• 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

roguenuke said:
Somehow I doubt this is true, but if it is, then that is wrong. I could care less what ministers say to their congregations.

That being said, I highly doubt the law just covered what was being said against gays. I'm willing to bet it was much more general than that.

Do you happen to have a link to the actual law that he was trying to pass (and not some right-wing or Christian blog/website that likely doesn't give all relevant information)? I would like to see the actual full text of the attempted legislation.
Click to expand...
City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons | Fox News
 
TheNextEra said:
How far will it go if we allow you folks to dictate SSM? Will you then force people to pray in school, give money to the church, pray to your god, etc? I mean we have seen in the past how religious nuts like to control the lives of people in the name of God. See I can do slippery slopes as well.

Again, playing idiotic slippery slope games is stupid. The issue at hand is this. Being homosexual is not illegal, a homosexual act is not illegal, and homosexuals raising children is not illegal. Therefore it is stupid to not allow SSM.
Click to expand...

They're trying to create something that didn't exist before and using a term that has offended many people.

I suspect that is the point of wanting it in the first place but, I could be off-base.
 
roguenuke said:
Actually, polygamy, where it isn't legally recognized but people merely living together is legal in most states and likely soon will be legal in all. Bestiality is legal in some states actually. Bestiality is not marrying an animal, but rather simply having sex with it. Certain forms of ritualistic cannibalism are actually legal, I believe.

But what you failed to notice or simply ignored is the last sentence,

It ends where the majority/state can show a legitimate (at least) state interest is furthered by restricting that behavior.

That is the difference. Outlawing, limiting, or restricting those things you mentioned can be shown, when challenged to further a legitimate state interest. Restricting marriage to only opposite sex couples cannot.
Click to expand...

A single member of a court cannot (should not be able to) decide that for the people who voted against it. Let the states decide.
 
WCH said:
They're trying to create something that didn't exist before and using a term that has offended many people.

I suspect that is the point of wanting it in the first place but, I could be off-base.
Click to expand...

You aren't off base.
 
WorldWatcher said:
50 years ago (1964) there were many people that didn't expect that coloreds could marry respectable white folk either would be normalized or leagal in all 50 states. Hell Alabama was one of the ones that passed a State Constitutional Amendment to make sure that didn't happen. The Loving decision was in 1967, that changed.



>>>>
Click to expand...

I don't recognize the comparison. Use some other example that actually makes sense.
 
Navy Pride said:
One for the good guys.............


South Carolina Supreme Court Halts Same-Sex Marriage Licenses


Posted: 10/09/2014 12:29 pm EDT Updated: 10/09/2014 12:59 pm EDT





COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The South Carolina Supreme Court is ordering state probate courts not to issue same-sex marriage licenses until a federal judge decides whether the state constitution's ban on the unions is legal.

The Supreme Court's order disappointed dozens of gay couples in a whirlwind week of legal maneuvers.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I'll ever understand you big government leftists.
 
WCH said:
A single member of a court cannot (should not be able to) decide that for the people who voted against it. Let the states decide.
Click to expand...

Too bad, they can, and did, and it happened.

The states don't get to decide to restrict other people's lives, rights, etc. because some don't like those people's to be considered equal, deserving of rights.
 
roguenuke said:
Not anything close to what you claimed, which was that they were trying to limit freedom of speech, what pastors could say.
Click to expand...

Not only that but it was a retaliatory action for them being against the proposed laws.

Why else would they want the sermons?
 
WCH said:
Not only that but it was a retaliatory action for them being against the proposed laws.

Why else would they want the sermons?
Click to expand...

Prove it.

They invalidated some of the signatures of the petition. This is about trying to find out if those signatures should be accepted or not. If there are rules that say that you cannot do certain things during your sermons to help people get signatures for petitions or these churches were advocating during their sermons ways that are unethical/not allowed in getting signatures for these petitions, then they deserve this inquiry.
 
roguenuke said:
Prove it.

They invalidated some of the signatures of the petition. This is about trying to find out if those signatures should be accepted or not. If there are rules that say that you cannot do certain things during your sermons to help people get signatures for petitions or these churches were advocating during their sermons ways that are unethical/not allowed in getting signatures for these petitions, then they deserve this inquiry.
Click to expand...

That would be the Leftist perspective.

Sounds like a scheme right out of the Leftist playbook actually.
 
WCH said:
That would be the Leftist perspective.

Sounds like a scheme right out of the Leftist playbook actually.
Click to expand...

The fact that they started a petition to begin with to try to overturn an anti-discrimination ordinance is right out of the conservative, anti-gay playbook.
 
roguenuke said:
The fact that they started a petition to begin with to try to overturn an anti-discrimination ordinance is right out of the conservative, anti-gay playbook.
Click to expand...

They want to recall the mayor also...so what. She's trying to turn Houston into Gomorrah.

Power to them!
 
WCH said:
They want to recall the mayor also...so what. She's trying to turn Houston into Gomorrah.

Power to them!
Click to expand...

They are not likely to get her recalled over this. I have no idea why they want to recall her, given the group, likely just because she is openly gay, but I doubt it really has to do with her job performance, and a lot more to do with them disagreeing with her politics.
 
WCH said:
As she disagrees with theirs.

This is the latest.

Is it constitutional for a court to enforce a subpoena of ministers’ sermons? - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

Same issue.

Minister's sermons are open to the public, given to the public, are they not?

The only issue I have is them having to turn over sermons that they did not give, whether they were related to this issue or any other issue. That is not right because it would not have legitimately influenced any signatures if no one heard it.
 
WCH said:
'fraid not...

City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons | Fox News

It's all part of a broader anti-gay discrimination initiative.
Click to expand...
Why do have to resort to lies?

In post #763 you claimed that "The mayor of Houston (who is Gay) just tried to pass a law that would restrict what ministers and priests could say from the pulpit regarding homosexuality. So don't tell me laws aren't created specifically for Gays."

Obviously that is not true and now to mask that you are posting a diversion.
 
WCH said:
I asked "how far will it go" and got no answer (including from you)

50 years ago, no one expected Gays and Ssm to be normalized or legal.

My point is as valid as it gets.
Click to expand...
Yes and two hundred years ago no one expected slaves to be freed or interracial marriage, or women voting or children protected. How far back would you like to turn the clock to support bigotry?
 
roguenuke said:
Somehow I doubt this is true, but if it is, then that is wrong. I could care less what ministers say to their congregations.

That being said, I highly doubt the law just covered what was being said against gays. I'm willing to bet it was much more general than that.

Do you happen to have a link to the actual law that he was trying to pass (and not some right-wing or Christian blog/website that likely doesn't give all relevant information)? I would like to see the actual full text of the attempted legislation.
Click to expand...
There is no attempted legislation. The post was a lie made up to support a failed point.
 
WCH said:
They want to recall the mayor also...so what. She's trying to turn Houston into Gomorrah.

Power to them!
Click to expand...

some how I doubt she and the rest of the town is that rape happy even for your virgin daughters

and that was the only clearly evil thing the people from that story were into
 
WCH said:
WorldWatcher said:
WCH said:
I asked "how far will it go" and got no answer (including from you)

50 years ago, no one expected Gays and Ssm to be normalized or legal.

My point is as valid as it gets.
Click to expand...
50 years ago (1964) there were many people that didn't expect that coloreds could marry respectable white folk either would be normalized or leagal in all 50 states. Hell Alabama was one of the ones that passed a State Constitutional Amendment to make sure that didn't happen. The Loving decision was in 1967, that changed.



>>>>
Click to expand...
I don't recognize the comparison. Use some other example that actually makes sense.
Click to expand...


The fact that you choose not to recognize the comparison isn't surprising. 50-years ago the majority of people didn't want to see interracial couples married. They were in for a big surprise by 1967 and were probably just as pissed as you are.



>>>>
 
Last edited:
WorldWatcher said:
The fact that you choose not to recognize the comparison isn't surprising. 50-years ago the majority of people didn't want to see interracial couples married. They were in for a big surprise buy 1967 and were probably just as pissed as you are.



>>>>
Click to expand...

but but race is not the same thing as gender so therefore its impossible to discriminate against people in the same way over both things

I mean a racist might insult you based on your race they cant do that based on your sexuality



a racist might send your people to concentration camps

that doesn't happen over your sexuality


Holocaust victims - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

racists might not let you marry the person of your choice over race and then claim bull **** like your free to marry some one of the same race just like they are

you cant limit who people marry by what sex they are and then say your free to marry some one of the opposite gender just like every one else

or even if you could its not at all the same because.................................sex and sexuality are not race ya that's the ticket

so any comparison between restricting marriage based on race to doing so based on sex well

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