• 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!

South Carolina Supreme Court Halts Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

I don't know what Bible you are looking at, but it doesn't match up with any of the ones I am familiar with, and I am familiar with a lot of them.

Show me exactly where it says that God does not approve of same sex marriage or that same sex marriage is wrong, specifically.

The Bible and Segregation - forbids interracial marriage

So long as someone can find verses in the Bible that could in any way be interpreted to make interracial marriage a sin, wrong, that means that it is also possible to find verses that could be interpreted to make same sex marriage wrong, a sin. But the thing is that some who want to find those verses for same sex couples, try to claim that those verses used against interracial marriage are being misinterpreted. This shows the hypocrisy. It is misinterpretation when it is something those against same sex marriage but not against interracial marriage say when it comes to scriptures supporting other people's prejudices, but it is "the word of God, no misinterpretation at all" when it is against same sex relationships of any kind (which really, the Bible only talks against male homosexual sexual relationships).
 
You don't live in a democracy in the US, but a constitutional republic.

Then why you on the left and your president always ignore the constitution:confused: Only when it fits your left wing position on the issues do you want to abide by it.
 
Then why you on the left and your president always ignore the constitution:confused: Only when it fits your left wing position on the issues do you want to abide by it.

So then you're saying that the Constitution does support "our/my" position on this issue, that same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional because of the 14th Amendment.
 
Then why you on the left and your president always ignore the constitution:confused: Only when it fits your left wing position on the issues do you want to abide by it.

Anyone who has been around here for 5 or more years would know how ironic this statement is. On the issue of gay marriage, Navy has been all over the place. When the legislature votes for it, NP's position is let the voters decide. When the voters decide, his position is, it should be for the courts to decide. When the courts decide, he wants it to be left to state legislatures to decide.
 
So then you're saying that the Constitution does support "our/my" position on this issue, that same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional because of the 14th Amendment.


The 14th amendment say nothing about SSM or any marriage and if the originators see what you are doing to it they would roll over in their graves.
 
The 14th amendment say nothing about SSM or any marriage and if the originators see what you are doing to it they would roll over in their graves.

The 14th Amendment is equal protection under law. SSM is an equal protection issue. Period, end of discussion.
 
We just don't want you stealing marriage. (holy matrimony)

That's about the only restriction we want.

"Stealing marriage"? If gay people can get married, does that mean straight people can't or something?

Please tell me how a gay couple marrying affects your straight marriage in any way, shape or form.
 
The 14th Amendment is equal protection under law. SSM is an equal protection issue. Period, end of discussion.

It was never intended to address marriage of any kind.
 
It was never intended to address marriage of any kind.

So what? It was never originally intended to address lots of things that have since fallen under the purview of equal protection. Most of which, I'm sure, you're fine with, but you have such a bug up your ass about gay people that you are perfectly willing to deny then equal protection under law because you think they're icky.
 
So what? It was never originally intended to address lots of things that have since fallen under the purview of equal protection. Most of which, I'm sure, you're fine with, but you have such a bug up your ass about gay people that you are perfectly willing to deny then equal protection under law because you think they're icky.

If it was not addressed then it should not be referenced for any marriage be in straight or gay.
 
If it was not addressed then it should not be referenced for any marriage be in straight or gay.

Apparently someone doesn't understand how the judiciary works.
 
The 14th amendment say nothing about SSM or any marriage and if the originators see what you are doing to it they would roll over in their graves.

So what you are telling me is that interracial marriage bans shouldn't have been overturned because the 14th amendment doesn't say anything about interracial marriage or marriage at all?

Constitution doesn't mention marriage, so a law that bans Christians from marrying is constitutional, right?
 
1.)This is your excuse for invalidating the will of the people? That's not democracy, it's tyranny.
2.)I call BS on that, too.

1.) never happened, the will of the people is the constitution in this case and it is being protected along with all of our rights, try again
tranny is what the stated did by violating individual rights and the fed fixed it. Facts, laws, rights, the constitution and court cases all prove this. What do you have that makes them wrong
2.) call it what you want its still a fact
 
1.)It's even funnier how you think yours is.
2.)What does this have to do with you?

1.)again facts, rights, laws, the constitution and court cases prove it does
2.) equal rights has to deal with us all, thank you for proving you do not understand this topic.
SOrry that you dont like equal rights and want the states to run without checks and balances and be able to ignore the constitution but thats not how it works.
 
The 14th amendment say nothing about SSM or any marriage and if the originators see what you are doing to it they would roll over in their graves.

Would you consider same sex marriage bans to be laws or just friendly suggestions? If they are laws then Section 1 of the 14th amendment applies to them.
 
Why should yours?

Please provide more details!

I am a practicing Christian. I support SSM

Please tell me how allowing gays to marry is hateful, intolerant of anyone else (none of whom have ever provided any harm done to individuals or marriage or society), or ignorant?
 
So what you are telling me is that interracial marriage bans shouldn't have been overturned because the 14th amendment doesn't say anything about interracial marriage or marriage at all?

Constitution doesn't mention marriage, so a law that bans Christians from marrying is constitutional, right?

same old stale aplles and oranges and insult to African Americans to make the comparison...Inter racial is male and female.........SSM is not....Huge difference.
 
Would you consider same sex marriage bans to be laws or just friendly suggestions? If they are laws then Section 1 of the 14th amendment applies to them.


Again there is nothing in the 14th amendment about SSM or any other kinds of marriage, including multiple partners, dogs, etc.
 
Again there is nothing in the 14th amendment about SSM or any other kinds of marriage, including multiple partners, dogs, etc.

I did not say anything about marriage. I asked if you consider same sex marriage bans to be laws or suggestions?
 
If you do, you're up against centuries of philosophical and theological thought.

Do you know that when I was your age homosexuality was in the DSM III as a personality disorder? This whole "gay rights" thing, perpetrated by a tiny minorty by design, is a new concept. It is more of a political movement than it is a moral or philosophical movement. Some of us see it for what it is. Some of us don't.

You want to present yourself as a critical thinker on these forums but going along with pop culture is not critical thinking, it's just front running.

Gee, what year was that?

What were the cancer cure rates?

How were race relations in the South?

Did people still treat the kids of broken homes, divorce, as less than kids in 2 parent homes?

Momentum is not 'pop culture.' It's a recognition by society that a wrong is being done and needs to be fixed. It's very very sad it took 100 yrs after the Civil War to overcome (most of) Jim Crow.
 
Again there is nothing in the 14th amendment about SSM or any other kinds of marriage, including multiple partners, dogs, etc.

Huh. Then I wonder why the courts used it to overcome bans against interracial marriage in Loving vs. VA?
 
Back
Top Bottom