• 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!

Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

tres borrachos said:
You think not getting a piece of paper is a tragedy.
Click to expand...
If you feel the need to reduce your argument to the absurd, I'm cool with that.

"Marriage is just a piece of paper"

Go on with your bad self.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Marriage isn't a "civil right."
Click to expand...

every time you repeat this lie its destroyed with links and facts. Repeating it will never make it true.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Religion was generally ALWAYS behind marriage, except in a few instances such as arranged marriage to join powerful families, however outside of that - religion was the bond. It certainly wasn't government, except for the few aforementioned examples.
Click to expand...

religion is meaningless to legal marriage this fact wont change and this strawman is a complete failure like all your arguments on this issue
 
AGENT J said:
of course would you ever deny somebody you think is hot tights? :D
Click to expand...

Hell no, which is why I'm surprised people are denying tights to anyone! My husband loves me in black tights. They also keep my legs and tootsies warm.;)
 
Mr.Nick said:
The word "marriage" is highly subjective to the English language.
Click to expand...


Which is why you will see me attempt to always refer to it as "Civil Marriage", establishing of a family relationship between two consenting adults under the law.

It prevents confusion for those that assume that "Religious Marriage" has anything to do with the law.



>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
I'm sorry Vesper, if you think "Civil Unions" are going to fix the issue of Public Accommodation laws - you are mistaken.

Sweetcakes by Mellisa (Oregon) - There was no Civil Marriage at the time in Oregon, the baker ran afoul of Public Accommodation for failure to provide service to a homosexual couple even though their was no Civil Marraige in the State.

Elane Photography (New Mexico) - There was no Civil Marriage at the time in New Mexico, the photographer ran afoul of Public Accommodation for failure to provide service to a homosexual couple even though their was no Civil Marraige in the State.

Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado) - There was no Civil Marriage at the time in Colorado, the baker ran afoul of Public Accommodation for failure to provide service to a homosexual couple even though their was no Civil Marraige in the State.​


Even if the State offers "Civil Unions" individuals are still free to call their ceremony a wedding and, under the laws in such states, would be in violation of the law for not providing full and equal services.


>>>>
Click to expand...

Maybe, but dammit I'm sick and tired of people being forced to compromise their moral conscience just to make a living. It's friggin wrong on so many counts. One can only hope that more and more states will pass protection laws for them.
 
WorldWatcher said:
Which is why you will see me attempt to always refer to it as "Civil Marriage", establishing of a family relationship between two consenting adults under the law.

It prevents confusion for those that assume that "Religious Marriage" has anything to do with the law.



>>>>
Click to expand...

I'm fine with that and I agree with that, however that doesn't change my opinion that government shouldn't be involved...

IMO, government shouldn't be involved in marriage/unions.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No, as usual you are VERY entertaining.

Tell me, since you are "pro gay marriage", then you agree with Walker's decision?
Click to expand...

Since you're asking, you may want to read all my posts that I made in this thread on the subject to get the answer you seek.

Is there any reason you put "pro gay marriage" in quotes, or do you just like the quote buttons on your keyboard?
 
once again i LOVE the fear that equal rights brings out in SOME people. Its hilarious watching them come up with failed starwman after strawman when everybody honest and educated simply sees right through them and knows they simply want to deny others rights. They want the discrimination and inequality to continue simply because its not THEIR rights that are effected and nobody is fooled.

THe reality is the majority of Americans simply care about equal rights, I want my fellow americans to have thier rights protected just like mine are. If rights like these bother a person theres always russia :)

so I guess a refresher for those misinformed and on the wrong side

in America I its fine for anybody to:
THINK its wrong, gross or offensive etc
TEACH its wrong gross or offensive etc
PREACH its wrong gross or offensive etc
BELIEVE its wrong gross or offensive etc
FEEL its wrong gross or offensive etc
etc

but you do NOT get to infringe on others rights, equality is winning so youll just have to get over that part of it and it wont affect you, you will still be free to do the above.

also complete failed and lost arguments that will never get taken seriously on the issue of equal rights and legal marriage

Religion/god/bible etc – failed
Slipper slope argument: I should be able to marry my dog, pedophiles marring children etc. failed

Marriage is between a man and woman – failed
Marriage is about giving birth - failed

Morals – your morals are subjective, shouldn’t be forced on others and your morals aren’t affected one bit, you still get to believe in them as you see fit. failed

Gay Parents will “turn” their kids gay – LMAO this is also a uneducated fantasy and failed. It has been proven that that children raised by gay parents are no more likely to be or not be gay. It has also been proven that children raised in a multi-parent home on average do better than a single parent home no matter the sex. Ignorant and debunked

Churches will lose their rights – another silly argument that appeals to emotion and could probably be added under the “slipper slope” argument as well. Churches are already protected and will never lose their rights, they discriminate RIGHT NOW against who they want including STRAIGHT couples and will be able to continue to do so under the first amendment. Ludicrous and debunked

Activist Judges - lol well there are like 60+ of them now so thats failed too

what other failed arguments can be added to the list?
 
Why would anyone want to get married in the eyes of the government anyways?

Family, friends, church sure - but government?

Makes no sense to me.

What does a piece of paper mean?

PROBLEMS! ha..
 
Mr.Nick said:
Really?

So you're arguing survival of the fittest??

Then why don't stray cats or dogs get married?

Oh yeah because everything you just said makes no damn sense whatsoever.

Also, you may as well argue against selective breeding to boot.
Click to expand...

You do realize that we have higher cognitive functions than a cat or dog, right? We learn things, including the fact that there is an advantage to more than one adult providing resources/protection/guidance for our young.
 
vesper said:
Maybe, but dammit I'm sick and tired of people being forced to compromise their moral conscience just to make a living. It's friggin wrong on so many counts. One can only hope that more and more states will pass protection laws for them.
Click to expand...

good thing they arent being forced, they have to play by the same rules has ALL OF US, you want them to get special treatment, no thanks
 
Mr.Nick said:
Why would anyone want to get married in the eyes of the government anyways?

Family, friends, church sure - but government?

Makes no sense to me.

What does a piece of paper mean?

PROBLEMS! ha..
Click to expand...

The government grants the recognition of legal relationship. The personal marriage is done in whatever way the couple wishes. If they don't want to involve anyone else, they don't have to.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
So, it should not be involved in civil contract?
Click to expand...

I suppose that's up to the individuals involved in such a transaction/agreement.

In the eyes of the law that's all marriage is anyways...
 
tres borrachos said:
Since you're asking, you may want to read all my posts that I made in this thread on the subject to get the answer you seek.
Click to expand...
I just searched, your only mention Walker in conversation with me, no answer in those.....so again:

Tell me, since you are "pro gay marriage", then you agree with Walker's decision?

Is there any reason you put "pro gay marriage" in quotes, or do you just like the quote buttons on your keyboard?
Click to expand...
Yes, because on one hand you claim to support it, but then you object to the most basic points on which the CA decision rests (the civil rights aspect), further, you reject the other basic point that it is "not a civil right".....along with the hilarity that it is "just a piece of paper".

I keep trying to find how....or why....you support it, but you keep giving reasons NOT supporting it.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I'm fine with that and I agree with that, however that doesn't change my opinion that government shouldn't be involved...

IMO, government shouldn't be involved in marriage/unions.
Click to expand...

you are free to that opinion but its meaningless
and luckily for YOU, unlike others, you are free to have a marriage with no government involved so you already have what you want.
equal rights is winning so youll just have to move on but you are free to keep your opinions.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I suppose that's up to the individuals involved in such a transaction/agreement.
Click to expand...

exactly so then stop trying to deny them that choice and that right
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I just searched, your only mention Walker in conversation with me, no answer in those.....so again:

Tell me, since you are "pro gay marriage", then you agree with Walker's decision?

Yes, because on one hand you claim to support it, but then you object to the most basic points on which the CA decision rests (the civil rights aspect), further, you reject the other basic point that it is "not a civil right".....along with the hilarity that it is "just a piece of paper".

I keep trying to find how....or why....you support it, but you keep giving reasons NOT supporting it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I never said I didn't support it. I said the opposite. Read my posts in this thread again.

You think a marriage certificate is the be all, end all of a happy union. I don't. We disagree. Isn't America grand?
 
Mr.Nick said:
I suppose that's up to the individuals involved in such a transaction/agreement.
Click to expand...
Again, I'll ask: do you believe the state should be involved in civil contract, ie should the state protect the rights of individuals who create contract involving laws of the state?
 
roguenuke said:
The government grants the recognition of legal relationship. The personal marriage is done in whatever way the couple wishes. If they don't want to involve anyone else, they don't have to.
Click to expand...

Nope, that is absolutely wrong.

The government doesn't grant me "legal relationship" when I want to date a woman. I don't have to ask the government first then sign a bunch of papers if I want to ask a lady out.

Sure in Afghanistan it may cost a couple of goats and a flogging or two if the woman isn't conservative, but here in the US I'm not obligated to anything.
 
AGENT J said:
you are free to that opinion but its meaningless
and luckily for YOU, unlike others, you are free to have a marriage with no government involved so you already have what you want.
equal rights is winning so youll just have to move on but you are free to keep your opinions.
Click to expand...

Tights for all!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom