• 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

Fletch said:
You would have to first show where the Constitution even mentions the term marriage. Since it isn't mentioned in the Constitution, it should fall to the states and the people to decide.
Click to expand...

100% false and this strawman has been destroyed many times by many posters

Rape isnt in the constitution either, guess thats up to the states to decided. See how silly that is.
 
WCH said:
What you see as discrimination or prejudice is merely rejecting sin. Call it indoctrination if you will.

Canaan is approximately the same region as Levant.

Levant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

seems to me if something is being called a sin and it doesn't hurt people or wrong them then the alleged sin is not bad but the belief that it is a sin is what's wrong
 
it's just me said:
Yes, I will be needing you to explain how the government works for all people unless I happen to be one of those people.
Click to expand...

this does in fact work for you too, more proof you dont understand it
 
it's just me said:
I missed the part where they can create law.

They can send the law back to the state, tell them to write another law, they can't make the law themselves. That's what legislatures do.
Click to expand...

no law was created, again repeating this strawman is a failure, if you disagree tell us the law
 
it's just me said:
1.) You violate MY rights, who do I see about that?

You're about to find out.
Click to expand...

1.) this doesnt violate your rights in anyway
2.) it leads to made up strawman in your posts
 
it's just me said:
We are discussing South Carolina, not the entire country
Click to expand...

And yet you just said this:

"I say put it to a nationwide vote and we will see just who is in the majority."

Translation: if the national majority opposes SSM, make it illegal nationwide; if the majority supports it...err, let's leave it up to the south carolina majority! In fact, this epitomizes the process of attempting federal legislation under Bush II and circumventing the support within individual states, and now that mike huckabee trying to pass amendment leaving it to the states. Suddenly, now that most of the country supports SSM, the homophobes are trying to hide behind "states' rights"

What i've definitely noticed is a trend of gay haters constantly shifting their conditions for legal SSM. Fact is, they'll always find some reason to outlaw it, because once again, the law or the constitution is not their concern, only ****ting on minorities they don't like.
 
blarg said:
seems to me if something is being called a sin and it doesn't hurt people or wrong them then the alleged sin is not bad but the belief that it is a sin is what's wrong
Click to expand...

Yes, that's a conundrum for those who don't embrace the knowledge God has passed to us.

You have been told all of you life that it harms no one and is perfectly natural when in reality it harms us all in God's eyes
 
blarg said:
how will faith lead to truth and not just believing what I want?
Click to expand...

That's why it's called faith...it has set guidelines and promises a happy ending.

like I said earlier,some people have no knowledge of God's words yet he lives in their hearts and they do good in their lives because of it. Others need a blueprint, set of boundaries, salvation 101 for dummies manual to guide their lives in Christ.

FWIW it doesn't necessarily have to be Christianity.
 
WCH said:
Yes, that's a conundrum for those who don't embrace the knowledge God has passed to us.

You have been told all of you life that it harms no one and is perfectly natural when in reality it harms us all in God's eyes
Click to expand...

no one had to tell me I have family an friends that are gay

being attracted to the same gender doesn't do anything to me it dissent appear to do anything to gay people

so if it causes harm where is the evidence? iv been told the same thing you have to say all my life to it doesn't seem to be true so can you show that it is?
 
WCH said:
That's why it's called faith...it has set guidelines and promises a happy ending.

like I said earlier,some people have no knowledge of God's words yet he lives in their hearts and they do good in their lives because of it. Others need a blueprint, set of boundaries, salvation 101 for dummies manual to guide their lives in Christ.

FWIW it doesn't necessarily have to be Christianity.
Click to expand...

faith seems to cause good and evil then with no guarantee of accuracy seems better not rely on it
 
treeing others like you want to be treated sounds like a good idea though and I don't want people to condemn me and what I do based on faith
 
WCH said:
I've been very sick in my life so that almost applies. Before I found God I was a hopeless mess.
Click to expand...

I was referring now, your views are sicker than any homosexual I know.
 
WCH said:
Why are you even in this discussion if you believe in nothing? Are you arguing the evidence of absence?

You know you can't prove a negative.
Click to expand...

I'm refuting those that claim religion as fact. This thread is about Same Sex Marriage licenses, not religion.
 
WCH said:
You have been told all of you life that it harms no one and is perfectly natural when in reality it harms us all in God's eyes
Click to expand...

There you go again preaching God as if it were fact. Look, you are entitled to YOUR opinion. Live YOUR life the way YOU want to live it. Don't tell others that are gay what they can and cannot do. Maybe you should spend more time worrying about YOUR sins than some homosexuals getting married.
 
WCH said:
Doesn't sound like they'll learn enough about any particular one to get the true gist, much less put into practice.

But hey, half-assed learning is trendy.
Click to expand...

You can believe what you like about what my children will be taught, but they are my children, so it really isn't your business.
 
AGENT J said:
100% false and this strawman has been destroyed many times by many posters

Rape isnt in the constitution either, guess thats up to the states to decided. See how silly that is.
Click to expand...
Do you even know what a straw man is? It seems not since you are using it wrong. And one would not expect rape to be listed in the Constitution as a right, since it isn't one.
 
it's just me said:
I missed the part where they can create law.

They can send the law back to the state, tell them to write another law, they can't make the law themselves. That's what legislatures do.
Click to expand...

They're not creating any laws here. They are striking restrictions within laws down. This places those laws in a state where they are not restrictive, which in the case of marriage, means that anyone who was restricted legally from entering into marriage due to the specific restriction that was struck down as unconstitutional, can now enter into it because there is no longer a valid restriction preventing them from doing so.
 
WCH said:
Allowing SSM for one. Changing other laws to include all sorts of perverse practices.
Click to expand...

Doesn't treat homosexuals any differently than heterosexuals because there is no test of sexuality or even question concerning it on the marriage license. Anyone, straight, gay, bi, questioning, or even asexual can get married to either someone of the same sex or someone of the opposite sex. There is no special treatment there.
 
WCH said:
Where does it end?
Are you willing to accept [make equal] every form of deviant behavior?
Click to expand...

Many already are, you simply don't recognize it.

Many would consider bondage deviant behavior, and it is legal so long as it is consensual. Many would consider S&M deviant behavior, yet it is legal, at least to a point and again as long as it is consensual. Swinging, fetishes (at least some), and crossdressing, all considered by many to be deviant behavior, and all are legal (as I said, the fetishes to a point, it depends on the particular fetish, but most are legal). Others consider interracial or interfaith relationships to be deviant behaviors, they are legal. Some consider sex before marriage or masturbation to be deviant behaviors. Guess what? Both are legal.

It ends where the majority/state can show a legitimate (at least) state interest is furthered by restricting that behavior.
 
Navy Pride said:
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.
Click to expand...

Navy Pride said:
Again there is nothing in the 14th amendment about SSM or any other kinds of marriage, including multiple partners, dogs, etc.
Click to expand...

See, when you anti-SSM people make up arguments as you go, this is what happens. You end up contradicting yourselves. The reason you have to make up arguments as you go is because you don't really have an argument in the first place. Your entire argument is "My religion says it's wrong." That's it. That's everything. Every other argument you make is just an attempt to retroactively justify your opinion.

You said the 14th doesn't mention SSM, therefore the 14th doesn't apply. But when I point out that the 14th doesn't mention interracial marriage, you refuse to acknowledge it. You just dodge. The 14th amendment doesn't mention interracial marriage. Either this means the 14th amendment doesn't cover interracial marriage, or your previous logic is wrong. But you'll never admit that.


Similarly, people like you often make the procreation argument. Gays can't marry, because they can't have kids! But then when it's pointed out that infertile and elderly couples can't have kids, you refuse to apply this reasoning to their marriages. And you'll refuse to acknowledge that the procreation argument was flawed.


Because you don't have a real argument. You're making it up as you go. That's why you're never consistent on the subject.
 
Fletch said:
1.)Do you even know what a straw man is? It seems not since you are using it wrong. And one would not expect rape to be listed in the Constitution as a right, since it isn't one.
Click to expand...

1.) sure do, here the definition:
: a weak or imaginary argument or opponent that is set up to be easily defeated
Straw man - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
2.) well since your statement fits perfectly into the definition I used it 100% correct
your argument is that marriage is not in the constitution therefore its not a right and a states issue.

well that is in fact a weak and imaginary argument since the word marriage factually does not have to be in there to be a right LMAO
the bannings were a LAW therefore has MANY court cases ruled it falls under the 14th and it violated it.

Facts win again

3.) you mean people don't have the right to be free of rape? so then a state could vote to make it legal right?
more proof that your strawman is a failure
 
AGENT J said:
1.) sure do, here the definition:
: a weak or imaginary argument or opponent that is set up to be easily defeated
Straw man - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
2.) well since your statement fits perfectly into the definition I used it 100% correct
your argument is that marriage is not in the constitution therefore its not a right and a states issue.

well that is in fact a weak and imaginary argument since the word marriage factually does not have to be in there to be a right LMAO
the bannings were a LAW therefore has MANY court cases ruled it falls under the 14th and it violated it.

Facts win again
Click to expand...
Perhaps you might try providing some then. My argument was not a straw man, you simply don't understand your own definition. Let me help you so that you don't continue to misuse it over and over and over again. A straw man fallacy would be me arguing against something you didn't say. That isn't what is happening. Every argument you disagree with you label a straw man and it makes you look silly.

3.) you mean people don't have the right to be free of rape? so then a state could vote to make it legal right?
more proof that your strawman is a failure
Click to expand...
Now here is an example of you employing a straw man. I never claimed a state could make rape legal, nor that because a right isn't enumerated in the Constitution that it, therefore, isn't a right.
 
Fletch said:
1.)Perhaps you might try providing some then. My argument was not a straw man, you simply don't understand your own definition. Let me help you so that you don't continue to misuse it over and over and over again. A straw man fallacy would be me arguing against something you didn't say. That isn't what is happening. Every argument you disagree with you label a straw man and it makes you look silly.

2.)Now here is an example of you employing a straw man. I never claimed a state could make rape legal, nor that because a right isn't enumerated in the Constitution that it, therefore, isn't a right.
Click to expand...

1.) false dictionary definition with link proves your statments wrong TWICE now lol
by definition you in fact made a strawman argument

facts and the dictionary support my statement what do you have on your side again?

2.) this is ANOTHER strawman because I didnt claim you said that, I made an analogy that proved your original failed straw man to be even more wrong.
facts win again, tell us that "silly" line again LMAO

try to keep up
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom