• 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!

Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

I think you're right on point, actually.

I think the real reason why homosexuals are demanding homosexual marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with equal rights because they already have equal rights. They are pursuing the homosexual marriage agenda for two primary reasons.

1. To poke a stick in the eye of Christians and Christianity
2. To be able to say that homosexuality is normal

Civil Unions wouldn't do those two things even if they conveyed every benefit that marriage does to homosexual couples. Therefore, civil unions were unacceptable. It had nothing at all to do with rights. This issue has been driven by homosexual militants. Most homosexuals I've know have had no interest in marriage for the sake of marriage. Many have told me that their homosexual lifestyle was about eschewing the "normal" model of marriage and kids.

What the long term consequences will be, no one knows because no society that endorsed homosexuality has stood the test of time and so we have no example to take a lesson from. But I think it's clear to see that in our country, the homosexuals will prevail. How it changes society in this country is something we can only guess about.

Bull. You people vote against civil unions too. And this contradicts your previous point about state endorsement of homosexuality. Civil unions would also be state sanctioning homosexuality.

See. This is why everyone knows the anti equality crowd is just acting out of spite. Their arguments contradict themselves.
 
Well, we don't find the religious angle to be useful, or intelligent, either. That doesn't stop you and your ilk.

I'm not religious. You don't have to be religious to understand that homosexual marriage is an oxymoron.
 
I'm not religious. You don't have to be religious to understand that homosexual marriage is an oxymoron.

And "arms," are just things attached to your shoulders. So government banning guns is acceptable, constitutionally speaking.
 
I just cut to the chase. I know this argument. Try to pretend that denying homosexuals state sanction of their marriage is like denying otherwise normal heterosexual couples from marrying because one of them isn't the "right" race. It's not a racial issue. Forbidding marriage among interracial couples that are in every other way qualified to be married just because they're not both the same race is not constitutional. I don't find the "race" angle to be useful at all for proponents of homosexual marriage.

good thing what YOU find relevant doesnt matter, not only is it useful in legality its very similar and this is why many judges have referred to loving vs Virginia.

what are your qualifications and reasoning again?

also we are still waiting for ONE single legit, accurate and dare I say fact based argument to deny others equal rights? . . . you havent presented one yet, please do so now, thanks
 
Bull. You people vote against civil unions too.

I don't support civil unions either, now. I did a few years ago. I thought it was an excellent way to provide the "equal rights" homosexuals were clamoring for without a great deal of political resistance. Of course, it became very clear to me after many discussions with homsexuals that it really wasn't about equal rights at all because that was rejected off hand because it didn't make homosexuality "as normal as heterosexuality". I was, however, of the mind that it was a reasonable concession to provide civil unions to any two people who wanted to be in a domestic partnership. But after my idiot militant homosexual activist brother (the same one that claims the government invented AIDS to wipe out homosexuals) threw a hissy fit and told me I need to get off the fence and stop being "ambivalent", I got off the fence. Now I can't and won't support either homosexual marriage or civil unions. The in-your-face attitude of militant homosexual activists isn't something that promotes sympathy or compassion. Not for me, anyway.

Those homosexuals who want to believe everyone that doesn't think homosexual marriage makes sense must be a religious right extremist are deluding themselves.
 
The word marriage has religious connotations that is why the gays refused to accept civil unions. The act and benefits might be secular but the gays dont want that they want the word

religion has nothing to do with legal marriage LMAO, nobody honest and educated ever takes that fallacy seriously

marriage also has pedophilia connotations and rape connotations to it also, all meanignless to equal rights which civil unions are factually not lol
 
I think you're right on point, actually.

I think the real reason why homosexuals are demanding homosexual marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with equal rights because they already have equal rights. They are pursuing the homosexual marriage agenda for two primary reasons.

1. To poke a stick in the eye of Christians and Christianity

That's it. It's all about you.
 
It is going to fall in Arizona soon, much to the chagrin of Cathi Herrod and her fundie lobbying group Center for Arizona Policy, and for the equally repellent Alliance Defending Freedom.

And of course, our resident ex congressman/full time oaf JD Hayworth will be able to marry his horse...
 
I'm not religious. You don't have to be religious to understand that homosexual marriage is an oxymoron.

Doesn't matter, the vast majority of people who oppose gay marriage are doing so for solely religious reasons. Take those people out of the equation and you have very few people who care.
 
I think you're right on point, actually.

1.) I think the real reason why homosexuals are demanding homosexual marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with equal rights because they already have equal rights.
2.)They are pursuing the homosexual marriage agenda for two primary reasons.

A. To poke a stick in the eye of Christians and Christianity
B. To be able to say that homosexuality is normal

3.)Civil Unions wouldn't do those two things even if they conveyed every benefit that marriage does to homosexual couples. Therefore, civil unions were unacceptable.

4.) It had nothing at all to do with rights. This issue has been driven by homosexual militants. Most homosexuals I've know have had no interest in marriage for the sake of marriage. Many have told me that their homosexual lifestyle was about eschewing the "normal" model of marriage and kids. What the long term consequences will be, no one knows because no society that endorsed homosexuality has stood the test of time and so we have no example to take a lesson from. But I think it's clear to see that in our country, the homosexuals will prevail. How it changes society in this country is something we can only guess about.

1.) this lie as already been proven to be false, re-posting it wont change this fact lol
2A.) this ignores that fact that many Christians support equal rights and LEGAL gay marriage, some even support religious gay marriage whooops
2B.) well depending on what you are referring to it already is normal? :shrug: but peoples opinions of it have nothing to o with equal rights

3.) Civil unions are not equal rights and you also ignore the fact that bigots and those against equal rights banned those too, you know because it doesnt matter to them lol
also dont speak for all Christians because you certainly do not, many gays and equal rights supporters are Christians

4.):lamo

i ask AGAIN, do you have ONE single legit, accurate and dare I say fact based argument to deny others equal rights? . . . one, we'd love to hear it please :D
 
I'm not religious. You don't have to be religious to understand that homosexual marriage is an oxymoron.

again? links? facts? proof?
 
That's it. It's all about you.

Thank you for sharing that stupid assumption with me. I'm not religious. You don't have to be religious to acknowledge that the desire to poke a stick in the eye of Christians is one of the primary motivations for homosexuals demanding marriage instead of civil unions. You just have to be honest and willing to call things the way they really are.
 
We the people don't want our state to endorse homosexual marriage. I imagine it's a matter of time before the deviant left wins this but for now, the will of the people still prevails in my state. Thanks for asking.

Deviant?

Now you are really showing your cards.
Seems that the anti SSM zealots think a lot about gay sex, much more than gays do. Why is that? LOL
 
Why do you care? I thought you weren't religious?

I don't care. I don't have a dog in that fight. You don't have to have a dog in the fight to recognize a dogfight when you see one, do you?
 
1.)I don't support civil unions either, now. I did a few years ago. I thought it was an excellent way to provide the "equal rights" homosexuals were clamoring for without a great deal of political resistance.
2.) Of course, it became very clear to me after many discussions with homsexuals that it really wasn't about equal rights at all because that was rejected off hand because it didn't make homosexuality "as normal as heterosexuality".
3.) I was, however, of the mind that it was a reasonable concession to provide civil unions to any two people who wanted to be in a domestic partnership.
4.) But after my idiot militant homosexual activist brother (the same one that claims the government invented AIDS to wipe out homosexuals) threw a hissy fit and told me I need to get off the fence and stop being "ambivalent", I got off the fence. Now I can't and won't support either homosexual marriage or civil unions. The in-your-face attitude of militant homosexual activists isn't something that promotes sympathy or compassion. Not for me, anyway.

5.)Those homosexuals who want to believe everyone that doesn't think homosexual marriage makes sense must be a religious right extremist are deluding themselves.

1.) so you didnt understand equal rights a few years ago either huh?
2.) translation, those people were too smart to fall for somethign lesser and still be denied equal rights.
would you like to debate how they are factually not equal? PLEASE say yes lol
3.) so denying equal rights is reasonable? very telling
4.) awesome so you admit you are against equal rights
5.) i dont know any that thing that but there are MILLIONS that are educated honest and objective enough to understand equal rights and understand personal opinions of marriage are 100% meanignless lol

once again do you have ONE single legit, accurate and fact based argument to deny others equal rights? . . . one
 
Deviant?

Now you are really showing your cards.
Seems that the anti SSM zealots think a lot about gay sex, much more than gays do. Why is that? LOL

You don't have to think a lot about homosexuality to recognize it as a deviance. Surely you are more capable of critical thought than that stupid assertion would indicate, aren't you?
 
Thank you for sharing that stupid assumption with me. I'm not religious. You don't have to be religious to acknowledge that the desire to poke a stick in the eye of Christians is one of the primary motivations for homosexuals demanding marriage instead of civil unions. You just have to be honest and willing to call things the way they really are.

except for the millions that are Christians and support equal rights for gays LMAO

also dont other religions have marriage, why do you exclude them?

reality and facts are stacked up against every post you make
 
I don't care. I don't have a dog in that fight. You don't have to have a dog in the fight to recognize a dogfight when you see one, do you?

this just goes to show how much you are severely uneducated about this topic.

ALL AMERICANS have a dog in this fight, we always do when its about equal rights lol
 
I don't care. I don't have a dog in that fight. You don't have to have a dog in the fight to recognize a dogfight when you see one, do you?

Then why did you bring it up as one of your bullet points if you don't care? That makes no sense at all. And BTW: being gay is normal, just like being black is normal. You might want to figure that one out.
 
this just goes to show how much you are severely uneducated about this topic.

ALL AMERICANS have a dog in this fight, we always do when its about equal rights lol

You keep trying to frame it as an equal rights issue and it isn't.
 
I don't care. I don't have a dog in that fight. You don't have to have a dog in the fight to recognize a dogfight when you see one, do you?

No, but if you can't provide a convenient box for the left to cram you into, they'll flail around for a while and eventually put you in one of their liking anyway. Right after that they declare victory and begin ridicule.
 
What freedom? Gays could already have a ceremony and live happily ever after, they didnt even just want the govt benefits of marriage under a different name (civil union) they wanted to destroy the religious meaning of marriage. Gay marriage is about religious bigotry. If it was the gay civil union movement yall could have won that decades ago.


So it was the homosexuals that passed a bounch of State Constitutional Amendments about a decade ago that barred BOTH Civil Marriage and Civil Unions?


It was homosexuals that when Washington State passed Civil Union's being equal to Civil Marriage in terms of benefits and responsibilities put a referendum on the ballot (Referendum 74, 2012) to PREVENT the law from becoming active because it was to much like marriage?




Why those sneaky bastards.


>>>>
 
You keep trying to frame it as an equal rights issue and it isn't.
LMAO
facts, laws, constitution and court cases all disagree with you

remind us what you have supporting you failed, dishonest and destroyed claim that it isn't? please share now, thank you ;)
 
Then why did you bring it up as one of your bullet points if you don't care? That makes no sense at all. And BTW: being gay is normal, just like being black is normal. You might want to figure that one out.

I brought it up because it was pertinent to the fact that this was never really a battle over equal rights because it was one that could have been won easily a decade or so ago. I know for a fact that the political leaders of the homosexual movement sacrificed the "rights" many homosexuals would have enjoyed by rejecting civil unions and holding out for homosexual marriage or nothing. What they had to lose was obvious (the rights they were trying to pretend it was really about) and what they had to gain by doing so was equally obvious: a broad smack-down to Christians who thought of marriage as a "religious union" and the opportunity to declare that homosexuality was just as normal as heterosexuality. Clearly the actual rights weren't the important thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom