• 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

AGENT J said:
it is in fact a civil rights issue, the many court cases with judges rulings point that out :shrug: oh wait i know its a conspiracy, a conspiracy with over like 40 judges now
Click to expand...

LOL, 40 judges appointed by whom and looking to extend their career more than hold up anything that looks like a Christian value.
 
iguanaman said:
You can have any view you want but forcing them on others is intolerant by definition. What views am I forcing on you?
Click to expand...

that everyone that doesn't agree with you is a bigot. you either agree with you or you are wrong.
that is the view you are forcing on people whether you realize it or not.

the view of I'm right and if you don't agree with my opinion then I will just yell and call you names as a point to try and demean you in front of other people.
of course for you it went further than calling names and wished for people to die.

yet you force no view on anyone evidently you don't realize what you do.
 
CRUE CAB said:
1.)LOL, 40 judges appointed by whom and looking to extend their career
2.) more than hold up anything that looks like a Christian value.
Click to expand...


translation: you post was factually wrong and have nothing that support its claim
1.) and there it is CONSPIRACY THEORY
2.) christian values dont matter to peoples rights but thanks for pointing out that your views dont care about the constitution or peoples rights.
 
iguanaman said:
Marriage certainly does have a definition. It is a union between 2 people that love one another. Oh the horror.
Click to expand...

wait I thought you were for equal rights which is what polygamists will argue equal rights.
now you are setting your own definitions of marriage why are you being so bigoted?

(now we will see how you like having your own argument used against you).
 
ludin said:
wait I thought you were for equal rights which is what polygamists will argue equal rights.
now you are setting your own definitions of marriage why are you being so bigoted?

(now we will see how you like having your own argument used against you).
Click to expand...

thanks for proving to everybody how severely uneducated you are about this particular issue
the argument you are trying to use is not the argument for gay marriage . . . your analogy and post completely fails and is not analogous.
But for the record i completely support polygamist if they want to fight for a new right to marry. As long as it follows the current rules, consenting adults. They only have one hurdle and its probably easily fixed.

theres no precedence set for the base contract. Like for example if its 1 woman and 3 men what happens if one of the men die? where do the kids and property go? how is it divided etc etc but the easy solution is a basic contract and then the rest is decided by the parties involved
 
AGENT J said:
thanks for proving to everybody how severely uneducated you are about this particular issue
Click to expand...
not uneducated at all. I am simply using the same argument you spout for gays for polygamist, because they are starting to push for the same thing.

the argument you are trying to use is not the argument for gay marriage . . . your analogy and post completely fails and is not analogous.
Click to expand...
wrong it is the same argument equal rights. the equal right to marry. this is the same point that polygamists will bring up.

But for the record i completely support polygamist if they want to fight for a new right to marry. As long as it follows the current rules, consenting adults. They only have one hurdle and its probably easily fixed.

theres no precedence set for the base contract. Like for example if its 1 woman and 3 men what happens if one of the men die? where do the kids and property go? how is it divided etc etc but the easy solution is a basic contract and then the rest is decided by the parties involved
Click to expand...

at least you are consistent you will and have turned marriage into basically anything that someone wants to define it as.
 
ludin said:
1.)not uneducated at all. I am simply using the same argument you spout for gays for polygamist, because they are starting to push for the same thing.
2.)wrong it is the same argument equal rights. the equal right to marry. this is the same point that polygamists will bring up.
3.)at least you are consistent you will and have turned marriage into basically anything that someone wants to define it as.
Click to expand...

1.) on THIS issue you severely are, sorry its not the same argument, thank you for proving my point
2.) false again, repeating your fallacy doesnt make it true lol thank you for doubling down and again proving my point that you have no understanding of rights, law, the constitution and this issue
3.) false again
3 strikes, try again
 
cpwill said:
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". :)
Click to expand...
cpwill said:
This is untrue. Others have rights as well.
Have you ever looked up why Goldwater voted against the CRA?
Click to expand...

This is not about state's rights, it's about basic human rights. The government can not play favorites, denying rights to "sinners" and granting rights to others. It is completely in the power of the federal government to step in. If Mississippi decided black people shouldn't vote, the feds would step in there as well.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Just not sure I can go along with that under existing conditions where government gets to define and license marriage in a manner they want. That is how we got into this mess of marriage equality by government saying what does and does not qualify. Now I have little choice but to support marriage equality, but I'd rather just see government out of the mix entirely. It comes with too much control.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

I dont like it much myself.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
This is not about state's rights, it's about basic human rights. The government can not play favorites, denying rights to "sinners" and granting rights to others. It is completely in the power of the federal government to step in. If Mississippi decided black people shouldn't vote, the feds would step in there as well.
Click to expand...

it amazes me than anybody thinks this is a states rights issue . . i think its just an act, and excuse because nobody could HONESTLY believe that
 
RabidAlpaca said:
This is not about state's rights, it's about basic human rights. The government can not play favorites, denying rights to "sinners" and granting rights to others. It is completely in the power of the federal government to step in. If Mississippi decided black people shouldn't vote, the feds would step in there as well.
Click to expand...

I disagree that it's basic human rights. No one is preventing anyone from living together or doing something. What I see as discriminatory is the govt is choosing to accord benefits and legal privileges on some couples, and not on others, based on sexual orientation. To me it's more a civil rights issue. YMMV.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Ok, show me where government involvement in marriage is not about control.
Click to expand...

The protection of children in a union? The ability to visit in a hospital? That's a release of a restriction, not a denial. And it's usually based on the hospital's rules and the govt provides a classification that allows for more privilege, not less.
 
Lursa said:
The protection of children in a union? The ability to visit in a hospital? That's a release of a restriction, not a denial. And it's usually based on the hospital's rules and the govt provides a classification that allows for more privilege, not less.
Click to expand...

interesting?
you dont see treating a person, a human, different based on sexual orientation as a violation of human rights?
while human rights are subjective and not everybody believes in them i find that odd but to each thier own

also most human rights orgs disagree. Most also think marriage itself is a human rights. I'm pretty sure its listed in the Universal deceleration of human rights also.
 
AGENT J said:
interesting?
you dont see treating a person, a human, different based on sexual orientation as a violation of human rights?
while human rights are subjective and not everybody believes in them i find that odd but to each thier own

also most human rights orgs disagree. Most also think marriage itself is a human rights. I'm pretty sure its listed in the Universal deceleration of human rights also.
Click to expand...

They are treated differently under the law, to me that is civil rights.

They are not restricted in their ability to 'be gay', to live together, etc. They are not "legally" persecuted for that. (except perhaps the few places left where sodomy is still illegal). They are being denied things that are not basic human rights...benefits, privileges, some legal protections based on a union.

For example: living with someone of your choice - human right. Legal recognition of living with someone - civil right.

As I told him, YMMV.
 
AGENT J said:
interesting?
you dont see treating a person, a human, different based on sexual orientation as a violation of human rights?
while human rights are subjective and not everybody believes in them i find that odd but to each thier own

also most human rights orgs disagree. Most also think marriage itself is a human rights. I'm pretty sure its listed in the Universal deceleration of human rights also.
Click to expand...

I definitely dont agree that marriage is a basic human right. "Legal" marriage does not prevent anyone from exercising the physical and emotional and traditional aspects of marriage. Not in the US. I dont really care what the Universal dec says either. It's nice, but I dont agree.

Personally I think it cheapens 'human rights' to do so. Just ask anyone sitting in a cell for years without access to a legal defense.
 
ludin said:
wait I thought you were for equal rights which is what polygamists will argue equal rights.
now you are setting your own definitions of marriage why are you being so bigoted?

(now we will see how you like having your own argument used against you).
Click to expand...

That is nothing but a strawman argument. Polygamy is a totally different issue with entirely different problems under our laws.
 
iguanaman said:
That is nothing but a strawman argument. Polygamy is a totally different issue with entirely different problems under our laws.
Click to expand...

no it isn't this is about equal right to marry whomever you want to.
I thought that is what you were arguing before?

people should be allowed to marry whomever?
nope no strawman here this is about equal rights.

so why are you being a bigot against those that want to marry more than one person? what gives you the right to say who they can and can't marry?
man I can't wait for people like you and your thoughts to die out and then finally then we will have true equality.

see how stupid your argument is when it is used against you? probably not.
 
ludin said:
that everyone that doesn't agree with you is a bigot. you either agree with you or you are wrong.
that is the view you are forcing on people whether you realize it or not.

the view of I'm right and if you don't agree with my opinion then I will just yell and call you names as a point to try and demean you in front of other people.
of course for you it went further than calling names and wished for people to die.

yet you force no view on anyone evidently you don't realize what you do.
Click to expand...

What about me saying "you can have any view you want" was unclear to you? I never wished for anyone to die only that they will. That is insulting to you? I'm sorry if I gave you the bad news.
 
ludin said:
no it isn't this is about equal right to marry whomever you want to.
I thought that is what you were arguing before?

people should be allowed to marry whomever?
nope no strawman here this is about equal rights.

so why are you being a bigot against those that want to marry more than one person? what gives you the right to say who they can and can't marry?
man I can't wait for people like you and your thoughts to die out and then finally then we will have true equality.

see how stupid your argument is when it is used against you? probably not.
Click to expand...

Why do you think gay marriage has anything to do with marrying anyone you want to? It is not about marrying children or multiple partners or animals. I never knew the religious were so perverted...well I did know about Mormons.
 
iguanaman said:
What about me saying "you can have any view you want" was unclear to you? I never wished for anyone to die only that they will. That is insulting to you? I'm sorry if I gave you the bad news.
Click to expand...

evidently with you that is not possible otherwise you call people names and rant and rave.

actually you did I can' repost it if you wish.
actually wishing for people to die because they have a different view than you should be insulting to anyone.
 
iguanaman said:
Why do you think gay marriage has anything to do with marrying anyone you want to?
Click to expand...

equal rights that has been the argument all along hasn't it been? equal rights to marry?
 
>#EqualRightsAreWinning!!!!!!!!!!!!

Its not rights if they are not human.
 
Marriage is between humans, not the same magnet poles, IE sex on sex.
 
AGENT J said:
and how would you do that? what system would you put in place to do all the things a marriage contract does and do it without involving government?
Click to expand...

Why would I want outside parties involved?
 
Lursa said:
The protection of children in a union? The ability to visit in a hospital? That's a release of a restriction, not a denial. And it's usually based on the hospital's rules and the govt provides a classification that allows for more privilege, not less.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we should re-visit what that has really accomplished.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom