• 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

When it comes to homosexuality the Roman Catholic Church says love the sinner but hate the sin.........Having sex outside of marriage be you straight or gay is a mortal sin in the eyes of the church.

And many American Catholics don't care what the Roman Catholic Church says about sex or gays in reality. This is why most Catholics have used some form of birth control (such as contraceptives or condoms or sterilization) and over half here in the US support same sex marriage.
 
though in this case you would be using the correct word to say a ssm is a marriage since its included in the same legal institution

SSM is an oxymoron.
 
Actually, it's an attempt at illusion when a new term needs to be created to redefine an established covenant...

And no, it's not. You don't own the meaning of the word "marriage", nor do opposite sex couples or religions.
 
And no, it's not. You don't own the meaning of the word "marriage", nor do opposite sex couples or religions.

You're correct, I do not own the meaning, the courts do not define the meaning, society does that...
 
You're correct, I do not own the meaning, the courts do not define the meaning, society does that...

Society has already added same sex couples into the meaning. In reality, the laws in how they function define legal marriage, which easily includes same sex couples.
 
Society has already added same sex couples into the meaning. In reality, the laws in how they function define legal marriage, which easily includes same sex couples.

If that were the case, there would be no need to run to the courts when decisions were made by THE PEOPLE that a few had a problem with accepting...
 
If that were the case, there would be no need to run to the courts when decisions were made by THE PEOPLE that a few had a problem with accepting...

Nope. That isn't how our laws work. We were talking about the definition of marriage. That already includes same sex couples, whether a majority in certain areas agree or not. Some people had a problem accepting that the laws pertaining to marriage do not in any way prevent two people of the same sex from marrying, from being considered spouses legally. The people are still limited by the guarantees of the Constitution, including equal protection of the laws.
 
Nope. That isn't how our laws work. We were talking about the definition of marriage. That already includes same sex couples, whether a majority in certain areas agree or not. Some people had a problem accepting that the laws pertaining to marriage do not in any way prevent two people of the same sex from marrying, from being considered spouses legally. The people are still limited by the guarantees of the Constitution, including equal protection of the laws.

How equal are you willing to go? Would you accept polygamous marriages? How about incestuous marriages? When one begins messing with societal norms, the proverbial can of worms is opened if you can find a court that agrees...
 
How equal are you willing to go? Would you accept polygamous marriages? How about incestuous marriages? When one begins messing with societal norms, the proverbial can of worms is opened if you can find a court that agrees...

Those mentioned have nothing to do with whether or not same sex couples should get married. They can be challenged just as easily with just opposite sex couples allowed to marry.

But, I will address them.

I actually have no issue with people being in poly relationships. The only issue I have with multiple spouses is that, currently, our laws simply cannot handle them being designed around only one spouse per person (see my reply in thread pertaining to this issue). If we get the laws changed to make it so people can have multiple spouses without putting a huge burden on the state/society, I'm all for it. I think there absolutely should at least be something available for multiple spouses to get some of the very basic recognition as a legal kin, until those changes can be made.

I'm for legalizing relations as close as first cousins in every state. There is no legitimate reason not to. I wouldn't fight against them, but also wouldn't fight for/completely support relationships/marriages between closer tier family members. I have already covered why in other threads.
 
Those mentioned have nothing to do with whether or not same sex couples should get married. They can be challenged just as easily with just opposite sex couples allowed to marry.

But, I will address them.

I actually have no issue with people being in poly relationships. The only issue I have with multiple spouses is that, currently, our laws simply cannot handle them being designed around only one spouse per person (see my reply in thread pertaining to this issue). If we get the laws changed to make it so people can have multiple spouses without putting a huge burden on the state/society, I'm all for it. I think there absolutely should at least be something available for multiple spouses to get some of the very basic recognition as a legal kin, until those changes can be made.

I'm for legalizing relations as close as first cousins in every state. There is no legitimate reason not to. I wouldn't fight against them, but also wouldn't fight for/completely support relationships/marriages between closer tier family members. I have already covered why in other threads.

Societies define marriage, not courts. If you want the federal government to define marriage, let's get a convention together and discuss it. If not, the federal courts have no business ruling State's Constitutions "unconstitutional" as that subject is not covered any more than driver's licenses...
 
Societies define marriage, not courts. If you want the federal government to define marriage, let's get a convention together and discuss it. If not, the federal courts have no business ruling State's Constitutions "unconstitutional" as that subject is not covered any more than driver's licenses...

People define marriage. Legal marriage is defined in how it operates, functions, not in how it is restricted.

The federal courts do have a say, just like if a state tried to deny driver's licenses to Asians. The SCOTUS could strike down the law as unconstitutional, according to the 14th Amendment.
 
Societies define marriage, not courts. If you want the federal government to define marriage, let's get a convention together and discuss it. If not, the federal courts have no business ruling State's Constitutions "unconstitutional" as that subject is not covered any more than driver's licenses...


So even though the United States Constitution has a specific amendment against States denying citizens due process and equal protection under the law, the Alabama amendment banning interracial marriage wasn't unconstitutional and the court never should have ruled against Virginia in the Loving case?



>>>>
 
the opinion of 85% of the gold fearing people in this country.

LMAO why do you make stuff up, post about what you dont know or post blatant lies?

85% huh? just like MOST states dont have gay marriage right? LOL

please provide the facts and stats to support your claim
 
When it comes to homosexuality the Roman Catholic Church says love the sinner but hate the sin.........Having sex outside of marriage be you straight or gay is a mortal sin in the eyes of the church.

whats the church have to do with peoples opinions, united states of america and its freedoms and rights? oh thats right nothing lol
 
Actually, it's an attempt at illusion when a new term needs to be created to redefine an established covenant...

this is also 100% false LOL
nothing is be redefined
 
You're correct, I do not own the meaning, the courts do not define the meaning, society does that...

also 100% false, but please continue to make stuff up
 
1.)Societies define marriage, not courts.
2.) If you want the federal government to define marriage, let's get a convention together and discuss it.
3.)If not, the federal courts have no business ruling State's Constitutions "unconstitutional" as that subject is not covered any more than driver's licenses...

1.) legal marriage is and can be defined by the courts, this fact will not change, your statement is factually wrong as reality proves.
2.) not needed its already done
3.) actually its EXACTLY what thier business by design of our government LMAO, the states over reached thier power and trampled on individual rights and freedoms and violated the constitution, the fed stepped in and fixed this just like they are supposed too. Checks and balances that protect ALL of our rights.
 
I don't question the knowledge. [mainly because it makes sense to me]

Sorry Dude, I can't help you.

you dont question your faith knowledge seems to be lacking in this case
 
Oh you think Christians have been persecuted because they don't approve of Gays? Nope. Mostly because they aren't Muslim or secular

no I think your acting just as badly as peapole who believe christitnaity is wrong based on faith and I want you to act better then that which happens to be in line with what you believe your savior said in your holy book
 
They break the laws of their country and get punished. That's what depravity will get you in certain places.

Those countries write those laws because they believe homosexuality is BAD for their society and against their religion.

so its ok to punish peapole for being Christian so long as its against local laws?

its ok to view your religion is depraved based on faith?

that's how your acting
 
and some of those same countries feel that way about different religions too LMAO
wow you just owned your own post lol

Christians like me would be lawbreakers there

man just seems to love law guess it doesn't need a justification for him
 
Against all Christians, not necessarily me.

If you read all my posts you would see I said I've never been persecuted for my beliefs other than on the Internet.

so gay peapole have to be persecuted personally before they can complain about peapole mistreating gay peapole and you can bring it up for other Christians

doesn't seem like the same standard
 
Back
Top Bottom