• 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

He means that if the state wants to re-define marriage the people should have some say in it, so make a law and pass it, but you know that the oligharchy won't stand for the people's voice being heard.

But it will be, whether they want it or not.

If they were truly "redefining" marriage, not just trying to restrict people from marriage, then the people would have a say in it. But that isn't what is happening here. Marriage is legally defined by how it functions, not who can or can't enter into it.

If we had these legal restrictions of marriage in place, no one under the age of 18, must be two humans of the same sex, within 40 IQ points of each other who live in the same state, the definition of marriage is not "two humans of the same sex, who are at least 18 years of age, and not more than 40 IQ points apart or citizens of different states". That simply is not how we define stuff. That is merely restrictions on entering into something.

Marriage is defined as a legal agreement between people that creates a legally recognized kinship between those people which comes with state and federal benefits, rights, and privileges under the law.
 
Since marriage is an institution created by man and defined by man, what men think matters in ways that it wouldn't over simple assertions of fact. What most people consider marriage to be is what marriage actually is or at least should be since this is a democracy and marriage is a matter of democratic law. If the majority think homosexual marriage is something the state should sanction, the legislature should take that into consideration in their law governing marriage and it's definition. And vice versa.

nope bans on interracial marriage were always wrong man you need actual reasons to change that same with ssm opinion doesn't cut it
 
nope bans on interracial marriage were always wrong man you need actual reasons to change that same with ssm opinion doesn't cut it

Homosexuality is a behavior, not a race.
 
States rights. What San Francisco residents think doesn't hold water in Alabama. I've got no problem with states redefining marriage to include homosexuals if that supports the values of the people in that state. Not all states are full of people that think this sort of social experiment is a good idea.

states don't have a right to treat citizens unequally udder the law and with out cause to boot the states don't have the right to discriminate against peapole with out reason
 
Homosexuality is a behavior, not a race.

one you don't control even since we must be counting the desire but do you think any one doesn't know that?

don't play stupid

this isn't true for interracial marriage it doesn't hold up for same sex marriage or anything else

What most people consider marriage to be is what marriage actually is or at least should be since this is a democracy and marriage is a matter of democratic law. If the majority think homosexual marriage is something the state should sanction, the legislature should take that into consideration in their law governing marriage and it's definition. And vice versa.

you need non insane reasons to discriminate against people in this country deal with it

with out those you can shove your states rights citizens rights come 1st
 
Whoops! Looks like I could stand to take my own advice: the number of 55% is a bit old and that number is actually 56%.



Poll: Majority support SCOTUS gay marriage decision - Jonathan Topaz - POLITICO.com

This is getting really embarrassing. First I say that support for ssm is 55% when it was really in fact 56%, then I say that the number of states with ssm is 31 when, if I had bothered to do a modicum of research, I would have found it was in fact 32 after a Wyoming Federal Court's decision on Friday.

I really need to get with it, here.
 
Choosing to be with someone of a different or particular race is a behavior, a choice, not a race in itself.

I'm ok with his logic. Choosing to be with someone of a different/particular/same race is about race. Therefore choosing to be with someone of a different/particular/same gender gender is about gender.
 
I'm ok with his logic. Choosing to be with someone of a different/particular/same race is about race. Therefore choosing to be with someone of a different/particular/same gender gender is about gender.

Absolutely, but that is not his actual logic. He is trying to combine the two concepts, in a way where one is the characteristic (race/interracial marriage), and the other about the choice (relationship/same sex marriage). They either both must be about the characteristic or about the choice, otherwise, it is dishonest or illogical.
 
The fact that some of you cannot tolerate a view that traditional marriage, which has served mankind very well for thousands of years, should be redefined all of a sudden to incorporate two new "alternative lifestyle" models is "bigotry".

How are we not tolerating 'traditional' marriage?

People can still get married as 'traditionally' as they want.

How is marriage changed for straight couples?
 
How are we not tolerating 'traditional' marriage?

People can still get married as 'traditionally' as they want.

How is marriage changed for straight couples?

I would suggest you take a remedial reading comprehension class.
 
Papa bull said:
The fact that some of you cannot tolerate a view that traditional marriage, which has served mankind very well for thousands of years, should be redefined all of a sudden to incorporate two new "alternative lifestyle" models is "bigotry".

How are we not tolerating 'traditional' marriage?

People can still get married as 'traditionally' as they want.

How is marriage changed for straight couples?

I would suggest you take a remedial reading comprehension class.

Which part of the words you wrote did I not comprehend properly? I addressed the bold.

Did I need to add the word 'definition'? How does that change my question? How does redefining to include same sex couples show intolerance of your view of 'traditional?'
 
Which part of the words you wrote did I not comprehend properly? I addressed the bold.

You just think about it really hard. I didn't say anything about toleration of traditional marriage. Seriously. Read all the words I wrote and think really hard about what they say and resist the urge to make it up as you go along however it suits you and maybe you can get this. Go ahead. Try it. I know you can do this.

Here, I'll help with a little sentence diagram exercise for you since you're having such a challenge.

The fact that some of you cannot tolerate a view that traditional marriage, which has served mankind very well for thousands of years, should be redefined all of a sudden to incorporate two new "alternative lifestyle" models is "bigotry".

Try to focus on the underlined words.
 
Last edited:
You just think about it really hard. I didn't say anything about toleration of traditional marriage. Seriously. Read all the words I wrote and think really hard about what they say and resist the urge to make it up as you go along however it suits you and maybe you can get this. Go ahead. Try it. I know you can do this.

Here, I'll help with a little sentence diagram exercise for you since you're having such a challenge.



Try to focus on the underlined words.

hate to say it but your right my mistake
 
And another said that it would be a bad idea for them to step in, anyway, because it's something the states need to deal with at the legislative level. And yet another said that with homosexual marriage being such a new concept, it cannot be assumed that those rejecting it are doing so out of bigotry.

That's a fair point, it shouldn't be assumed that people opposing something have bad motives. But the courts have invited opposition to SSM to testify about their reasons, and those opposed repeatedly come up short and essentially can't articulate reasons to oppose SSM that don't fall back on some notion of traditional values, religion, or bigotry.

Here's Scalia: [The court] "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct." His view is clear enough - laws against homosexuality are fine because society has a right to attach moral opprobrium (bigotry, in formal legalese) against homosexuality.
 
That's a fair point, it shouldn't be assumed that people opposing something have bad motives. But the courts have invited opposition to SSM to testify about their reasons, and those opposed repeatedly come up short and essentially can't articulate reasons to oppose SSM that don't fall back on some notion of traditional values, religion, or bigotry.

Here's Scalia: [The court] "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct." His view is clear enough - laws against homosexuality are fine because society has a right to attach moral opprobrium (bigotry, in formal legalese) against homosexuality.

Male/male and female/female pairings make absolutely no sense whatsoever from any natural perspective and they weren't what the institution of marriage was designed to support. I get that it helps people argue that "homosexuality is just the new normal" if society agrees to treat homosexual unions exactly the same as heterosexual unions but I think that's society's decision to make if they want to do that and not the decision of a vocal minority group that wants to "normalize" their sexual proclivity.
 
Male/male and female/female pairings make absolutely no sense whatsoever from any natural perspective and they weren't what the institution of marriage was designed to support. I get that it helps people argue that "homosexuality is just the new normal" if society agrees to treat homosexual unions exactly the same as heterosexual unions but I think that's society's decision to make if they want to do that and not the decision of a vocal minority group that wants to "normalize" their sexual proclivity.

And yet they happen in nature. We do lots of things that go against design (study the back sometime), many of which we accept without question. And no, I think it is each individual decision to make. Who I marry, as long as they are of age, of the same species, and not too closely related is my business and not yours at all. My own marriage keeps me busy enough that I don't need yours to worry about. And I damn sure don't want you or anyone else in mine.
 
And another said that it would be a bad idea for them to step in, anyway, because it's something the states need to deal with at the legislative level. And yet another said that with homosexual marriage being such a new concept, it cannot be assumed that those rejecting it are doing so out of bigotry.

So prove that's the case. Come up with an argument that can't be reduced to "i'm better than you"
 
That's a fair point, it shouldn't be assumed that people opposing something have bad motives. But the courts have invited opposition to SSM to testify about their reasons, and those opposed repeatedly come up short and essentially can't articulate reasons to oppose SSM that don't fall back on some notion of traditional values, religion, or bigotry.

Here's Scalia: [The court] "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct." His view is clear enough - laws against homosexuality are fine because society has a right to attach moral opprobrium (bigotry, in formal legalese) against homosexuality.

Not surprising since we both can look up numerous bigoted statements from his dissent in lawrence v texas alone
 
Has no one noticed that Wyoming gave up and started issuing marriage licenses to SSM couples yesterday (immediately upon its decision)?
 
Has no one noticed that Wyoming gave up and started issuing marriage licenses to SSM couples yesterday (immediately upon its decision)?


I did, people keep saying it's 31 states, but with the addition of Wyoming I think it's now 32. Not worth the effort though to correct the. :)



>>>>
 
Back
Top Bottom