• 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 did, people keep saying it's 31 states, but with the addition of Wyoming I think it's now 32. Not worth the effort though to correct the. :)



>>>>

I missed it, where? I saw no threads on it.
 
I missed it, where? I saw no threads on it.


You didn't ask if I made threads, you asked if anyone noticed. Yes I noticed, I didn't make a thread on it though.



>>>>
 
So prove that's the case. Come up with an argument that can't be reduced to "i'm better than you"

Whether you marry or not has nothing to do with how much better you are than other people. It has to do with whether or not you want to be married and can find a suitable partner. Being married isn't being better or worse than anyone else. It's just being married. And if you don't want to engage in relationships that are suitable for marriage, you have every right to do that.

You aren't Mohammed and marriage isn't the mountain. Don't expect that the mountain must come to you if you don't want to go to the mountain.
 
Who I marry, as long as they are of age, of the same species, and not too closely related is my business and not yours at all.
True, up until you ask the government to sanction your marriage, at which point it becomes everyone's business. If you want society to completely ignore your marriage, then why bother with a legal marriage?
 
True, up until you ask the government to sanction your marriage, at which point it becomes everyone's business. If you want society to completely ignore your marriage, then why bother with a legal marriage?

Great, so when do I get to weigh in on on your marriage? Can't wait!

I know one of the first things I do when others care what I think about their marriages is take a good, long look at Newt Gingrich marriage #3. Really, should society sanction someone marrying a mistress, who was part of an adulterous affair while hubby was married to wifey #2? I think not...
 
Great, so when do I get to weigh in on on your marriage? Can't wait!

Any time you want. Marriage laws are written by state legislatures and you may voice your opinion with them whenever you wish. It feels so good to go around granting people their wishes like this. :)
 
Any time you want. Marriage laws are written by state legislatures and you may voice your opinion with them whenever you wish. It feels so good to go around granting people their wishes like this. :)

Could a state legislature write into marriage laws that interracial marriage was illegal?
 
True, up until you ask the government to sanction your marriage, at which point it becomes everyone's business. If you want society to completely ignore your marriage, then why bother with a legal marriage?

No, the government represents me as much as you. So not even then do you have a say. If the government agrees to sanction marriage, it sanctions the act and not the decision as to who.

As for society ignoring, all of society never is involved, only those close to me or you. I don't sent out invitations to anyone else. Nor do I ask anyone else to comment, to approve, to give permission.
 
This hasn't got anything to do with how I view homosexuality. It has to do with how I see marriage and what marriage actually is. Love and commitment are one thing - marriage is another thing. They're not even necessarily related and people can have all the love and commitment they want without being married. And some marriages are entered into without love and maybe not even commitment nor is marriage actually a guarantee of either love or commitment. The fact that marriage is an institution comprised of one consenting member of each sex does not keep homosexuals from living together and loving together in a committed relationship if that's what they want to do. It just means that they aren't husband and wife, which wouldn't make sense, anyway.

LMAO The way you describe it, marriage is *nothing but a contract titled 'marriage' between a male and a female*...something with no meaning at all.
 
I didn't say homosexuality is wrong. I said that marriage is a union of two people that must have one member of each sex. My position has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality. It has to do with the nature of marriage. It is a "marriage" of opposite sexes into a single union. Two people of the same sex are just a couple of people. They can love each other. They can engage in sexual activity if they wish. They can live together. They can be devoted to each other. But it can't be marriage because that's not the fundamental nature of marriage. Marriage was never intended nor designed to be some kind of insult to homosexuals. It's purpose isn't to "exclude" homosexuals. The nature of homosexuality is such that homosexuals, for the most part, exclude themselves because their choices in sexual partners make it impossible for those sex partners to be marriage partners because a marriage partner has to be of the opposite sex. Now we might break from that sane and rational tradition of marriage, but it will make us the exception to the rule.

What is the 'purpose' of marriage?

And then please tell me how gays cannot fulfill that purpose?
 
What is the 'purpose' of marriage?

Depends on who you ask. When I ask the question of students with no prompting at all, just out of the blue, they say because you love someone and want to spend your life with them. I'm not sure how that would insult homosexuals, or disqualify them.
 
That's because it's not about gender. It doesn't have to "meet the test".

From another thread:

Gender is a federally protected right under the Const. So this takes it out of the state's hands.

marriage:
man and woman
man and man
woman and woman

See the red? GENDER change!
 
No, the government represents me as much as you. So not even then do you have a say. If the government agrees to sanction marriage, it sanctions the act and not the decision as to who.

As for society ignoring, all of society never is involved, only those close to me or you. I don't sent out invitations to anyone else. Nor do I ask anyone else to comment, to approve, to give permission.
Don't tell me you are so naive as to believe that all of society need not recognize your marriage, only those who are close to you. When you seek a legal marriage, you are making it everyone's business, and necessarily so.
 
Great, so when do I get to weigh in on on your marriage? Can't wait!

I know one of the first things I do when others care what I think about their marriages is take a good, long look at Newt Gingrich marriage #3. Really, should society sanction someone marrying a mistress, who was part of an adulterous affair while hubby was married to wifey #2? I think not...
You don't need to wait. If it really bothers you that much feel free to try and get the law changed.
 
You don't need to wait. If it really bothers you that much feel free to try and get the law changed.

I actually think it's none of my business, and can't see the upside in denying the right to marry to any couple wanting to make a commitment through marriage to each other. I've tried to see how SSM would negatively affect my marriage of 23 years last week, and can't come up with a thing. People making a commitment, stable relationships, fidelity, legal certainty, parental rights for couples with children - what part of that does society not want more of?

FRC and like groups might serve the institution of marriage a little better by focusing on the log in the eye of straight married couples, now failing at record rates, with more and more straight couples skipping it altogether.
 
Whether you marry or not has nothing to do with how much better you are than other people. It has to do with whether or not you want to be married and can find a suitable partner. Being married isn't being better or worse than anyone else. It's just being married. And if you don't want to engage in relationships that are suitable for marriage, you have every right to do that.

You aren't Mohammed and marriage isn't the mountain. Don't expect that the mountain must come to you if you don't want to go to the mountain.

gay couples are perfectly suited for marriage they can do anything we require of hetero sexual couples some do more
 
Don't tell me you are so naive as to believe that all of society need not recognize your marriage, only those who are close to you. When you seek a legal marriage, you are making it everyone's business, and necessarily so.

They can recognize the institution, but have no say at all in who I marry. And when we talk about legal, it isn't based on everyone's opinion. Instead, when rights are granted, they aregranted to everyone equally. And when you restrict, you have to have just cause, and mere opinion isn't just cause. That's why your side loses in court. Your side doesn't understand law and how this actually works.
 
They can recognize the institution, but have no say at all in who I marry.
No say at all, huh? Try marrying a 15-year old, or your parents, or a a tree, or... Marriage is defined by society, and society dictates what is and isn't appropriate. When you enter into a legal marriage, you must abide by the rules set by society. Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong.

And when we talk about legal, it isn't based on everyone's opinion.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. We could pass a law tomorrow and do away with the concept entirely "based on opinion". We could allow people to marry trees. Or their parents...

Instead, when rights are granted, they aregranted to everyone equally. And when you restrict, you have to have just cause, and mere opinion isn't just cause. That's why your side loses in court. Your side doesn't understand law and how this actually works.
Rights aren't granted, they are recognized. Before you go around telling others that they don't understand the law, perhaps you should learn something about it first, because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
 
No say at all, huh? Try marrying a 15-year old, or your parents, or a a tree, or... Marriage is defined by society, and society dictates what is and isn't appropriate. When you enter into a legal marriage, you must abide by the rules set by society. Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong.

15 isn't the age of consent. A law that represents just cause. So, that doesn't work.


Wrong, wrong, wrong. We could pass a law tomorrow and do away with the concept entirely "based on opinion". We could allow people to marry trees. Or their parents...

That's actually not true. Not here. You have to make a strong case and show just cause to violate someone's freedom. Your opinion isn't just cause.

Rights aren't granted, they are recognized. Before you go around telling others that they don't understand the law, perhaps you should learn something about it first, because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

A distinction without a difference. And I do understand. I worry you don't because you haven't addressed the actual point.
 
Back
Top Bottom