• 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

Usage of words changes. If you think arguing definitions is a strong argument against individual freedom, I don't know what to tell you.

I agree with you that no only do definitions of words change, but society changes. And when society changes to the point where it wants to promote homosexual unions, it will create some way to subsidize and sanction them. The society in my state doesn't feel it's in the state's interest to sanction and subsidize homosexual unions. You may enter into a homosexual union at will with no objection from the state. You just can't force the state to sanction it.
 
Oil is oil. Vinegar is vinegar. Mixing oil and oil results in something called "oil". Mixing vinegar and vinegar produces something called "vinegar". Only by combining the oil with the vinegar do you get mayonnaise and even though the oil might feel all butt-hurt because it doesn't want to be mixed with vinegar but still wants to be "mayonnaise", the oil will just have to get over it because that's not how it works.

only in this case your bring together 2 different peapole who don't have to be different genders since we don't require anything gender specific from a married couple

your story falls apart rather quickly

you can either count any 2 individuals as being oil and vinegar regardless of gender

and you can note that we don't need any gender specific property's in a marriage just a double portion o peapole

but you know what that story would actually work on

single marriage
 
I agree with you that no only do definitions of words change, but society changes. And when society changes to the point where it wants to promote homosexual unions, it will create some way to subsidize and sanction them. The society in my state doesn't feel it's in the state's interest to sanction and subsidize homosexual unions. You may enter into a homosexual union at will with no objection from the state. You just can't force the state to sanction it.

you can force the state to go with it because the alternative is not = protection under the law for same sex couples states cant deicide to ban interracial marriages either

you can also pretend that ssm is impossible but I wish you would stop that

since its the possibility of something you don't want that drives you in this case
 
I agree with you that no only do definitions of words change, but society changes. And when society changes to the point where it wants to promote homosexual unions, it will create some way to subsidize and sanction them. The society in my state doesn't feel it's in the state's interest to sanction and subsidize homosexual unions. You may enter into a homosexual union at will with no objection from the state. You just can't force the state to sanction it.

The 14th amendment can, on equal protection grounds. Gender is a protected classification, subject to equal protection challenges. You refuse to attempt to even meet the test.

State laws and ballot measures are subject to the 14th amendment, as much as some people wish otherwise.
 
Horse****.

You ask but don't accept the answer and that is the honest answer. If you want to engage in a tryst with someone of the same sex, it's none of my business and I won't judge you for that. My best friend and fishing partner died of AIDS in the early 90's. I never judged him based on his sexual behavior. He thought people who wanted to get married were clinically insane.
 
The 14th amendment can, on equal protection grounds. Gender is a protected classification, subject to equal protection challenges. You refuse to attempt to even meet the test.

That's because it's not about gender. It doesn't have to "meet the test".
 
That's because it's not about gender. It doesn't have to "meet the test".

Defining marriage as between a man and a woman isn't about gender?

Do tell.
 
Nope. I have made no judgement call on whether homosexuality is wrong or right.
But you felt that you had to deny condemning it. Wonder why.

Why do you ask questions with a false premise like that?
What is the false premise? The simple question is how is your life or marriage affected by gay marriage?

"We the people" are the authority on that.
Nope there is not such thing.

I've answered it numerous times. I just answered it again.
No, you made excuses.

No it is not. I would not write a law that requires anyone to swear they aren't homosexual before being allowed to marry.
That is a load of BS and yes pun intended.
 
That's because it's not about gender. It doesn't have to "meet the test".

its about equality and you keep trying to promote inequality based on gender so ya bans on ssm fail that test

bans on interracial marriage were also un equal based on race even though all races could marry
 
That's because it's not about gender. It doesn't have to "meet the test".

That argument has failed repeatedly. In fact, all arguments put forth by those who are in opposition to ssm have failed. Do you have anything new to use?
 
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.

And this is why your side has been losing. You fundamentally reduce marriage to the genitals of the couple. I am still trying to sort out why you folks feel it is the State's business to enforce traditional gender norms. When pressed on it, traditional marriage supporters tend to use vague spiritual and religious terminology to argue inherent differences between the sexes that necessitates a complementary union. However, imposing a particular religious view and denying rights to couples on the basis of just their sex does not serve any rational or legitimate purpose which justifies the state enforcing discrimination.

Why not just argue your religious views prohibit you from recognizing same-sex unions as marriage? That seems like a more honest and respectable position than going out of your way to demean gay relationships and argue an absolutist definition of marriage that few Christians even support. Divorcing love and commitment from the definition of marriage does not seem like a position most Christians I know would take. Could you explain how your position on same-sex marriage is not theocratic?
 
Last edited:
And this is why your side has been losing. You fundamentally reduce marriage to the genitals of the couple. I am still trying to sort out why you folks feel it is the State's business to enforce traditional gender norms. When pressed on it, traditional marriage supporters tend to use vague spiritual and religious terminology to argue inherent differences between the sexes that necessitates a complementary union. However, imposing a particular religious view and denying rights to couples on the basis of just their sex does not serve any rational or legitimate purpose which justifies the state enforcing discrimination.

Why not just argue your religious views prohibit you from recognizing same-sex unions as marriage? That seems like a more honest and respectable position than going out of your way to demean gay relationships and argue an absolutist definition of marriage that few Christians even support. Divorcing love and commitment from the definition of marriage does not seem like a position most Christians I know would take. Could you explain how your position on same-sex marriage is not theocratic?

It's not about religion for me. It's about recognizing that male female bonded pairs are what nature intended and I don't see any purpose to sanction unnatural relationships. We could quibble for pages now about what's "natural", but I think it's plenty clear enough.
 
It's not about religion for me. It's about recognizing that male female bonded pairs are what nature intended and I don't see any purpose to sanction unnatural relationships. We could quibble for pages now about what's "natural", but I think it's plenty clear enough.

nature doesn't intend anything mostly if seems to throw things against a wall and some stuff stick's for a while

marriage is are construct and around hear the genitals don't have any requirements other then you wanting a full set

but treating peapole equally under the law is also a local construct about the laws that we make up

also both homosexuality and hetero sexuality are natural deal with it

also nature is not good or evil desirable or undesirable deal with it
 
nature doesn't intend anything mostly if seems to throw things against a wall and some stuff stick's for a while

marriage is are construct and around hear the genitals don't have any requirements other then you wanting a full set

but treating peapole equally under the law is also a local construct about the laws that we make up

also both homosexuality and hetero sexuality are natural deal with it

also nature is not good or evil desirable or undesirable deal with it

All nature seems stuck on this whole gender role thing. In nature the only bonded pairs that mate for life and raise offspring are pairs that consist of one male joined with one female. That's one of those things that "stuck" against the wall.
 
All nature seems stuck on this whole gender role thing. In nature the only bonded pairs that mate for life and raise offspring are pairs that consist of one male joined with one female. That's one of those things that "stuck" against the wall.

except for with humans at the very least know same sex pars in animals will raise young some times

since marriage doesn't require you to stay together for life or to have kids or to be able to have kids and gay couples do raise kids some times and do stay together for life some times and the kids are r related to 1 of the parent some times( just like with hetero sexual marriages )

why no gay marriage?
 
except for with humans at the very least know same sex pars in animals will raise young some times

since marriage doesn't require you to stay together for life or to have kids or to be able to have kids and gay couples do raise kids some times and do stay together for life some times and the kids are r related to 1 of the parent some times( just like with hetero sexual marriages )

why no gay marriage?

Because homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. I thought we covered that already.
 
Because homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. I thought we covered that already.

we did its not

I gave you an actual oxymoron to play with even
 
now lets see



mar-riage




[mar-ij] Spell Syllables

Examples
Word Origin


noun
1.
(broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage:


ok now




ox-y-mo-ron




[ok-si-mawr-on, -mohr-] Spell Syllables

Examples
Word Origin


noun, plural oxymora

[ok-si-mawr-uh, -mohr-uh] (Show IPA), oxymorons. Rhetoric
1.
a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”.


ok then


well it seems same sex marriage is not a contradiction to the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities

Yo!...
 
You have a right to your opinion no matter how ridiculous it is. Cheers. :)

seems to be fact going by the definitions of the words

but maybe its not so why is me that's ridiculous and not you?
 
Um...what?

well same sex marriage is not an oxymoron

so I have decided to come up with some actual marriage related oxymoron's

so far iv got single marriage and same sex opposite sex marriage(between 2 people).....though I guess the last one might need work if you had a group marriage of a certain kind
 
Back
Top Bottom