• 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

I think you're reading more into what I said than is actually there.

During Barrack Obama's 1st term he was publicly NOT a supporter of SSM. Somewhere between then and now he changed his stance. It is merely a statement of fact. It's relevance to the topic at hand is just to point out that people who don't support SSM at this moment in time are getting a rather healthy and unjust barrage of criticism considering that very recently some prominent liberals weren't even on board.

I'd say that the relevance is that politicians go with the way the wind blows and if it gains enough momentum and that wind shifts....so do they if they can.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

A word to the wise: Don't count your USSC rulings before they are hatched. A majority that allows certain employers to prevent their employees' insurance from covering medical procedures and medications based on the employer's religious beliefs is certainly not a slam-dunk to uphold the constitutional protections of SSM.

I certainly have my fingers crossed that they do, and eliminate all this state-by-state bigotry once and for all... but I am not at all confident in this particular SCOTUS.

that is apples and oranges.

SSM is about the Constitution being applied equally. Hobby Lobby was about government over-reach.
One denies a right the other is seen (wrongly in my opinion but I am not a Justice) upholding a right.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

I'd say that the relevance is that politicians go with the way the wind blows and if it gains enough momentum and that wind shifts....so do they if they can.
So if the wind should begin to shift the other way then the people who oppose SSM aren't bigoted homophobes anymore?
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

So if the wind should begin to shift the other way then the people who oppose SSM aren't bigoted homophobes anymore?

Sure. Just like if society decides to reduce women back to 2nd class citizens...they would all of a sudden be morally on the high ground. /sarcasm

Society does move forward. Ignorance can be changed.

Personally, I find it embarrassing to think that future generations will look back at this period in history and think we were very ignorant at best and malicious at worst in our treatment of gays. Just like we do looking back at those who accepted slavery. I do not want that to be the view future generations have.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

The dirty little secret no one seems to be willing to talk about and every proponent of homosexuality will deny is that this fight isn't really about rights. It's about "normalization" of homosexuality.
Right and you heard this from another bigoted source.

Asserting that homosexuality is just a normal lifestyle choice makes recruitment easier.
Right the fags and the illiuminaty are now poised to take over the world and are directly competing for it with Brain and Pinky.

Societies that sanction homosexuality end up with rampant homosexuality.
Right and you have so many examples that you can not even provide one.

I know many try to argue that homosexuality isn't a choice
No need to argue that facts are facts even when they are not liked.

but that argument is false because for many, if not all, it certainly is or was a choice.
You experimented?

Moral decay is a pretty fast growing disease with some pretty serious consequences.
Good thing the that we have a good number of bigoted individuals that stand guard and protect us form the deviants.

This is just one more sign that the greatest days of this country are in our history already.
Or just your paranoia.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

that is apples and oranges.

SSM is about the Constitution being applied equally. Hobby Lobby was about government over-reach.
One denies a right the other is seen (wrongly in my opinion but I am not a Justice) upholding a right.
In order for a right to need upholding, it need at least to be in jeopardy. Who was loosing their right to anything in the HL case?
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

So you believe that gays want to 'turn' other people gay? Oh. My. God. That believes you think that people can 'be turned gay.' I think we're back to the dinosaurs.

Also, can you please name a "society that sanctioned homosexuality that ended up with rampant homosexuality?" And it's not Rome, you've already had that explained to you.

I think you don't know what you're talking about. In both Rome and Greece, homosexuality was rampant. Of course the Bible talks of Sodom and Gomorrah which were so vile that even angels were molested but I don't suppose you'd be wanting to hear about that or believing it. I'll just tell you for a fact that homosexuals do recruit as much as possible. My brother is a homosexual and I've lived in homosexual communities for years during different periods of my life both in New Orleans and Atlanta's Midtown. I know what I'm talking about and recruitment is one of the biggest, if not THE biggest dirty little secret of the homosexual community.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

I think you don't know what you're talking about. In both Rome and Greece, homosexuality was rampant. Of course the Bible talks of Sodom and Gomorrah which were so vile that even angels were molested but I don't suppose you'd be wanting to hear about that or believing it. I'll just tell you for a fact that homosexuals do recruit as much as possible. My brother is a homosexual and I've lived in homosexual communities for years during different periods of my life both in New Orleans and Atlanta's Midtown. I know what I'm talking about and recruitment is one of the biggest, if not THE biggest dirty little secret of the homosexual community.

In Sodom and Gomorrah, men and women were participating in acts God did not approve of, way beyond homosexuality. Of course, I'm not sure why that 'story' is relevant to a discussion on making something LEGAL. And let's see some 'modern' sources that say homosexuality was rampant in Rome and Greece. Not only that, please prove it wasnt just same-gender sex....the act does not make someone gay. I've already told you that.

As for recruiting gay men...lol, how is it any different than when straight men chase women? Please give me some examples, since you are so familiar and have seen it?
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

In Sodom and Gomorrah, men and women were participating in acts God did not approve of, way beyond homosexuality. Of course, I'm not sure why that 'story' is relevant to a discussion on making something LEGAL. And let's see some 'modern' sources that say homosexuality was rampant in Rome and Greece. Not only that, please prove it wasnt just same-gender sex....the act does not make someone gay. I've already told you that.

As for recruiting gay men...lol, how is it any different than when straight men chase women? Please give me some examples, since you are so familiar and have seen it?

What's relevant is that moral decay and decadence does spread and eat up a society. I gave you examples of civilizations eaten up with it.

Why do you think it has to be any different than when straight men chase women in order to satisfy you that it is a regular practice among a large segment of homosexuals? Homosexuals have been trying to seduce straight men probably forever and it's absurd to pretend that doesn't happen all the time. Like I said, the real crux of this whole "marriage equivalency" crusade is purely for the sake of normalizing homosexuality (moral equivalency) in order to facilitate recruitment of potential sexual partners.

You don't have to believe it and it'll never matter in the long run because what's going to happen will happen whether you or anyone else can face the ugly truth about it or not. Suffice to say homosexuals will never be thronging to get married. Only in those rare situations when it will actually be a tax benefit for a couple will that happen. It just makes no sense for them and most homosexuals I've known have always thought marriage was a really stupid idea for any but "breeders".
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

What's relevant is that moral decay and decadence does spread and eat up a society. I gave you examples of civilizations eaten up with it.

Why do you think it has to be any different than when straight men chase women in order to satisfy you that it is a regular practice among a large segment of homosexuals? Homosexuals have been trying to seduce straight men probably forever and it's absurd to pretend that doesn't happen all the time. Like I said, the real crux of this whole "marriage equivalency" crusade is purely for the sake of normalizing homosexuality (moral equivalency) in order to facilitate recruitment of potential sexual partners.

You don't have to believe it and it'll never matter in the long run because what's going to happen will happen whether you or anyone else can face the ugly truth about it or not. Suffice to say homosexuals will never be thronging to get married. Only in those rare situations when it will actually be a tax benefit for a couple will that happen. It just makes no sense for them and most homosexuals I've known have always thought marriage was a really stupid idea for any but "breeders".

LMAO...if 'straight' men are 'seduced' by gay men....lol...they arent 'straight' men. Some people do experiment and some people are bisexual but you cannot 'create' gays.

And please support your comments about wanting to marry....in numbers and for $$ (tax benefits)...with something besides opinion. Otherwise the exact same comments apply to straight people and their motives for marrying.

Btw, almost nothing you write takes lesbians into consideration. Why is that? Mostly because you cannot apply any of your biases to them.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

LMAO...if 'straight' men are 'seduced' by gay men....lol...they arent 'straight' men.

I've laughed at a few homosexuals for their fixation on getting straight men for that very reason, but that doesn't stop them from trying like hell and the normalization of homosexuality does seem to aid them in this endeavor.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

LMAO...if 'straight' men are 'seduced' by gay men....lol...they arent 'straight' men. Some people do experiment and some people are bisexual but you cannot 'create' gays.

And please support your comments about wanting to marry....in numbers and for $$ (tax benefits)...with something besides opinion. Otherwise the exact same comments apply to straight people and their motives for marrying.

Btw, almost nothing you write takes lesbians into consideration. Why is that? Mostly because you cannot apply any of your biases to them.

Why do lesbians need to be taken into consideration. It's homosexuality. I've known some lesbians but having a homosexual brother has made the male homosexual a lot easier to get to understand.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

I think the term you're looking for is "moral equivalency" and, yes, I would agree that moral equivalency is at the root of it all.

No. There is no moral equivalency here.

The pro-equality argument is morally superior. The anti-equality crowd is fighting against the rights of a minority group based solely on their personal disapproval of the minority's actions. This is antithetical to individual liberty.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

What's relevant is that moral decay and decadence does spread and eat up a society. I gave you examples of civilizations eaten up with it.

Why do you think it has to be any different than when straight men chase women in order to satisfy you that it is a regular practice among a large segment of homosexuals? Homosexuals have been trying to seduce straight men probably forever and it's absurd to pretend that doesn't happen all the time. Like I said, the real crux of this whole "marriage equivalency" crusade is purely for the sake of normalizing homosexuality (moral equivalency) in order to facilitate recruitment of potential sexual partners.

You don't have to believe it and it'll never matter in the long run because what's going to happen will happen whether you or anyone else can face the ugly truth about it or not. Suffice to say homosexuals will never be thronging to get married. Only in those rare situations when it will actually be a tax benefit for a couple will that happen. It just makes no sense for them and most homosexuals I've known have always thought marriage was a really stupid idea for any but "breeders".

All of this is 100% irrelevant to individual liberty. Someone's choice to marry, or not do so,is not your concern. Your personal disapproval does not provide the government the authority to make a distinction of gender in a legal contract.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

All of this is 100% irrelevant to individual liberty. Someone's choice to marry, or not do so,is not your concern. Your personal disapproval does not provide the government the authority to make a distinction of gender in a legal contract.

If the legal contract is marriage I fully expect gender distinctions to be made since marriage isn't "a couple of something". It is one of the male and one of the female joined together. It's not two male fittings awkwardly taped together to try to complete a circuit. Or two female fittings with some sort of adapter to make them work in a way they weren't supposed to.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

If the legal contract is marriage I fully expect gender distinctions to be made since marriage isn't "a couple of something". It is one of the male and one of the female joined together. It's not two male fittings awkwardly taped together to try to complete a circuit. Or two female fittings with some sort of adapter to make them work in a way they weren't supposed to.

You might expect that, but you are wrong. The government cannot make such a distinction in any contract, law, regulation, or action without an important state interest in doing so. A dictionary definition of marriage is irrelevant, because this isn't an argument of definitions, it's one of actions. No contract, marriage or otherwise, can make that distinction without passing the test that the 14th amendment brings.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

It's been supported in every single state where challenged. They are wasting taxpayer $$. In order to make political points. In order to retain the bigot vote.

Supported by who? The entire reason for the challenge was because the people of those states didn't support homosexual marriage. The only support these challenges have received are from courts, relying on suspect precedence.

The bold is just dehumanizing and bigoted. It actually diminishes the institution of marriage in general. "PLaying house." Hey, if it's such bull****, why are ya'll working so hard to protect it from 'the geighs!'

Put the hate back in your pocket. I answered your post with the same tone it was made of. Namecalling and silly rhetoric seem to suit you well.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

I suppose soon enough homosexuals will be playing husband and wife all across the nation, though. I don't know why but it seems that any society that encourages rampant homosexuality doesn't last long after that happens. When in Rome, huh? Now if we lower the age of sexual consent for boys to be molested by men, we'll be taking another glorious step down the path of Rome. First things first, though. Got to make the oxymoron of homosexual marriage the law of the land in all 50 states in order to argue that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality first. Priorities. Must have priorities.

Don't you think the bigger problem with "marriage" in the U.S. is lack of it, and/or divorce, among straight and normal heterosexuals? It's always puzzled me a bit - there is this gigantic log in the eye of the straight community regarding single motherhood and divorce, but the time and effort is expended keeping gays FROM marrying. Weird...
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Don't you think the bigger problem with "marriage" in the U.S. is lack of it, and/or divorce, among straight and normal heterosexuals? It's always puzzled me a bit - there is this gigantic log in the eye of the straight community regarding single motherhood and divorce, but the time and effort is expended keeping gays FROM marrying. Weird...

Divorce is a problem but not the same kind of problem the deconstruction of it is. It's foolish to argue that one problem is justification for adding more problems.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

You might expect that, but you are wrong. The government cannot make such a distinction in any contract, law, regulation, or action without an important state interest in doing so. A dictionary definition of marriage is irrelevant, because this isn't an argument of definitions, it's one of actions. No contract, marriage or otherwise, can make that distinction without passing the test that the 14th amendment brings.

That's silly. Governed absolutely can define marriage as the male and female union that nature and our government intended. Besides. No one was ever barred from marriage based on their own sex.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

I've laughed at a few homosexuals for their fixation on getting straight men for that very reason, but that doesn't stop them from trying like hell and the normalization of homosexuality does seem to aid them in this endeavor.

I'm curious, why don't you consider yourself sexist for thinking that it's okay and usual for women to have to fend off horny men, but men shouldn't have to suffer such indignation?
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

I'm curious, why don't you consider yourself sexist for thinking that it's okay and usual for women to have to fend off horny men, but men shouldn't have to suffer such indignation?

Why do you think I consider rude sexual advances appropriate for anyone? Merely explaining the motivation for homosexual marriage activism isn't approval of anything.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

That's silly. Governed absolutely can define marriage as the male and female union that nature and our government intended. Besides. No one was ever barred from marriage based on their own sex.

The 14th amendment says they can't. Because no important state interest exists in defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Nobody was ever barred from marriage based on their own race either. But a race-based distinction in marriage contracts failed to meet th test of (strict) constitutional scrutiny. (Intermediate scrutiny applies for distinctions of gender)
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Why do you think I consider rude sexual advances appropriate for anyone? Merely explaining the motivation for homosexual marriage activism isn't approval of anything.

Well you acknowledge that women have to suffer it and yet demand the men are too fragile to have deal with it. I guess you're right, you aren't being negative about women, you're calling men ******s, all of 'em.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

I'm curious, why don't you consider yourself sexist for thinking that it's okay and usual for women to have to fend off horny men, but men shouldn't have to suffer such indignation?

Why do you think I consider rude sexual advances appropriate for anyone? Merely explaining the motivation for homosexual marriage activism isn't approval of anything.

Better question: why is any of this relevant to marriage?

It isn't. Who makes what kind of sexual advances towards whom is completely irrelevant to government sanction of a marriage contract
 
Back
Top Bottom