• 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 strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287:411]

Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

So this isnt a serious proposal, right?

For one thing, you dont seem to realize that gay people reproduce 'naturally' all the time...men sire babies, women have babies. Unless you suggest NOW, that mixed straight families also have to settle for civil unions? You know, where they have adopted kids (none of their DNA!!!!), step-kids (only one's DNA), used artificial means to get pregnant, etc?

And I thought that marriage (it's legal...that's the entire discussion) was a strictly religious convention and to be used only for the religious. You wrote that.

If that's the case, let anyone who wants to marry do so...in their church, in the Eyes of God..and not worry about the legal aspect. Dont need any license. Why do they care? It's about love and babies and God....not tax benefits. Right?

My arguement changed when I was informed that we are debating LEGAL aspects of marraige not RELIGIOUS aspects of marraige. And would it really take the air out of my tires if gay marraige becomes federally recognized? NO in fact I will be happy for the gay community, I am simply being the devil's advocate in this debate and citing possible consequences to a change in law that will have a large effect on culture in general.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

There is a "slippery slope" LAW IS by its very nature a SERIES of slippery slopes as all past law, and future law is based on PRECEDENT assuming you are a liberal this should be a very foreign idea to you. It is that past laws and present laws effect FUTURE laws in the same way that past decisions by SCOTUS are typically cited in current decisions by SCOTUS. And to single out the word "Bestiality" out of the other examples such as "polygamy" and the whole foot mannequin thing... anyways I find it rather disturbing that you try to discredit my opinion with by saying that no "educated or honest person" could take it seriously. No my good sir just no Progressive LibDems will take me seriously (Not that I care what the LibDems think).

Equal treatment under different names is still equal treatment. If we are going to argue for semantics purposes and semantics solely than it is not an arguement worth having. IF the LGBT wishes to throw my proposal away due to "semantics" then so be it it simply prooves how rigged, furvent, and blind progressive libdems of the LGBT truely are. Hopefully more people in the LGBT will realize that conservatives are simply concerned about the precedent this sets for future lawmakers and future activist groups.

Your argument is only based on semantics! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Seriously.

And again....you display ignorance of the law. Animals cannot consent, mannequins cannot consent...they cannot be a party to legal contracts.

As for polygamy, who cares? I think it's a bad idea for most people (mainly women) but consenting adults can make their own choices. As long as they receive no more tax breaks or benefits than couples, makes no difference to me. I'm not judging people by my own beliefs and trying to force them on others.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

My arguement changed when I was informed that we are debating LEGAL aspects of marraige not RELIGIOUS aspects of marraige. And would it really take the air out of my tires if gay marraige becomes federally recognized? NO in fact I will be happy for the gay community, I am simply being the devil's advocate in this debate and citing possible consequences to a change in law that will have a large effect on culture in general.

?? The religious aspects of marriage are unaffected by SSM....it doesnt change marriage for anyone else. How could it?

Apologies if I misunderstood.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

I always find it something of a statistical anomaly how those most opposed to same sex marriage always manage to have the largest number of gay friends, or at least have come across a larger number of gay people in their lives than anyone else has while living in Portland or San Francisco.

Yeah and how they act all polite in these threads then send gay posters PMs with 3 lines of "faggot"

The threads might get boring if none replied to them but i'm done trying to reason with those types, only to be met by that and dinged by mods in addition
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Your argument is only based on semantics! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Seriously.

And again....you display ignorance of the law. Animals cannot consent, mannequins cannot consent...they cannot be a party to legal contracts.

As for polygamy, who cares? I think it's a bad idea for most people (mainly women) but consenting adults can make their own choices. As long as they receive no more tax breaks or benefits than couples, makes no difference to me. I'm not judging people by my own beliefs and trying to force them on others.

Very well constructed counter arguement and I see your point and by seeing it I grant those points to you as valid and true. I suppose this is a situation I should do a bit more soul searching on in an attempt to further evolve and develop a more informed opinion on. Thank you Lursa.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Very well constructed counter arguement and I see your point and by seeing it I grant those points to you as valid and true. I suppose this is a situation I should do a bit more soul searching on in an attempt to further evolve and develop a more informed opinion on. Thank you Lursa.

Interesting. We may disagree but I admire someone who gives another a 2nd chance and at least tries to understand the discussion even if not agreeing.

I am a rather sarcastic poster...didnt realize you were new.

(flattery will get you everywhere! :doh)
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Interesting. We may disagree but I admire someone who gives another a 2nd chance and at least tries to understand the discussion even if not agreeing.

I am a rather sarcastic poster...didnt realize you were new.

(flattery will get you everywhere! :doh)

It is quite fine I am a rather sarcastic poster as well (I love satire...). While I see myself as a Libertarian-Right for the moment I am always open to evolving on issues which I don't feel I know enough about or haven't debated on enough to form an opinion. I look at debate as a dialogue and a chance to evolve and expose myself to contrarian ideas and beliefs. The whole point of a debate is to bring two opposing sides together, not to drive them apart. If the opposite were true debate would have no purpose now would it? ^_^
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Sorry had to sleep. Anyways I'm awake and ready for some action let me first start by saying I have many homosexual friends half of whom have made the very same arguement that I made to you and YES my friends happen to be CONSERVATIVE HOMOSEXUALS. Something that must be very foreign and quite oxymoronical to those of you on the left. However they make the case that the core of the LGBT wishes to do as much as possible to destroy conventional views and family lifestyles (keep in mind those conservatives IN the LGBT get shunned by the largely liberal group). One arguement that I have been presented with by people who are gay themselves is that this opens a very slippery slope. If we let gays marry then what? Polygamy? Beastiality? What about the man who is quite partial to that foot mannequin?? When you open something like marraige up to redefinition you open the flood gates for other objectors outside of the norm.


You are full of ****. You didn't have some "gay friend" say all this to you. These are your opinions, and you know they're ridiculous so you had to try and hide them behind an imaginary friend you think we'd be less likely to disagree with. Well, guess what? If your non-existant gay friend thinks this, they're an idiot.

Finally someone says something that makes sense diggin your post Card thank you for making that point.

I suppose you are right that some laws DO have merit those laws which are specifically designed to PROTECT the rights of individuals are ones I'd say have the most merits. Laws that restrict the rights of citizenry are laws that are ones to be more vigilant against. I mean I suppose at the end of the day the only thing that really matters is people being happy. Mostly I am concerned about some of my less open and homophobic friends further to the right of myself I worry that something like this could cause more harm than good with enough outrage.


Oh look. More bull****.
 
Last edited:
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

1.)There is a "slippery slope" LAW IS by its very nature a SERIES of slippery slopes as all past law, and future law is based on PRECEDENT
2.) assuming you are a liberal this should be a very foreign idea to you.
3.)It is that past laws and present laws effect FUTURE laws in the same way that past decisions by SCOTUS are typically cited in current decisions by SCOTUS.
4.) And to single out the word "Bestiality" out of the other examples such as "polygamy" and the whole foot mannequin thing...
5.)anyways I find it rather disturbing that you try to discredit my opinion with by saying that no "educated or honest person" could take it seriously.
6.)No my good sir just no Progressive LibDems will take me seriously (Not that I care what the LibDems think).

7.)Equal treatment under different names is still equal treatment.

8.) If we are going to argue for semantics purposes and semantics solely than it is not an arguement worth having.

9.) IF the LGBT wishes to throw my proposal away due to "semantics" then so be it it simply prooves how rigged, furvent, and blind progressive libdems of the LGBT truely are.

10.) Hopefully more people in the LGBT will realize that conservatives are simply concerned about the precedent this sets for future lawmakers and future activist groups.



1.) im so happy you mentioned PRECEDENCE and bolded it like it supports your failed and factually wrong claim when its exactly what proves your statement wrong..
if you think your factually wrong statement is true simply provide the precedent that can be used that is solely related to SSM to support beaslitalty.

2.) you assume wrong and this deflection further exposes how theres no accurate, logical, factual or legality based support for your claim

3.) see #1 this is what makes your statement wrong it doesnt support it

4.) use any one you want, it doesnt matter they will all fail based on the examples you provided. There is ZERO precedence that can be taken solely from Equal rights/SSM that lends itself to polgamy, beasitly or manniguins. Try it will be fun.

5.) again its not me that discredited the opinions and factually false statments you made its facts, laws rights, reality, legality and precedence that all do that. They all disagree with your false claim.

6.) another failed deflection, my statement stands nobody educated, honest and objective will ever take the comparison of equal rights to beastality seriously etc because it would be mentally retarded to actually thing those comparisons are parallel when they are not analogous and they are inane.

7.) factually false has history, law and rights prove and has was proven in post #293 which you totally dodged because it destroyed your failed statement.

8.) i agree your argument is worthless since facts, history, law, rights, precedence all easily defeat it

9.)the LBGT and all americans that support equal rights laugh and through it away because it is factually not equal which as already been proven and is further proven by the questions you dodge.

10.) please dont group your views with all conservatives millions of them disagree with you and support equal rights.

facts win again

again let us know when you have any facts that support your failed claims.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

1.) im so happy you mentioned PRECEDENCE and bolded it like it supports your failed and factually wrong claim when its exactly what proves your statement wrong..
if you think your factually wrong statement is true simply provide the precedent that can be used that is solely related to SSM to support beaslitalty.

2.) you assume wrong and this deflection further exposes how theres no accurate, logical, factual or legality based support for your claim

3.) see #1 this is what makes your statement wrong it doesnt support it

4.) use any one you want, it doesnt matter they will all fail based on the examples you provided. There is ZERO precedence that can be taken solely from Equal rights/SSM that lends itself to polgamy, beasitly or manniguins. Try it will be fun.

5.) again its not me that discredited the opinions and factually false statments you made its facts, laws rights, reality, legality and precedence that all do that. They all disagree with your false claim.

6.) another failed deflection, my statement stands nobody educated, honest and objective will ever take the comparison of equal rights to beastality seriously etc because it would be mentally retarded to actually thing those comparisons are parallel when they are not analogous and they are inane.

7.) factually false has history, law and rights prove and has was proven in post #293 which you totally dodged because it destroyed your failed statement.

8.) i agree your argument is worthless since facts, history, law, rights, precedence all easily defeat it

9.)the LBGT and all americans that support equal rights laugh and through it away because it is factually not equal which as already been proven and is further proven by the questions you dodge.

10.) please dont group your views with all conservatives millions of them disagree with you and support equal rights.

facts win again

again let us know when you have any facts that support your failed claims.

J if you followed along a little more you would realize that I have redacted myself as I now believe I don't know enough on the issue to have a truely valid opinion, as such I am withdrawing from this discussion except for maybe posing questions now and again to better understand the issue. I am sorry if what I said struck a nerve or offended you
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

J if you followed along a little more you would realize that I have redacted myself as I now believe I don't know enough on the issue to have a truely valid opinion, as such I am withdrawing from this discussion except for maybe posing questions now and again to better understand the issue. I am sorry if what I said struck a nerve or offended you

good move because your posts were severely uninformed and it was obvious that you lacked education on this particular topic. It takes integrity to admit when a person is wrong though and to admit they simply are ill informed and out of thier league on a topic so congrats. and that is said with ZERO sarcasm.

and no need to be sorry, nerves cant be struck on a message board lol
besides I like helping to educated people, let me know if you need any other facts pointed out or misunderstandings corrected id be glad to help.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

i really don't believe a word of what he said there

Well, if he was telling the truth, it still went to my second point. He needs to change the people he spends time with.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Sorry had to sleep. Anyways I'm awake and ready for some action let me first start by saying I have many homosexual friends half of whom have made the very same arguement that I made to you and YES my friends happen to be CONSERVATIVE HOMOSEXUALS. Something that must be very foreign and quite oxymoronical to those of you on the left. However they make the case that the core of the LGBT wishes to do as much as possible to destroy conventional views and family lifestyles (keep in mind those conservatives IN the LGBT get shunned by the largely liberal group). One arguement that I have been presented with by people who are gay themselves is that this opens a very slippery slope. If we let gays marry then what? Polygamy? Beastiality? What about the man who is quite partial to that foot mannequin?? When you open something like marraige up to redefinition you open the flood gates for other objectors outside of the norm.

Your slippery slope argument falls apart because they are false equivalencies. None of the other issues you present are equal to SSM. In other words, your entire argument has no credibility.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

It is quite fine I am a rather sarcastic poster as well (I love satire...). While I see myself as a Libertarian-Right for the moment I am always open to evolving on issues which I don't feel I know enough about or haven't debated on enough to form an opinion. I look at debate as a dialogue and a chance to evolve and expose myself to contrarian ideas and beliefs. The whole point of a debate is to bring two opposing sides together, not to drive them apart. If the opposite were true debate would have no purpose now would it? ^_^

These people aren't debating, they are trying to personally put you down. Don't take them seriously.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Hopefully more people in the LGBT will realize that conservatives are simply concerned about the precedent this sets for future lawmakers and future activist groups.

After a century of conservatives trying to deprive us of liberty and basic dignity, think i'll pass on trusting them ever.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban

The key part:



Use of the term gender instead of orientation could be important for future rulings. Have not read the ruling itself yet so take the reporting for what it is worth.

"Gender" is referring to the married couple's gender. There would be no reason to mention orientation in that argument.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

These people aren't debating, they are trying to personally put you down. Don't take them seriously.

No one is trying to personally put him down. People are just trying to correct some inconsistencies or misinformation in his argument.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

After a century of conservatives trying to deprive us of liberty and basic dignity, think i'll pass on trusting them ever.

A century? And liberals have been fighting for your rights for a century? Revise history much?
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

So this isnt a serious proposal, right?

For one thing, you dont seem to realize that gay people reproduce 'naturally' all the time...men sire babies, women have babies. Unless you suggest NOW, that mixed straight families also have to settle for civil unions? You know, where they have adopted kids (none of their DNA!!!!), step-kids (only one's DNA), used artificial means to get pregnant, etc?

And I thought that marriage (it's legal...that's the entire discussion) was a strictly religious convention and to be used only for the religious. You wrote that.

If that's the case, let anyone who wants to marry do so...in their church, in the Eyes of God..and not worry about the legal aspect. Dont need any license. Why do they care? It's about love and babies and God....not tax benefits. Right?

You also demonstrate a vast ignorance of legal paperwork..where all letterhead, departments, titles, signage etc etc etc have to have the correct titles? And there will be a different bureaus overseeing them....otherwise, who will be checking the genders on all the paperwork? LMAO! $$$$$$$$ for the taxpayers.

It's utterly ridiculous to create another designation for no other reason than self-righteous indignation.

And let us not forget that this would cause a serious issue when it comes to transsexuals because many change sex after they legally marry a person of the opposite sex. So then, more money has to be spent converting their marriage to a union.

Plus, there is then the question of what to do with those domestic partnerships and/or civil unions in some states that exist so that the couples, either same sex or opposite sex, can have a legal union that is not as restrictive or hard to get out of as marriage or they simply don't want marriage. Many opposite sex couples are involved in domestic partnerships or civil unions in various states for various reasons. If they wanted marriage, they would have gotten married, not simply be in these less recognized unions.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

And let us not forget that this would cause a serious issue when it comes to transsexuals because many change sex after they legally marry a person of the opposite sex. So then, more money has to be spent converting their marriage to a union.

I think it's funny you think that anyone who'd object to SSM would give a damn about transssexuals.


Not being dismissive, it just made me laugh.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

I think it's funny you think that anyone who'd object to SSM would give a damn about transssexuals.

Not being dismissive, it just made me laugh.

Just bringing up a flaw in the logic that it would be easy to have two separate legally recognized unions to create spousal kinship, one for opposite sex and one for same sex couples. This wouldn't just be an issue for transsexuals to face either. It would be more work and money the government would have to devote to those particular types of couples and determining their legal status. I do believe there are some out there who do think that it would be that easy and can't see all the real flaws that such a position holds. Pointing those out can lead to some people understanding why same sex couples should simply be allowed to marry.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

I will buy the "separate but equal" argument when heterosexuals get civil unions only and homosexuals are the only ones who can get married.
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

You're a fundamentalist if its not possible to reason with you and there's no room for someone with opposing beliefs to coexist with you. After all, you fully believe that you've got the word of God on your side. No way any of us can compete with that. There is nothing we could say or do that could convince you any other point of view could hold legitimacy.

Ad hominem.

You have not presented a valid argument. You refer people to Aquinas Five and then when those are refuted (as has been in the past, I will not bother to go into it, look it up yourself, since I've already done this with you at least once before), you simply repeat and try to say that no refutation of your argument has been presented when it isn't even your argument to begin with, but rather an argument presented by a Priest centuries ago.

Again, you have provided no valid argument that your God (not just the Christian God, but your exact God, the God that is exactly how you see Him) exists. You really haven't provided a valid argument for the existence of the Christian God. Even if we were to accept Aquinas Five, it could easily work for the existence of any God, not just the Christian God.

Oh, and if you are going to try to "point me out" to people, you might want to get a couple of things right, such as my screenname and my gender, both of which you screwed up.

Wow. You're stills evading. Does the possibility of God existing really terrify you so deeply that you lose all ability to reason? If there is a refutation, please cite it rather than simply asserting that it exists.

Ack! You're right. This is what I was supposed to quote:





I bolded the "true" whackiness and the "true" reason we NEED to keep state and church separate.

My Lord! That is the same as Muslims with blind extremism.

So you're argument is that it's possible hat he survived the crucifixion, survived wing buried for several days, and then pretended to have died and then just disappeared? Really?
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

So you're argument is that it's possible hat he survived the crucifixion, survived wing buried for several days, and then pretended to have died and then just disappeared? Really?

People have done it before and been hailed as miracles.

Many people have been buried alive and dug up again after awakening and being heard. And Jesus was oiled and wrapped and stored...not buried
 
Re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

People have done it before and been hailed as miracles.

Many people have been buried alive and dug up again after awakening and being heard. And Jesus was oiled and wrapped and stored...not buried

Days later? Such as?
 
Back
Top Bottom