• 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!

Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162:334]

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Penrod said:
So lets anyone marry anyone and anything they like. Why the hell not. It wont effect me.
Click to expand...

Yeah, once people were able to marry across racial lines it was all downhill from there.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Cardinal said:
Ah, so now anyone who can't have children, straight or gay, has come into your crosshairs. Nice.
Click to expand...

You can discuss something without it being "into your crosshairs."

I did go to the gun range yesterday and put some paper targets in my crosshairs.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Penrod said:
The right to marry someone of the same sex. I dont have it nor do i want it. Its retarded.
Click to expand...

The Right for a man to marry a man, just like a woman has the right to marry a man.

and

The Right for a woman to marry a woman, just like a man has the right to marry a woman.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Deuce said:
Invents reasons? They're barred from getting married and people like you are trying to make Jim Crow make a comeback for the gays.
Click to expand...

What a bunch of overstated, self-absorbed, codependent psychobabble.

They're not "barred". You can't be barred from something that can't be by basic definition. We're twisting the definition of a word to placate them so they can play pretend. Nothing more. Doesn't change what real marriage is.

And with that, I've spent WAY too much time on this ridiculous subject the past 24 hours. Hasta la vista.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Cardinal said:
Yeah, once people were able to marry across racial lines it was all downhill from there.
Click to expand...

Not the same thing in the least. They fit the laws but were denied marriage despite that.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Texmex said:
You can discuss something without it being "into your crosshairs."

I did go to the gun range yesterday and put some paper targets in my crosshairs.
Click to expand...
First off there is no right to marry. Its a privilege granted by the state.
So why limit it to two people?
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

disneydude said:
Yes...you are correct...this will pass and as society becomes more and more accepting of gays and gay marriage, it is going to become like inter-racial marriage, which used to be a big deal, but now isn't really much of a deal at all, except among the extreme bigots of the world.
Click to expand...

It is NOTHING like interracial marriage. Stop trying to paint and equate yourself as some sort of long-mistreated race of people that has endured struggles through history. It's dumb and illogical. You're just guys that prefer sex with other guys. That's it. You've never been forced to do hard labor or refused access to a university or disallowed from using a public bathroom.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Penrod said:
Not the same thing in the least. They fit the laws but were denied marriage despite that.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Lursa said:
Not slaves, the civil rights of blacks, as in during Jim Crow, etc.
More like not being able to marry a white person.....which was overturned.
Click to expand...

It is so blatantly pathetic and absurd to try and equate racial inequalities and interracial marriage to homosexuality.

It reminds me of when athletes say they're "going to war" with their teammates. No, no you're not going to war, but whatever floats your boat, Biff.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Penrod said:
First off there is no right to marry. Its a privilege granted by the state.
So why limit it to two people?
Click to expand...

Wrongo.

Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority in the Loving vs. Virginia ruling:

"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 ...

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Erod said:
It is NOTHING like interracial marriage. Stop trying to paint and equate yourself as some sort of long-mistreated race of people that has endured struggles through history. It's dumb and illogical. You're just guys that prefer sex with other guys. That's it. You've never been forced to do hard labor or refused access to a university or disallowed from using a public bathroom.
Click to expand...

actually it is like interracial marriage, its an equal and civil rights issue
also notice how he didn't say SLAVERY he said interracial marriage.

also notice how recent judge rulings have made DIRECT comparassion to the discrimination of interracial marriage in their rulings
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Anthony60 said:
Ah, liberal misdirection.
Why would I need to talk about gun rights? Oh, wait you are using it as an analogy because it's down on the list, but then, incredibly, you give an example of democrats bringing it up by banning guns, specifically protected in the Constitution. Nice fail.
Click to expand...
So even fewer conservatives think increasing gun control is a problem?
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Erod said:
What a bunch of overstated, self-absorbed, codependent psychobabble.

They're not "barred". You can't be barred from something that can't be by basic definition. We're twisting the definition of a word to placate them so they can play pretend. Nothing more. Doesn't change what real marriage is.

And with that, I've spent WAY too much time on this ridiculous subject the past 24 hours. Hasta la vista.
Click to expand...

By this logic, EVERYONE who is getting married is just "playing pretend".

You do realize that Marriage is a man made construct, yes? It's not naturally occuring. There's no universal verifiable definition of what marriage can or can't be. It's all a construct of man.

This isn't like saying "The definition of water is two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom", where one can verifiably and definitively note that it's true.

Marriage is a man made construct. The "definition" of the word was created by man and has been changed in various ways throughout the years and throughout different cultures.

What's "real marriage" as opposed to what? "Fake" marriage? "Imaginary" marriage?
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Erod said:
It is NOTHING like interracial marriage. Stop trying to paint and equate yourself as some sort of long-mistreated race of people that has endured struggles through history. It's dumb and illogical. You're just guys that prefer sex with other guys. That's it. You've never been forced to do hard labor or refused access to a university or disallowed from using a public bathroom.
Click to expand...

The arguments are the same, which is why challenges to bans on gay marriage based on the 14th amendments are equally successful as the challenge to laws against interracial marriage.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Texmex said:
Yea, right! I've been married to my wife since 1972. I wonder if perverted relationships last that long. We didn't need anyone donating their children to us, we had our own.
Click to expand...

My girlfriends uncle has been with his man for almost thirty years now and from what I can tell, very happy
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Erod said:
It is NOTHING like interracial marriage. Stop trying to paint and equate yourself as some sort of long-mistreated race of people that has endured struggles through history. It's dumb and illogical. You're just guys that prefer sex with other guys. That's it. You've never been forced to do hard labor or refused access to a university or disallowed from using a public bathroom.
Click to expand...

Civil rights is not only about race...that could be a potential source of your confusion on SSM.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Cardinal said:
That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Really? The law states marriage is between one man and one woman. It does not say of the same race. So interracial marriage fits the law while homosexual does not.

And do you have to be gay or in love to marry another man? Maybe i want to do it to get a mortgage i could not qualify for if I were not married.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Erod said:
It is so blatantly pathetic and absurd to try and equate racial inequalities and interracial marriage to homosexuality.

It reminds me of when athletes say they're "going to war" with their teammates. No, no you're not going to war, but whatever floats your boat, Biff.
Click to expand...

nope they are both equal rights and civil rights issues as pointed out in judge rulings :shrug:

also not only is your assessment wrong but so is your example/analogy

might want to look up the word war
two different examples for dictionaries
webster
b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces
google
a state of competition, conflict, or hostility between different people or groups.
"she was at war with her parents"

so those using war like you described, yes, yes they are using the word correctly
you're welcome, glad i could help out
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Penrod said:
Really? The law states marriage is between one man and one woman.
Click to expand...

The law in which state? Those laws are being successively shot down for being unconstitutional.

It does not say of the same race. So interracial marriage fits the law while homosexual does not.
Click to expand...

That's because Loving vs. Virginia declared laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional.

Penrod said:
And do you have to be gay or in love to marry another man? Maybe i want to do it to get a mortgage i could not qualify for if I were not married.
Click to expand...

It's not my business to tell you why you should marry another adult.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Penrod said:
Really? The law states marriage is between one man and one woman. It does not say of the same race. So interracial marriage fits the law while homosexual does not.
Click to expand...

Wait...are you suggesting that the laws on the books prior to Loving didn't indicate that Marriage was between one man and one woman, as long as they were both colored or white? The entire point of loving was combatting the laws in VA that prohibited marriage of "white" people with "colored" people

And do you have to be gay or in love to marry another man? Maybe i want to do it to get a mortgage i could not qualify for if I were not married.
Click to expand...

Do you have to be heterosexual or in love to marry a woman as a man, or a man as a woman?
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Texmex said:
Yea, right! I've been married to my wife since 1972. I wonder if perverted relationships last that long. We didn't need anyone donating their children to us, we had our own.
Click to expand...

how does someone 'donate' children to you? Children from all broken relations, perverted or not, are cared for as best as posible by the state, social organizations, religious groups, and volunteers.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Cardinal said:
The law in which state? Those laws are being successively shot down for being unconstitutional.



That's because Loving vs. Virginia declared laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional.



It's not my business to tell you why you should marry another adult.
Click to expand...

Wrongly

And again why should i be limited to one person or a person at all?
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Zyphlin said:
Wait...are you suggesting that the laws on the books prior to Loving didn't indicate that Marriage was between one man and one woman, as long as they were both colored or white? The entire point of loving was combatting the laws in VA that prohibited marriage of "white" people with "colored" people


Do you have to be heterosexual or in love to marry a woman as a man, or a man as a woman?
Click to expand...

That is clearly unconstitutional as they are using race. Is homosexuality now a race? Can I tell you are homosexual just by looking at you? Is discrimination in any form unconstitutional?

Do you even have to love someone to marry them? This is a canard. Love is an emotion and nothing to base law upon. There are many reasons to marry love being only one of them.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Penrod said:
Wrongly

And again why should i be limited to one person or a person at all?
Click to expand...

Penrod said:
That is clearly unconstitutional as they are using race. Is homosexuality now a race? Can I tell you are homosexual just by looking at you? Is discrimination in any form unconstitutional?

Do you even have to love someone to marry them? This is a canard. Love is an emotion and nothing to base law upon. There are many reasons to marry love being only one of them.
Click to expand...

Not wrongly. Gender is a protected classification much in the same way that race is a protected classification. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is a gender-based distinction that is subject to an equal protection challenge, which requires the state to justify the distinction as being part of an "important state interest" and that the measure is "substantially related" to that interest.

Name the state interest in banning same-sex marriage, mr. so-called libertarian.

Discrimination is not always unconstitutional, no.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Penrod said:
Wrongly
Click to expand...

As your arguments fail, it's irrelevant that you think so.

Penrod said:
And again why should i be limited to one person or a person at all?
Click to expand...

In order to understand the silliness of the slippery slope route, you have to back up:

"Once they allow people of different nationalities to marry, they'll be allowed to marry their table."
"Once they allow people of different religious faiths to marry, they'll be allowed to marry their table."
"Once they allow people of different races to marry, they'll etc. etc."

So if you're going to make the slipper slope argument, remember to start at the top of the slope.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom