• 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

Perhaps we should re-visit what that has really accomplished.

Well I gave what I consider 2 positive examples.

I wouldnt be against it in general if I thought it was all beer and skittles.
 
1.)They are treated differently under the law, to me that is civil rights.
2.)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.
1.) that i understand but you cant reference law then reference human rights they arent the same and thats the point
2.) again to each thier own but human rights orgs and the human rights deceleration disagrees with you

dont know what ymma is but again like i said to each thier own i just dont understand it logically but like i said since its subjective its not for me to understand
 
1.) that i understand but you cant reference law then reference human rights they arent the same and thats the point
2.) again to each thier own but human rights orgs and the human rights deceleration disagrees with you

dont know what ymma is but again like i said to each thier own i just dont understand it logically but like i said since its subjective its not for me to understand

Your Mileage May Vary.

And I dont care if I agree with them. And US law isnt clear on human vs civil rights....I've seen no clarification on this in our law.

So it remains a matter of opinion in some respects. As I said, some things are clearly human right violations. Some are not. The "human right" to associate and live together by choice is not breached in the US.
 
equal rights that has been the argument all along hasn't it been? equal rights to marry?

Equal rights with heterosexual couples is what he argument has been. Why are so many of you perverted?
 
1.) I definitely dont agree that marriage is a basic human right.
2.) "Legal" marriage does not prevent anyone from exercising the physical and emotional and traditional aspects of marriage. Not in the US.
3.) 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.

1.) you are free to do so
2.) ok
3.) didn't say you had to agree or care was just pointing it out that i didn't see the logic behind it since human rights orgs disagree but again to each thier own :shrug:
 
1.) And US law isnt clear on human vs civil rights....I've seen no clarification on this in our law. So it remains a matter of opinion in some respects.
2.) As I said, some things are clearly human right violations. Some are not. The "human right" to associate and live together by choice is not breached in the US.

1.) no its very clear human rights are not 100% legal rights.
2.) and this is meanignless and just a coincidence like religious laws that line up its not just solely based on human rights
 
1.) no its very clear human rights are not 100% legal rights.
2.) and this is meanignless and just a coincidence like religious laws that line up its not just solely based on human rights

It's not meaningless. People's human right (if it is so) to live together in the US is not breached in any way. Marriage is a legal convention, period. Marriage in any other sense: physical, traditional, emotional....is not infringed on.

"Rights and privileges and contract obligations" for marriage are accorded by govt, and change all the time.

And your number 1) should read, YES, its very clear human rights are not 100% legal rights. Because that is what I wrote, in other words, in my post.
 
that doesnt answer the question, please in your next post do so

Sure it does, you perhaps do not like the answer. I am not looking for someone to replace all the ways the government handles individual relations.
 
Equal rights with heterosexual couples is what he argument has been. Why are so many of you perverted?

no no no see now you have moved the goal posts. I figured as much.
the whole thing has dealt with equal rights to marry. now you want to prevent that to other people simply because you don't agree with their lifestyle.
why are you being such a bigot?

polygamist have the right to marry whomever they want to and who are you to tells them no. why would you deny them their equal rights in marriage.
 
no no no see now you have moved the goal posts. I figured as much.
the whole thing has dealt with equal rights to marry. now you want to prevent that to other people simply because you don't agree with their lifestyle.
why are you being such a bigot?

polygamist have the right to marry whomever they want to and who are you to tells them no. why would you deny them their equal rights in marriage.

It's funny that you would promote polygamy considering your religious objections to gay marriage. Are you a Mormon? Or perhaps a lawyer looking to make a killing deciding who gets what in a polygamist divorce. Either way you have that right, I wouldn't hold your breath on getting legislation changed though.
 
Last edited:
It's funny that you would promote polygamy considering your religious objections to gay marriage. Are you a Mormon?

no I am just showing you the insanity of the argument you used. I am basically throwing your argument back in your face.
the fact that you can't defend against your own argument shows why it is logically insane and can make anyone into anything.

you throw the word bigot around like it has an affect on a person. you preach of tolerance of others yet shown none yourself.
I am not promoting anything other than the argument that you used can be used to justify anything, and how dare someone disagree with it.

if they do then we can call them names and attempt to demean them as if it adds weight to the argument.

the fact that you would deny people the equal marriage rights shows how much hyperbole is behind that argument in general. it shows how bigoted you are.
sucks to become the thing you say you hate doesn't it.
 
no no no see now you have moved the goal posts. I figured as much.
the whole thing has dealt with equal rights to marry. now you want to prevent that to other people simply because you don't agree with their lifestyle.
why are you being such a bigot?

polygamist have the right to marry whomever they want to and who are you to tells them no. why would you deny them their equal rights in marriage.

Well they have the right to live with whoever they want and call it marriage within their belief system. What they dont have is the legal recognition that brings with it the benefits and legal protections that couples get in marriage.

And as long as they didnt get *more* benefits and legal protections than couples, I dont care at all if they legalize polygamy. As I mentioned, they live that way anyway. As long as they are treated "equally" then I dont care. But it's been pointed out by others that that would be difficult, if not impossible.

Hence, an illustration of human vs civil rights. People practice polygamy all the time, it's just not sanctioned by the law. It's also not prevented by law.
 
no I am just showing you the insanity of the argument you used. I am basically throwing your argument back in your face.
the fact that you can't defend against your own argument shows why it is logically insane and can make anyone into anything.

you throw the word bigot around like it has an affect on a person. you preach of tolerance of others yet shown none yourself.
I am not promoting anything other than the argument that you used can be used to justify anything, and how dare someone disagree with it.

if they do then we can call them names and attempt to demean them as if it adds weight to the argument.

the fact that you would deny people the equal marriage rights shows how much hyperbole is behind that argument in general. it shows how bigoted you are.
sucks to become the thing you say you hate doesn't it.

I stated that gays couples have the same rights as straight couples and you went off on a tangent about polygamy. You might as well have asked about pedophile marriages or animal matrimony it is all the same and has nothing to do with couples who love each other's right to get married. Your belief that if you don't dictate what matrimony is then anything goes is disingenuous on your part and totally false in reality. Because I don't believe pedophiles can molest children that makes me a bigot?
 
Last edited:
Ok, show me where government involvement in marriage is not about control.

How about you show me where it is about "control." This was your declaration, man, you ****in support it. Control of what?
 
1.)It's not meaningless. People's human right (if it is so) to live together in the US is not breached in any way.
2.) Marriage is a legal convention, period. Marriage in any other sense: physical, traditional, emotional....is not infringed on.

"Rights and privileges and contract obligations" for marriage are accorded by govt, and change all the time.

3.) And your number 1) should read, YES, its very clear human rights are not 100% legal rights. Because that is what I wrote, in other words, in my post.

1.) yes its meanignless to the fact that human rights are not 100% legal rights
2.) again you are free to feel this why all you want, human rights orgs disagree :shrug:
3.) my 3 is fine and 100% accurate :shrug:
 
Sure it does, you perhaps do not like the answer. I am not looking for someone to replace all the ways the government handles individual relations.

translation: you have no answer, that's what i thought lol
saying what you want is not saying how you do it. I could say i want guns to be legal everywhere that doesnt answer how i would do it

Ill ask again and i bet you dodge it again
you said "I'd rather just see government out of the mix entirely."

Im asking you 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?
 
1.) yes its meanignless to the fact that human rights are not 100% legal rights
2.) again you are free to feel this why all you want, human rights orgs disagree :shrug:
3.) my 3 is fine and 100% accurate :shrug:

Great. IMO, people's human rights are not infringed on by marriage laws one way or another in the US.
 
1.)no I am just showing you the insanity of the argument you used. I am basically throwing your argument back in your face.
2.) the fact that you can't defend against your own argument shows why it is logically insane and can make anyone into anything.
3.)you throw the word bigot around like it has an affect on a person.
4.) you preach of tolerance of others yet shown none yourself.
5.) I am not promoting anything other than the argument that you used can be used to justify anything, and how dare someone disagree with it.
6.) if they do then we can call them names and attempt to demean them as if it adds weight to the argument.

the fact that you would deny people the equal marriage rights shows how much hyperbole is behind that argument in general. it shows how bigoted you are.
sucks to become the thing you say you hate doesn't it.

1.) and it completely fails and multiple posters are pointing out, its FACTUALLY no analogous no matter how much you make the fallacy claim that it is
2.) except fore the fact you have not provided the same argument lol
3.) bigot is a bigot, doesnt matter how that term affects a person
4.) this may be true but can you show where iguanaman factually hasnt shown tolerance?
5.) again it cant and you analogy failed, repeat this fallacy 10 more times it will still be false
6.) call what names? demean who
 
Great. IMO, people's human rights are not infringed on by marriage laws one way or another in the US.

and has i said before you are free to have that opinion, i simply was pointing out i thought it was very weird because i see no logic in that opinion since human rights orgs disagree, but like i said to each thier own :shrug:

what arent you getting?
 
and has i said before you are free to have that opinion, i simply was pointing out i thought it was very weird because i see no logic in that opinion since human rights orgs disagree, but like i said to each thier own :shrug:

what arent you getting?

I get it, thanks. Like I said, I find it diminishes actual human rights like freedom, self-defense, the right to sovereignty over your own body, things like that.
 
I get it, thanks. Like I said, I find it diminishes actual human rights like freedom, self-defense, the right to sovereignty over your own body, things like that.


how?
freedom?
self defense?
right to sovereignty?
 
How what?

how does marriage diminish human rights like freedom, self-defense and the right to body sovereignty?

of is that not what you meant?
 
how does marriage diminish human rights like freedom, self-defense and the right to body sovereignty?

of is that not what you meant?

Marriage does not. Basing marriage on things like tax credits, legal benefits, privileges, etc does IMO. The essence and institution of marriage exists outside of that. We dont base freedom or self defense or the right to one's own body on such things.

Legal marriage is kind of 'regulating' marriage. We dont regulate the rights to freedom or self-defense or the sovereignty of their own bodies unless they break some law that opens the door to consequences. Marriage as recognized by the state is regulated by definition. Marriage as an institution or tradition is not. And it's not infringed on in the US.
 
Back
Top Bottom