugh even more.
 
Well if its decided it is to be banned would you sit down and be quiet? Don't answer that I know your answer, only you're rights matter so there'll never be an end to the nonsense. We don't have to accept you we just have to tolerate you.

Nope. I refuse to not fight against inequality or injustices.

This is about everyone's rights and no one's rights are ever infringed upon just because same sex couples are allowed to marry legally. You cannot show how your rights are infringed upon by same sex marriages at all.
 
You mean pretend Christian? If you do not believe the word and mock it with laughter,
you are not a Christian.

Making sinful acts acts legal serves only to putting another nail in the coffin.

Have at it.

Whose coffin?

So many Christians seem to forget that God is the only Judge.
 
What I would like is activist judges to stay the hell out of my state's business.

You other folks in other states want to deny God, be my guest.

How unAmerican, to suggest that the states should base law on a religious belief...and not even a universal one. Last I checked, every state, even TX married atheists, all religions, and all sinners. Even felons, fornicators and adulterers are allowed to marry. What's God's opinion on that?
 
No apparently they didn't teach you history in your school. If it isn't in the Constitution it becomes a state issue if the states enact the laws which they have. You talk about limited govt but now want the Federal Govt. to overturn state law all because it is important to you.

States defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. You want that changed then let the people of the state decide. You live in Oklahoma, that isn't going to happen so you trump up some bogus argument about equal protection for something that isn't in the Constitution.

If you married a woman then why is this such an issue for you? The high court had its chances over and over again so you better stick with the states

And states did define marriages as between two people of the same race (struck down by Loving v VA), people not incarcerated (struck down at least to a large degree by Turner v Safley), and anyone not behind on child support (struck down by Zablocki v Redhail). State laws are subject to limitations of the 14th Amendment and the EPC.
 
1.)except for the court cases and facts that prove you wrong. Civil union s are factually not equal to marriage, keep saying otherwise and each post will be wrong
2.) yes some do, meaningless lol
3.) see #2
4.) you keep saying this but havent provided any examples, therefor its a failure
5.) once again facts, LAWS and court cases prove you wrong. Civil unions are factually not equal to a marriage, once again your opinion cant change this fact but i love that you keep posting they are, it exposes your posts for the factual failure they are.

defend your factually false claim

tell us how a civil union grants the rights of marriage
tell us how a civil union grants the almost 1200 rights and protections marriage does, tell us how it grants the states rights and protections also, I cant wait to read this!

Yes, it is a fact that lower courts have made a ruling but it isn't a fact that SSM has been determined as the definition of marriage, that will be determined by the SC or a Constitutional Amendment, then you will have your fact

Thank you, yes some do and some don't, that is a fact

Thank you, yes, some do and some don't, that is indeed a fact

I said you provided opinions and that is all lower courts have done and that is all you have done, provided opinion. A fact is something that cannot be refuted, your argument for SSM can be refuted by those states that haven't changed the definition

Laws on the books are fact, rulings are opinions, The SC makes the ultimate ruling then it becomes a fact unless there is a Constitutional Amendment and that would be a fact as well

The state of TX has authorized civil unions that entitle those involved with the same rights as married couples and all the financial benefits as well. That is a fact
 
And states did define marriages as between two people of the same race (struck down by Loving v VA), people not incarcerated (struck down at least to a large degree by Turner v Safley), and anyone not behind on child support (struck down by Zablocki v Redhail). State laws are subject to limitations of the 14th Amendment and the EPC.

You really don't understand Loving vs. Va thus are a waste of time. Educate yourself and get back to me. It had nothing to do with same sex and everything to do with race. You people have been brainwashed, all must be Obama supporters because if the Obama team says it, then it must be true. Equal protection has nothing to do with marriage because marriage is a state issue and not defined in the Constitution. Get back to me when you figure out what Loving vs. Va actually did and who the principles were
 
Nice try! LOL!
Which is why women are not equal to men (I, because I am a woman, cannot marry another woman, but any man can) and men are not equal to women (my brother, because he is a man, cannot marry a man, but any woman can). This makes everyone have more equality giving everyone the ability to marry regardless of their sex/gender.
 
He's just afraid of the mindless PC crowd screaming before the next election.

He's a big *****.

Was the fight for civil rights for women and blacks just "PC" too?
 
If I did you'd only say it ain't so, why bother trying to explain.
Nope. I refuse to not fight against inequality or injustices.

This is about everyone's rights and no one's rights are ever infringed upon just because same sex couples are allowed to marry legally. You cannot show how your rights are infringed upon by same sex marriages at all.
 
Yes, it is a fact that lower courts have made a ruling but it isn't a fact that SSM has been determined as the definition of marriage, that will be determined by the SC or a Constitutional Amendment, then you will have your fact
2.)Thank you, yes some do and some don't, that is a fact
3.)Thank you, yes, some do and some don't, that is indeed a fact
4.)I said you provided opinions and that is all lower courts have done and that is all you have done, provided opinion. A fact is something that cannot be refuted, your argument for SSM can be refuted by those states that haven't changed the definition. Laws on the books are fact, rulings are opinions, The SC makes the ultimate ruling then it becomes a fact unless there is a Constitutional Amendment and that would be a fact as well
5.)The state of TX has authorized civil unions that entitle those involved with the same rights as married couples and all the financial benefits as well. That is a fact

1.) good grief who was even talking about this between us, oh i get it its just one of thos emeanignless opinion based rants you go on to try and deflect and feel right. well it didnt work
2.) meaningless
3.) meaningless
5.) see #1. The facts and courts prove YOU wrong for your posted lie about civil unions lol you are making so much up and your posts are being destoryed so bad you cant even keep track of the discussion, you fail again
5.) thank you for posting this because it further shows how severely uneducated you are on this topic and how factually wrong you are, tell me that cool line about not knowing what a fact is again because yours is about to get destoryed

so that civil union gets all 1200 federal rights and protections that marriage does? nope
does every state recognize that as marriage and give it all the rights and protections that come with marriage? nope

once again, your post is destroyed and facts win, thanks for playing

now you can stop posting the lie that civil unions are equal to marriage
 
You really don't understand Loving vs. Va thus are a waste of time. Educate yourself and get back to me. It had nothing to do with same sex and everything to do with race. You people have been brainwashed, all must be Obama supporters because if the Obama team says it, then it must be true. Equal protection has nothing to do with marriage because marriage is a state issue and not defined in the Constitution. Get back to me when you figure out what Loving vs. Va actually did and who the principles were

And you clearly do not understand the EPC at all. It does not just cover race, but many other characteristics used to make restrictions within laws. I gave you other laws that were struck down related to state's marriage restrictions. You ignored them.
 
If I did you'd only say it ain't so, why bother trying to explain.

You can't explain at all because your rights are not being infringed upon. You do not have the right to have something you voted for not be overturned because it violates some part of the Constitution. You do not have the right to make restrictions on laws, even marriage, that cannot be justified as furthering a legitimate state interest when challenged.
 
Nice try! LOL!

Legal fact. Dispute it, I dare you. It is just as equivalent as "a black man does not have the same rights as a white man because a white man can marry a white woman but a black man can't".
 
Yes, it is a fact that lower courts have made a ruling but it isn't a fact that SSM has been determined as the definition of marriage, that will be determined by the SC or a Constitutional Amendment, then you will have your fact

Thank you, yes some do and some don't, that is a fact

Thank you, yes, some do and some don't, that is indeed a fact

I said you provided opinions and that is all lower courts have done and that is all you have done, provided opinion. A fact is something that cannot be refuted, your argument for SSM can be refuted by those states that haven't changed the definition

Laws on the books are fact, rulings are opinions, The SC makes the ultimate ruling then it becomes a fact unless there is a Constitutional Amendment and that would be a fact as well

The state of TX has authorized civil unions that entitle those involved with the same rights as married couples and all the financial benefits as well. That is a fact

Same sex marriage won't be the "definition of marriage". Same sex marriage will merely be allowed to legally occur alongside/with opposite sex marriages.

You apparently have very little understanding of how our legal system works. Precedent is a major part of laws in our country.
 
Well you are having trouble reading, I'm sorry let me help you. It's a "law" will you obey it, key word being "law". I certainly don't know what motivates you and don't care but I doubt we have very much in common. Well I don't agree it's my right to have religious beliefs that are superceeded by a "feel-good" liberal agendas. That said I still am obligated to obey the "law". Break out your bong and relax.

How are your religious beliefs being affected? Will you lose your faith? Will your marriage mean less? Is your ability to practice your religion being restricted?
 
1.) good grief who was even talking about this between us, oh i get it its just one of thos emeanignless opinion based rants you go on to try and deflect and feel right. well it didnt work
2.) meaningless
3.) meaningless
5.) see #1. The facts and courts prove YOU wrong for your posted lie about civil unions lol you are making so much up and your posts are being destoryed so bad you cant even keep track of the discussion, you fail again
5.) thank you for posting this because it further shows how severely uneducated you are on this topic and how factually wrong you are, tell me that cool line about not knowing what a fact is again because yours is about to get destoryed

so that civil union gets all 1200 federal rights and protections that marriage does? nope
does every state recognize that as marriage and give it all the rights and protections that come with marriage? nope

once again, your post is destroyed and facts win, thanks for playing

now you can stop posting the lie that civil unions are equal to marriage

I will wait until you actually find out the definition of a fact, it is a fact that rulings were made but it is also those rulings were opinions. If those rulings were indeed fact then we wouldn't be having this argument here and SSM would be legal in 50 states. The lower courts understood that they didn't have that authority thus their opinions have to be validated. I would have thought someone of your superior intelligence would understand that. Being a legend comes with responsibility and you have yet to prove you even have a clue what a fact is
 
Same sex marriage won't be the "definition of marriage". Same sex marriage will merely be allowed to legally occur alongside/with opposite sex marriages.

You apparently have very little understanding of how our legal system works. Precedent is a major part of laws in our country.

The what is your problem and why waste your time here. The issue is solved in your opinion. I don't think you are going to like the outcome of the SC decision or the Constitutional Amendment that the American people will pass.

I have a complete understanding of how the laws in this country work and you better stick with selling your position to the states and quit fighting this in court. You cannot have same sex "marriage" and still not have the definition of marriage defined.
 
Do you know the impact of deviate sexual behavior on a society over an extended period of time? Can you prove it or do we just have to live it?
You can't explain at all because your rights are not being infringed upon. You do not have the right to have something you voted for not be overturned because it violates some part of the Constitution. You do not have the right to make restrictions on laws, even marriage, that cannot be justified as furthering a legitimate state interest when challenged.
 
Back
Top Bottom