• 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

and in most states the law is one man and one woman.

Which U.S. State Will Be Last to Strike Down Its Gay Marriage Ban? | E! Online

Here is your list of states where it's currently legal to marry your same-sex partner:
•Alaska
•California
•Colorado
•Connecticut
•Delaware
•Hawaii
•Idaho
•Illinois
•Indiana
•Iowa
•Maine
•Maryland
•Massachusetts
•Minnesota
•Nevada
•New Hampshire
•New Jersey
•New Mexico
•New York
•North Carolina
•Oklahoma
•Oregon
•Pennsylvania
•Rhode Island
•Utah
•Vermont
•Virginia
•Washington
•West Virginia
•Wisconsin

There are six states where the courts have ruled that the same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional, but the rulings have pending appeals:
•Arkansas
•Florida
•Kentucky
•Louisiana
•Michigan
•Texas
And here are the states (14 in all) where gay marriage is still illegal, although many of these states have had lawsuits filed challenging the ban, so at least they are making steps forward:
•Alabama
•Arizona
•Georgia
•Kansas
•Mississippi
•Missouri
•Montana
•Nebraska
•North Dakota
•Ohio
•South Carolina
•South Dakota
•Tennessee
•Wyoming

One of these lists is longer than the other...
 
hears a good 1

o and as a bonus

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The bolded.
 
Stigmatization.

This is a fallacy that has been shown to not exist through research and surveys.

The Leftist mind washings have also driven a wedge between children and normal parents.

The Rightwing mind washings attempt continue with reactionarianism are, fortunately dismissed by most people who have figured out that it makes no sense.
 
It hurts him having to put up with the groupthink from your side of the room. It hurts him to express his beliefs only to be sued over it. It hurts the rest of us to have the thought police on the left constantly trying to shove their beliefs down everyone else's throats. Sound familiar?

Yes. It sounds exactly what right wingers do on this issue. No one is saying he can't have his beliefs. But if he is going to present his beliefs as facts... he's going to get destroyed because they aren't. And if he is going to try to make his beliefs the law of the land... he's going to get destroyed because his beliefs are no longer held by the majority of folks. He can hold onto his beliefs... as can you. Just don't make the fallacious claim that they are fact and don't try to tell anyone else they have to believe them or they are "bad", "evil", or "sinful" either.
 
Any more subjective than allowing Gays to redefine marriage? Or that Gay deserve special rights?

This whole Gays rights issue is subjective. (based om emotion)

Yes it does effect a parent/child relationship when public schools and the media make kids feel that they have to accept Gays or be called names. (stigmatized)

No, this IS the same thing as racism. If a kid at school starts calling a black kid some racist name, he'll probably get picked on. Same thing happens if someone picks on someone for being gay. No problem with either.
 
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.

This demonstrates your lack of education on this issue. Homosexuality was declassified as a disorder in 1973 because research and information that had NOT been presented or not been ALLOWED to be presented finally was. The research was overwhelmingly convincing that homosexuality was not a disorder, starting with the Hooker Study.
 
The fact that we even have to argue this point is counterproductive. Why is it your way or the highway? Many have suggested alternate strategies, but the left has rejected all of them.

Like what, shut up and sit in the back of the bus? That is never gonna happen and 'compromise' like civil unions is what's counterproductive.
 
What gives you the right to teach MY children anything.

Then take them out of school and teach them yourself.

You're brainwashing children into believing what I would consider to be BS.

Your belief is irrelevant to facts, but if you don't want your children educated to reality, teach them yourself and keep them ignorant.

Like I said, your and others who want to ignore scripture opinions are based on irrational, thoughless emotion.

No, we want to ignore misinterpretations of scripture both with accurate translations and with facts and research. That trumps your opinions any day.
 
Or you're just blindly following your political agenda. (i. e. just like abortion, big government, etc)

This post is ironic.
 
Your reasoning is from a faulty perspective. You assume Gay is OK because it doesn't personally harm YOU.

No, it isn't harmful because there is no evidence that it IS harmful objectively.

That makes it totally subjective from your POV whereas I do believe homosexuality is harmful having come to that opinion through much study, reflection and prayer.

Your subjectivity is trumped by facts and information.
 
According to you, same as Blarg. :)

IMO I have a firm foundation for my belief whereas y'all have nothing.

Your foundation is weak. It is so weak that it can't stand on it's own... you must try to attack anyone with a different belief system as "wrong" or "Godless" in order to give any strength to your beliefs. Proselytizing is for the weak.
 
I bet I'm twice your age. Listen and learn.

Your age is irrelevant. At any age you have little knowledge on this topic.
 
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.

Yeah this reveals his real aspiration, to be dictator
 
If there's a majority that believes that it's because they'v we been conditioned to the same tripe as you and others here.

Follow Satan much?

Actually, the majority has been enlightened against Satan and evil and has been unconditioned from ages of reactionary ignorance.
 
Yes. It sounds exactly what right wingers do on this issue. No one is saying he can't have his beliefs. But if he is going to present his beliefs as facts... he's going to get destroyed because they aren't. And if he is going to try to make his beliefs the law of the land... he's going to get destroyed because his beliefs are no longer held by the majority of folks. He can hold onto his beliefs... as can you. Just don't make the fallacious claim that they are fact and don't try to tell anyone else they have to believe them or they are "bad", "evil", or "sinful" either.

Yeah, try any of that and you will be shouted down by the mob.

The plain and simple truth of the matter is that you are NOT the majority, not in South Carolina, which is what this thread is about. The people's legislature enacted the law that says marriage is between a man and a woman, and it was signed by the governor. The state is well within it's rights according to the Constitution, and it is you who are in the minority, even if you do live in South Carolina, which I doubt. The power to interfere in the state's business has not been given to the federal government, Constitutionally speaking. But that's what left wingers do on this issue...mind other people's business.

There are a few FACTS for you.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, try any of that and you will be shouted down by the mob.

Depends on how it's being presented. Presentation is EVERYTHING.

The plain and simple truth of the matter is that you are NOT the majority, not in South Carolina, which is what this thread is about. The people's legislature enacted the law that says marriage is between a man and a woman, and it was signed by the governor. The state is well within it's rights according to the Constitution, and it is you who are in the minority, even if you do live in South Carolina, which I doubt. The power to interfere in the state's business has not been given to the federal government, Constitutionally speaking. But that's what left wingers do on this issue...mind other people's business.

There are a few FACTS for you.

All of that is irrelevant if SC enacts a law that the judiciary sees as unconstitutional. The District Appellate Court has ruled on this matter. SCOTUS not hearing cases means that they are abdicating to the Appellate courts. SC's law is unconstitutional and will be struck down.
 
All of that is irrelevant if SC enacts a law that the judiciary sees as unconstitutional. The District Appellate Court has ruled on this matter. SCOTUS not hearing cases means that they are abdicating to the Appellate courts. SC's law is unconstitutional and will be struck down.

That is not how we do things in America. If the Feds have the votes, let them pass a law and let the president sign it. The opinion of an unelected judge as law is not democracy, it is oligharchy, and THAT is what is not Constitutional.

I say put it to a nationwide vote and we will see just who is in the majority.
 
Last edited:
That is not how we do things in America. If the Feds have the votes, let them pass a law and let the president sign it. The opinion of an unelected judge as law is not democracy, it is oligharchy, and THAT is what is not Constitutional.

No, that IS how we do things in America. It prevents the majority from oppressing the minority, a KEY component of the Constitution.
 
No, that IS how we do things in America. It prevents the majority from oppressing the minority, a KEY component of the Constitution.

The minority does not have veto power over the will of the people, that is not Constitutional.

Make a law and pass it, if you think you are so much in the right.
 
The minority does not have veto power over the will of the people, that is not Constitutional.

Make a law and pass it, if you think you are so much in the right.

Of course the minority has veto power... if the majority is presenting something unconstitutional. If you think you are so much in the right, pass a law that IS Constitutional.
 
Of course the minority has veto power... if the majority is presenting something unconstitutional. If you think you are so much in the right, pass a law that IS Constitutional.

How about if I pass a law that says an unelected judge cannot enact "law"?

That would be constitutional.
 
How about if I pass a law that says an unelected judge cannot enact "law"?

No judge is "enacting" law. They are striking down unconstitutional law. If you tried to pass the kind of law that you suggest, it wouldn't work as it is itself unconstitutional.
 
No judge is "enacting" law. They are striking down unconstitutional law. If you tried to pass the kind of law that you suggest, it wouldn't work as it is itself unconstitutional.

I know, everything that doesn't go your way is "unconstitutional". How can you argue with "logic" like that?

The solution is simple: pass a law. I am sure that any law that does not go your way will be "unconstitutional", though.
 
No, this IS the same thing as racism. If a kid at school starts calling a black kid some racist name, he'll probably get picked on. Same thing happens if someone picks on someone for being gay. No problem with either.

What makes his view abhorrent is that if the teachers/other kids *don't* discourage that kind of behavior, it's guaranteed to make for a terrible environment for the kid being targeted. His only recourse then is violence. As you know, that kind of ostracism is linked to dropping out and suicide. Oh, but WCH couldn't care less about that. He probably thinks all bullying is wrong and shouldn't be allowed, except for gay kids.
 
Back
Top Bottom