• 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!

As gay marriages begin in Florida, Supreme Court is set to meet on issue

1.) So you say, but it does not make it so. And I engaged in no strawman
2.) government protections equates to control. There is no way to separate government protections from control, especially when the government without authority defines, licenses, and attempts to restrict personal relationships. So, no false position and a totally accurate assessment of what defining marriage has done. Now we need marriage equality, and the majority of the States now have it in some regard.

3.)The good news is I can be ok with marriage equality as I know the government will always be involved in marriage one way or another.

4.)Governments hate to give up control, but that does not remove my stance on the matter nor is it a strawman.

1.)I agree "me" saying doesnt make it true but facts and post history do
this was your straman: "Worse, you are basically saying a marriage is all about finances and outside controls."

never said this so its a strawman by definition. Your post fails and facts win again.
2.) meaningless to anything i said, seems you want to have a NEW discussion. This is ALSO a straw man since its not being discussed by me and has nothing to do with our discussion.

3.) exactly, good thing you finally agree with the truth

4.) see #2
 
1.)I agree "me" saying doesnt make it true but facts and post history do
this was your straman: "Worse, you are basically saying a marriage is all about finances and outside controls."

never said this so its a strawman by definition. Your post fails and facts win again.
2.) meaningless to anything i said, seems you want to have a NEW discussion. This is ALSO a straw man since its not being discussed by me and has nothing to do with our discussion.

3.) exactly, good thing you finally agree with the truth

4.) see #2

Because it is, marriage when defined by government is about finances and outside controls. You said it yourself on what marriage protects, which included finances. The outside control part is the government. Again, no strawman but an accurate assessment of what we get with government definition, licensing, and restrictions of (perhaps better said limitations on the rights of) personal relationships. License to marriage, conditional tax code, must go before a judge to get a divorce. Government is in the mix all along the way and with that is control. And it not meaningless, reasonable discussion since the topic is marriage controls by government. Since I know I am in the extreme minority the next best thing for me to advocate for is marriage equality. All of which I have been consistent on in this thread. Go back and check, see if you can catch me wavering in my position.
 
Because it is, marriage when defined by government is about finances and outside controls. You said it yourself on what marriage protects, which included finances. The outside control part is the government. Again, no strawman but an accurate assessment of what we get with government definition, licensing, and restrictions of (perhaps better said limitations on the rights of) personal relationships. License to marriage, conditional tax code, must go before a judge to get a divorce. Government is in the mix all along the way and with that is control. And it not meaningless, reasonable discussion since the topic is marriage controls by government. Since I know I am in the extreme minority the next best thing for me to advocate for is marriage equality. All of which I have been consistent on in this thread. Go back and check, see if you can catch me wavering in my position.

dishonety wont change the fact you posted a strawman and now trying to CHANGE the original strawman to a new one wont do that either :shrug:

this is strawman number one: "Worse, you are basically saying a marriage is all about finances and outside controls."
this is a strawman because you completely made this up as i never said anything like it
strawman number two is all of the above quote because its MEANINGLESS to anything i said and anything we discussed. You repeating the meaninglessness and not aavering from it doesnt change the fact its meaningless and a straw man.

I made the statement government will always be involved in marriage you claimed otherwise, i explained why then you made up strawman number one, i pointed that out then you made up strawman number 2 then went off about control which is meaningless, then you admitted later that government will always be involved :shrug:

theres nothing to discuss, government will be involved and you acknowledge that fact :shrug:
I never claimed "marriage is all about finances and outside controls." you made that up and that strawman failed and was proven false
and your opinion of control is meaningless to my point of "government will always be involved" its doesnt matter

you need to take your own advice and go back and read the thread, thanks

definitions and thread history all prove you wrong and facts win again
 
Great news for freedom and equality, bad news for hate-filled bigots. The world's a changin', folks. You can get on board the tolerance and peace train or you can go cry in a corner while the world moves on without you.
Tolerance and peace? Here, I disagree with the ruling. Now, show me how tolerant and peaceful you are.
 
dishonety wont change the fact you posted a strawman and now trying to CHANGE the original strawman to a new one wont do that either :shrug:

this is strawman number one: "Worse, you are basically saying a marriage is all about finances and outside controls."
this is a strawman because you completely made this up as i never said anything like it
strawman number two is all of the above quote because its MEANINGLESS to anything i said and anything we discussed. You repeating the meaninglessness and not aavering from it doesnt change the fact its meaningless and a straw man.

I made the statement government will always be involved in marriage you claimed otherwise, i explained why then you made up strawman number one, i pointed that out then you made up strawman number 2 then went off about control which is meaningless, then you admitted later that government will always be involved :shrug:

theres nothing to discuss, government will be involved and you acknowledge that fact :shrug:
I never claimed "marriage is all about finances and outside controls." you made that up and that strawman failed and was proven false
and your opinion of control is meaningless to my point of "government will always be involved" its doesnt matter

you need to take your own advice and go back and read the thread, thanks

definitions and thread history all prove you wrong and facts win again

There is nothing I have failed to prove, not a thing.
 
Tolerance and peace? Here, I disagree with the ruling. Now, show me how tolerant and peaceful you are.

I'm so tolerant and peaceful I'm not going to try to petition the state to deny you rights because you're different. See how that works? You're welcome to be a hateful bigot all you want, equal rights for all.
 
I'm so tolerant and peaceful I'm not going to try to petition the state to deny you rights because you're different. See how that works? You're welcome to be a hateful bigot all you want, equal rights for all.

So you are calling me a hate filled bigot. Nice, very peaceful and tolerant of you. See, I knew I would pull your true colors out very easily.
Oh, and a new lawsuit challenging the ruling is in the works thanks to Pam Bondi.
 
So you are calling me a hate filled bigot. Nice, very peaceful and tolerant of you. See, I knew I would pull your true colors out very easily.
Oh, and a new lawsuit challenging the ruling is in the works thanks to Pam Bondi.

Just because I tolerate you doesn't mean I have to like you or hold my tongue. The only thing that matters is that I recognize that you have a right as an American to live your life as you choose. If you had half a tolerant bone in your body you wouldn't be trying to deny rights to people you find icky. Keep hatin', hater. Things aren't going back to the way they were.
 
There is nothing I have failed to prove, not a thing.

again facts and thread history prove your post wrong, denying this fact wont change it :shrug:

would you like me to do it AGAIN?
 
So you are calling me a hate filled bigot. Nice, very peaceful and tolerant of you. See, I knew I would pull your true colors out very easily.
Oh, and a new lawsuit challenging the ruling is in the works thanks to Pam Bondi.

IF the definition is accurate theres nothing unpeaceful or intolerant about calling your views bigoted :shrug:
 
Just because I tolerate you doesn't mean I have to like you or hold my tongue. The only thing that matters is that I recognize that you have a right as an American to live your life as you choose. If you had half a tolerant bone in your body you wouldn't be trying to deny rights to people you find icky. Keep hatin', hater. Things aren't going back to the way they were.

But there is no reason to be hateful about the push for change, I suspect that is the underline point being made. We tend to make matters like this far worse with militant attitudes about one another. Change in this regard is supposed to be about recognition of the minority no longer being subjected to the will of the majority using the government as the control mechanism. We can easily ruin that and get quite a backlash.
 
again facts and thread history prove your post wrong, denying this fact wont change it :shrug:

would you like me to do it AGAIN?

Do what again? Nothing I sad was false, appealing to government to handle marriage is about control. Straight up, there is nothing that can separate that. I cannot reduce the point any further to make the point any more clear.
 
100% false, would you like proof? sure ill use your own words



and there you go what you said was 100% false and a strawman you made up.
Facts win again

It is when you appeal to government to be the enforcement mechanism, how could it be otherwise?

When I said "you are basically saying a marriage is all about finances and outside controls" that was a statement about whom you need that outside control to be. Government.
 
IF the definition is accurate theres nothing unpeaceful or intolerant about calling your views bigoted :shrug:
LOL, yea. You people are so understanding and thoughtful of others. Too bad you are so blind in your own fervor as to see that this is why we hate you.
 
It is when you appeal to government to be the enforcement mechanism, how could it be otherwise?

When I said "you are basically saying a marriage is all about finances and outside controls" that was a statement about whom you need that outside control to be. Government.

translation: you have no quote of me saying that but you made it up in your head based on your subjective opinion and assumption.
thanks for proving me right and proving you made a false statement

facts win again
 
1.) LOL, yea. You people are so understanding and thoughtful of others.
2.) Too bad you are so blind in your own fervor as to see that this is why we hate you.

1.)weird, nothing in this post changes anything about the fact that your COULD be a bigoted and or have bigoted views and pointing that fact out would not make somebody unpeaceful or intolerant

but please keep deflecting from that fact

2.) lol who is we? and why the hate?
 
1.)weird, nothing in this post changes anything about the fact that your COULD be a bigoted and or have bigoted views and pointing that fact out would not make somebody unpeaceful or intolerant

but please keep deflecting from that fact

2.) lol who is we? and why the hate?
We? We is the vast majority of persons in this nation.
Feel free to hide behind your own brand of hate and name calling. LOL, ya'll really crack me up.
 
LOL, yea. You people are so understanding and thoughtful of others. Too bad you are so blind in your own fervor as to see that this is why we hate you.

Now I see why I can't wait for your kind to die off. The last of you seem to be the worst.
 
Great news for freedom and equality, bad news for hate-filled bigots. The world's a changin', folks. You can get on board the tolerance and peace train or you can go cry in a corner while the world moves on without you.

That's interesting. I had no idea people who thought that states had rights or powers were hate-filled bigots. What an interesting sentiment from a "libertarian". :)
 
Just because I tolerate you doesn't mean I have to like you or hold my tongue. The only thing that matters is that I recognize that you have a right as an American to live your life as you choose.

This is untrue. Others have rights as well.

If you had half a tolerant bone in your body you wouldn't be trying to deny rights to people you find icky. Keep hatin', hater.

Have you ever looked up why Goldwater voted against the CRA?
 
Now I see why I can't wait for your kind to die off. The last of you seem to be the worst.

wow how tolerant and peaceful of other peoples view. isnt' that what you people constantly spout off about?
tolerance?
 
wow how tolerant and peaceful of other peoples view. isnt' that what you people constantly spout off about?
tolerance?

Everyone dies, I'm simply stating a fact, the days of intolerance of minorities are over. Some just don't know it yet and time will take care of them. Like Steve Jobs said "Death is natures greatest invention...it makes way for the new." In a generation people will be shocked that we ever banned gay marriage.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom