• 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!

Appeals court upholds decision overturning Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Whatever, dude.

Gays what their relationships to be viewed with the same moral standing as straight relationships and if I was gay, I'd probably want that too. When you break it down to it's root, that's what it is all about.

Deal with it.

Morality is personal, subjective. It doesn't matter if some may want "acceptance" by a majority. That is irrelevant as to why they should be treated equally under the law. And you cannot prove that "acceptance" is the main motivator for fighting for same sex marriage being legal. That is absolutely nothing but your personal belief.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Creating the institution of homosexual marriage is endorsing it. Look up the definition of "sanction".
There is no institution of gay marriage. Nor is there endorsement. Just because you do not like it there is not need to invent things.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Another strawman. My argument is that this isn't about rights. It's about a desire by homosexuals to normalize homosexuality in order to facilitate recruitment. My point is that the "rights" is really just the angle the legal and moral battle seems to be taking even though it's not really the primary motivation.

This is a statement you can't prove. It is nothing but your opinion and therefore completely irrelevant to the legal argument of why same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional. Irrelevant to why same sex couples should be allowed to enter into legal marriage.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

If you are going to respond to my posts I would ask just two things:

1. Respond to the WHOLE post and don't cherry pick lines to avoid having to acknowledge the context.

2. Don't use words that you obviously don't understand the meaning of. "Semantics".... sheesh.
There was not need to quote the entire post. Clearly the issue is the game of semantics you are attempting.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

If it wasn't about acceptance then gays would have been satisfied with civil unions. They were not. Civil unions offered every protection and benefit as marriage but, to them, it was not acceptable. Why is that?

I don't even know what you're trying to argue here. Are you somehow not comfortable with admitting that seeking moral equivalence is the goal here?

First, there has never been a legitimate effort to make civil unions for same sex couples that were equivalent to marriage, so it was a worthless cause, and now, with same sex couples who are married being recognized as married, then it is completely pointless. Second, why should they be forced into a contract that has to be made up specifically for them just because some people are offended by having to share a word, a title with them? The motivation behind that is to separate same sex couples from opposite sex couples in order to treat them as inferiors.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Creating the institution of homosexual marriage is endorsing it. Look up the definition of "sanction".

The "institution of homosexual marriage" hasn't been created. Same sex couples are allowed to enter into legally marriages that already exist. They are the same marriages opposite sex couples enter into.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

My argument is that society needn't be forced to endorse homosexuality. Period. women on women, men on men... neither is something society should be forced to endorse against their will.

Then why should the government have been forced to endorse interracial marriages? You live in a society that believes that individual rights are more important (in most cases) than the rights of others to not want certain types of people in their society.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

First, there has never been a legitimate effort to make civil unions for same sex couples that were equivalent to marriage, so it was a worthless cause, and now, with same sex couples who are married being recognized as married, then it is completely pointless. Second, why should they be forced into a contract that has to be made up specifically for them just because some people are offended by having to share a word, a title with them? The motivation behind that is to separate same sex couples from opposite sex couples in order to treat them as inferiors.

Kind of interesting how you can make the statement in bold about 5 minutes after stating this..

Morality is personal, subjective. It doesn't matter if some may want "acceptance" by a majority. That is irrelevant as to why they should be treated equally under the law. And you cannot prove that "acceptance" is the main motivator for fighting for same sex marriage being legal. That is absolutely nothing but your personal belief.

When I make a statement about motivations I can't prove it and it is "absolutely nothing but your personal belief". But then you turn around and do the exact same thing in the very next post.:roll:
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Kind of interesting how you can make the statement in bold about 5 minutes after stating this..



When I make a statement about motivations I can't prove it and it is "absolutely nothing but your personal belief". But then you turn around and do the exact same thing in the very next post.:roll:

except one factually does this and one does not. LMAO

excluding them and denying gays equal rights FACTUALLY makes them inferior on this subject
including them simply grants them equal rights, after that any OPINIONS about acceptance are meaningless and not effected

sorry your assessment of those statments fails
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Gays what their relationships to be viewed with the same moral standing as straight relationships and if I was gay, I'd probably want that too. When you break it down to it's root, that's what it is all about.

First of all, gays have the same reasons to marry as straight people. Some of it is to acquire the moral standing of a married couple, as opposed to a couple 'shacking up.' It's a public statement of commitment to your spouse/partner, and for the religious marriage is also a special relationship as well. And there are the obvious legal/economic reasons to marry - those 1,300 or so rights in the law, including the legal ramifications regarding the couple's children. So down to its 'root' the gay marriage movement is about a lot of things - all the things that marriage means to you and me and other married couples.

Just one more thing - the only reason to call these unions something other than marriage is to express moral DISAPPROVAL, or at least I've never seen anyone object to calling the unions 'marriage' who didn't morally disapprove.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

I suppose biologically speaking homosexuality is conduet to the "hate the human spices crowd and the special interest crowed and has nothing to do with "homosexuality" has a lifestyle but rather a means to insert some sort or radial "social justice" that is demanded to be accepted by the mainstream of society.

I would say your assertation of homosexuals is incorrect or you are just looking at the fringe. I know many gays that raise children (who turn out striaght) and just want to marry the ones they love. It sorta like someone judging the entire heterosexual population based on Marti Gras, it simply is incorrect.

Since homosexuality is not illegal, gays raising children is not illegal, gays holding hands in public is not illegal, I don't see why SSM should be illegal personally. Now, you have a different opinion which is obvious but even you can recognize the MANY things that are legal which you do not approve of.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

What you're looking for is a mob mentality - that has nothing to do with your morals but rather what the mod tells you do do (the PC mob).

Morals are subjective. As you said before there are more pressing issues at hand so legalizing SSM would accomplish that and people can move on.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Ha, The GOP? well, I'm certainly not a member of the GOP and had falling out with their establishment about a decade go..

Wasn't saying you are a part of them, however, they are the ones fighting in congress against SSM. You were saying we have more pressing issues, so the GOP should stop fighting it and move on. Then they can address more important issues yes?
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

What part of civil unions was not equal? I am allowing for the possibility that I am not aware of all of the facts here, so fill me in if you don't mind.

Civil unions have never been recognized by the federal government nor has there been a bill to recognize civil unions federally.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

And that is a total cop out. Why would the federal government go through the hassle of creating a formal recognition of something that hadn't been created yet? Civil Unions was never anything more than a concept. A concept that was rejected. Why was the concept rejected? That's what I'm asking.

And that is exactly the point. Only marriage is and should be recognized by the federally government but that includes for same sex couples as well who are legally married in any state. Civil unions and domestic partnerships were always meant to be something different from marriage, that had nothing to do with same sex couples, because some people don't want that federal recognition. They want something less than marriage that is still a legally recognized/protected union.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

And you should learn to read a little better. What did I "claim"? I claimed that the pursuit of marriage rights was rooted in the desire for moral equivalency. Nothing you have responded to me with even addresses that very simple statement/observation. Why is that so uncomfortable to deal with?

As for the whole "the fed doesn't recognize civil unions" angle? That's along the same lines as arguing that we weren't equipped to handle all of the women voters should the 19th amendment pass.

And this is wrong because it is nothing but your opinion, which is based on bias. You cannot prove that "the pursuit of marriage rights was rooted in the desire for moral equivalency", since you cannot prove what other people want. You are making assumptions based, from what you are saying, on your personal bias against homosexuals.

Your analogy isn't even close. Allowing women to vote is no different than allowing men to vote. Voting already existed at that time. So you just add people, as in the women, to the lists of those allowed to vote (or register to vote at least). The same is actually true about marriage for same sex couples. All it takes is dropping the gender/sex restrictions on marriage, and the same exact documentation comes into play. However, with civil unions, more laws would need to be created to set up recognition for civil unions, as well as deciding things such as "what about couples who change sex/gender while married or within a civil unions?". Do those unions stay as they started or convert to the one for their "proper" gender combination?

Of course, this still would be discriminatory since you are separating people by the gender/sex combinations with no legitimate state interest being furthered by doing it. "To appease the sensibilities of those who might be offended about sharing the word marriage" is not a legitimate state interest.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Another strawman. My argument is that this isn't about rights. It's about a desire by homosexuals to normalize homosexuality in order to facilitate recruitment. My point is that the "rights" is really just the angle the legal and moral battle seems to be taking even though it's not really the primary motivation.

:lamo

At least he's honest. Facilitate recruitment. :lamo
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

And again, this seems to be the area where we have a disconnect.

From your source...


What I have been referring to this entire time is that the gay community has rejected the concept of the federal government offering these same protections to civil unions in favor of pursuing actual marriage. In other words, gays weren't interested in anything other than being able to get the "marriage" label stamped on their certificate.

Random people on the internet or in the streets saying "we'll give you civil unions that are equivalent to marriage" is not any sort of legitimate effort to recognize those things on the federal level. Not a single bill has ever been proposed in Congress to recognize civil unions as equivalent to marriage. And on top of that, many states (especially among those that still do not allow same sex couples to marry) have banned any form of legal recognition for same sex couples at all, which only goes against any "legitimate" offer to recognize same sex civil unions equally as marriages. Obviously these states aren't even willing to do that.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Creating the institution of homosexual marriage is endorsing it. Look up the definition of "sanction".

You don't need to endorse anything, and clearly you wont. What you're really demanding is that nobody else can support same-sex marriage, and you want the government to use its muscle to make sure it stays that way.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

And again, this seems to be the area where we have a disconnect.

From your source...


What I have been referring to this entire time is that the gay community has rejected the concept of the federal government offering these same protections to civil unions in favor of pursuing actual marriage. In other words, gays weren't interested in anything other than being able to get the "marriage" label stamped on their certificate.

No, no, no, bull****. You people rejected civil unions. How many states included a civil union ban in their constitutional bans on same-sex marriage? How come every time civil unions come to a vote, people like you turn out in droves against it?

You do not get to blame the lack of civil unions on homosexuals.

Furthermore, the government doesn't get to define marriage as between a man and a woman without an important state interest being furthered in doing so. The government cannot make any distinction of gender without passing this test, it doesn't matter whether it's a marriage certificate, business contract, law, regulation, whatever. You are the one focusing on the word marriage. Everyone else just wants equality. Civil unions are not equality, even if you somehow managed to get them legally equivalent to marriages. (which, by the way, they aren't. civil unions are grossly inferior under the law) Forcing homosexuals into civil unions just creates a government-sanctioned second class, a stigma that those people aren't good enough to use our word.

Guess what? You don't own the word marriage, and you don't get to use the government to deny other people access to a word.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

No, no, no, bull****. You people rejected civil unions. How many states included a civil union ban in their constitutional bans on same-sex marriage? How come every time civil unions come to a vote, people like you turn out in droves against it?

You do not get to blame the lack of civil unions on homosexuals.

Furthermore, the government doesn't get to define marriage as between a man and a woman without an important state interest being furthered in doing so. The government cannot make any distinction of gender without passing this test, it doesn't matter whether it's a marriage certificate, business contract, law, regulation, whatever. You are the one focusing on the word marriage. Everyone else just wants equality.


shhhhhh dont post facts when people will just deny them.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

I suppose biologically speaking homosexuality is conduet to the "hate the human spices crowd and the special interest crowed and has nothing to do with "homosexuality" has a lifestyle but rather a means to insert some sort or radial "social justice" that is demanded to be accepted by the mainstream of society.

If same-sex marriage is legalized across the country, would you suddenly start supporting it?
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Kind of interesting how you can make the statement in bold about 5 minutes after stating this..

When I make a statement about motivations I can't prove it and it is "absolutely nothing but your personal belief". But then you turn around and do the exact same thing in the very next post.:roll:

Because the first one in bold shows the motivation for wanting to separate the two. If you don't agree, then show me the reasoning behind it. Prove that there is some other, valid legal reason for having two separate institutions, if not to differentiate between the two. I'm more than willing to admit that this is my belief as to why people want civil unions for same sex couples, the main motivation I see is making them inferior or at least to feel different than opposite sex couples. But this is supported by the fact that I have yet to see any legitimate reason for making that distinction. (Hint: a legitimate legal reason would not be "because they are different" since all marriages are different, and some groupings of marriages are different, including interracial marriages, interfaith marriages, dual military marriages, and many others, yet legally these are all called the same thing.)
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Well impeaching a sitting president is almost impossible to impeach - the president would either have to be wihtout a reasonable doubt guilty of treason or commit other high crimes or misdemeanors...

As much as I would like to see that pesedo-socialist/anti- capitalist impeached, from the information I have I just cant see that happening...Now I have no access to the classified information the House Committees possess, I would certainly hope they have enough evidence that proves without a reasonable doubt Obama was acting nefarious in is his position. As a person will little information other than that was leaked - I believe it would be better for the prosecutor to attack those close to Obama and have them "talk."

Either way it would be an extremely bizarre case, and quite frankly I would certainly wait until he is a civilian to start knocking doors down.

Obama is no better than a Madoff as far as I'm concerned that the government acts like a Ponzi Scheme , and potential RICO charge could be filed against all these clowns Invloved in this present administration.

The best part is that if such a criminal indictment can be filed against Obama when he is out of office, his entire presidency goes up in smoke.

However if those in Congress want to impeach Obama I would love to hear their legal briefs......
I was reading this post and then I remembered your admonition from another thread "You take my intelligence as anger?" and could not figure out which was at play here.
Can you pleas clarify?
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

..

well that is a very subjective term for you-- not for me considering I'm not gay or bi-sexual.

Why do you feel I should feel the same way?

This isn't Rome you know?

Subjective term?

 
Back
Top Bottom