• 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!

Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

Actually....the numbers don't support your claims. Sorry Charlie.

Obama got the stupid vote...young idiots, people who usually dont vote, minorities, etc.
 
Obama got the stupid vote...young idiots, people who usually dont vote, minorities, etc.

LOL.....riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. I'm sorry....but that title is reserved for those who voted for GWB....not only once.....but twice.
 
And now this debate has turned into a "Your friends stink" "Nuh-Uh... Yours do!!!!"

:roll:
 
Obama got the stupid vote...young idiots, people who usually dont vote, minorities, etc.

While I don't know that I'd call it that, he certainly went after the young vote and found ways to specifically appeal to a younger voter base that, you're right, typically doesn't vote. Lots of people registered just for that election and probably haven't voted again since.
 
While I don't know that I'd call it that, he certainly went after the young vote and found ways to specifically appeal to a younger voter base that, you're right, typically doesn't vote. Lots of people registered just for that election and probably haven't voted again since.

yeah, nothing more comforting than unemployed 26 years old who live at home under their parents insurance(thanks Obama) deciding the direction of the county.
 
yeah, nothing more comforting than unemployed 26 years old who live at home under their parents insurance(thanks Obama) deciding the direction of the county.

Dont worry, you will get further comfort knowing that the same fantastic examples of productivity are going to be voting for an old hag criminal who takes bribes from brutal dictators and ok's the sale of uranium to Iran for no reasons other than she is a woman and they know her name.
 
It soils the institution of marriage but, more importantly, it solidifies the idea that we're not a democracy....we're lorded over by 5 unelected and robed buffoons who call all the shots.

It's ridiculous and infuriating that Justice Kennedy, by himself, can lord over 350 million people without receiving a single vote

Soils it? Really? Two people who are truly committed to each other marrying is worse for marriage than divorce, adultery, domestic abuse?
 
The Supreme Court may have forced this down our throats, but this just makes me hate gays where before, I didn't.

You sound like you are very easily manipulated, lol, esp since this decision does not affect you in any way. But go ahead, stay pissed. Doesnt bother anybody else and it's sure not Christian (not that you said you are).
 
"The stories of the people asking for the right to marry reveal that they seek not to denigrate marriage but rather to live their lives, or honor their spouses' memory, joined by its bond." Justice Kennedy

As expected...they did not rule based on Constitution or law. They ruled on emotion and personal opinion.

If people never asked for it, they never would have gotten it. And the rest of it was demonstrating the exact same reasons that straight people marry....I guess they're right to marry is only based on emotion too?
 
The fact that you can marry means I will not be asking my girlfriend to marry me...I don't want to share the same institution as you.

You may have won a court case, and the left-leaning folks on this site may support you, but you will NEVER be socially accepted by mainstream America.

.


Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face! SSM didnt do you any harm....YOU CHOOSE to do it to yourself in a snit. LOLOL

Marriage shouldnt involve hate so it's probably best for that institution that you dont participate in it. You know, we dont want you to 'soil it.'
 
If people never asked for it, they never would have gotten it. And the rest of it was demonstrating the exact same reasons that straight people marry....I guess they're right to marry is only based on emotion too?
People should feel free to ask for it. Supreme Court justices should not base legal opinion on feelings.
 
People should feel free to ask for it. Supreme Court justices should not base legal opinion on feelings.

Like I wrote...the examples the court gave are exactly those that straight couples express. When they asked, they gave the REAL reasons why they want to marry. Emotional ones. But that doesnt affect the fact that the ruling is based on equal protection under the law regarding privileges and benefits accorded thru the marriage contract.

What, did you think gays were demanding just that? No...they want 'marriage.' All of it. Just like straight couples. But of course they offered the reasons from their hearts and the court acknowledged it.

I liked your long post to Grimm btw...very well said. I was totally shocked, lol.
 
Which studies? From leftwing Universities or other LW organizations? Please...

So you accept that one, single article? Not even significant research? LOL

So, just the one that seems to agree with your perspective then. It only said there was some dysfunction and lack of clarity on that.

Um...but there's no dysfunction in huge numbers of straight families? :doh
 
Like I wrote...the examples the court gave are exactly those that straight couples express. When they asked, they gave the REAL reasons why they want to marry. Emotional ones. But that doesnt affect the fact that the ruling is based on equal protection under the law regarding privileges and benefits accorded thru the marriage contract.

What, did you think gays were demanding just that? No...they want 'marriage.' All of it. Just like straight couples. But of course they offered the reasons from their hearts and the court acknowledged it.

I liked your long post to Grimm btw...very well said. I was totally shocked, lol.
It is fully expected that people base their requests and even demands on emotion. it is FULLY expected that Supreme Court Justices base their opinions on Constitution and law, not emotions and feelings. Kennedy very clearly demonstrated that to be NOT the case.

Look...I hold no hatred or animosity towards homosexuals. Never have. When there is ugliness its from them directed at me or people that believe as I believe (wait...lets clarify...CONSERVATIVE people that believe as I believe. they invariably give liberals that believe as I believe a pass). At the end of the day, I fully expected this decision. But there is still NO REASON to be wrapped up in bitterness and hatred. None.
 
Religion isn't a Sunday morning from 9-10 kind of thing. If I believe participating in a ceremony will send my soul to hell, do you think it is ok for the government to force me to do it?

What scripture is that? Seriously. And try to stick to the New Testament, which pretty much supersedes the Old.
 
It is fully expected that people base their requests and even demands on emotion. it is FULLY expected that Supreme Court Justices base their opinions on Constitution and law, not emotions and feelings. Kennedy very clearly demonstrated that to be NOT the case.

Look...I hold no hatred or animosity towards homosexuals. Never have. When there is ugliness its from them directed at me or people that believe as I believe (wait...lets clarify...CONSERVATIVE people that believe as I believe. they invariably give liberals that believe as I believe a pass). At the end of the day, I fully expected this decision. But there is still NO REASON to be wrapped up in bitterness and hatred. None.

They did base it on Constitutional law:
"Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry." (p.15 of the majority decision)

"Indeed, while the States are in general free to vary the benefits they confer on all married couples, they have throughout our history made marriage the basis for an expanding list of governmental rights, benefits, and responsibilities. These aspects of marital status include: taxation; inheritance and property rights; rules of intestate succession; spousal privilege in the law of evidence; hospital access; medical decision making authority; adoption rights; the rights and benefits of survivors; birth and death certificates; professional ethics rules; campaign finance restrictions; workers’ compensation benefits; health insurance; and child custody, support, and visitation rules."

"There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle." (both on p.16-17)

"It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character"

"They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right." (both on p.28.)

All they did was acknowledge the more human side of it when some gays made their petition for marriage and stated such reasons.

You are trying to wiggle out of admitting that they made the *right* decision based on the Constitution. But their stated reasons support just that.
 
If the objection is a sincere, established religious belief, any attempt to force someone to participate violates the first amendment.

So then why has no one been refusing to serve divorced people, adulterers, fornicators? Seems like that 'religious belief' would be applied pretty selectively, eh? I mean, why can those sinners marry but gays (sinners) cant (couldnt)? So yeah, I call BS on 99% of people objecting to serving gays based on 'religion'. And that dishonesty is a sin :)
 
The vast majority of Colleges and Universities lean left...some far left. Fact. Therefore, not a valid source of information. Not because I'm to the right, but because they're biased. The left is well-known to twist and distort information to further their agenda. Are you really incapable of forming your opinions on facts rather than what the left tells you is the right thing to believe?

Ha ha, by your statement, all higher education is worthless. Er, where do you think the 'facts' come from if not the science and research done by these institutions? :doh

It's also laughable to claim that only the left 'distorts information to further their agenda.' For proof, see "Iraq."
 
To be quite honest, I've seen FAR more lying and spinning coming from the MSM and the left than from Conservative sources. But that's a topic for another forum. ;)

IMO that's only because you CHOOSE to accept what you want to hear from the right. That is your bias, not reality.
 
It's a vote to turn America into a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah.

Now America gets to pay the price for this spiritual dwarfism, and it's not going to be pretty.

"Supreme Court Justices, can you judge the ways of God? Can you, with manmade verdicts, overrule the eternal laws of God? There is another court, and there is another Judge. And before Him, all men and all judges will give account. If a nation's high court should pass judgment on the Almighty, should you then be surprised if the Almighty should pass judgment on that court and that nation?" Rabbi Jonathan Cahn

Rabbi Jonathan Cahn Gives America a Final Warning - Freedom Outpost

Interesting! SSM has been legal in many states for years....no Sodom and Gommorah remotely on the horizons there. Got anything factual you'd like to base your statement on?

And, just btw, God gives all people the choice to follow His Word. We can choose to follow the teachings of Jesus or not. God granted that choice to us. Exactly how arrogant do you have to be to then try and demand that other people obey His Word thru law? He doesnt force us but you'd force others? Wut?
 
And they probably will, soon to be followed by pulling out of hospitals.

what kind of Christians would those be? Certainly not actual ones's following the teachings of Jesus, those of love, compassion, helping your fellow man, etc.
 
They did base it on Constitutional law:


All they did was acknowledge the more human side of it when some gays made their petition for marriage and stated such reasons.

You are trying to wiggle out of admitting that they made the *right* decision based on the Constitution. But their stated reasons support just that.
no they didnt. All their rhetoric was built on feelings and emotions. They 'justified' it...but there was zero question as to the direction Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg, and Kennedy were voting. It had nothing to do with the Constitution.

All good. Its not like this stuff isnt all expected.
 
So they can be free to discriminate who they "marry" based upon religious reasons. If it's not a legal marriage the state has no horse in the race because it would only be a religious ceremony.

They can do that now if they choose.

What you are talking about is spite...and that's not a very Godly thing.
 
no they didnt. All their rhetoric was built on feelings and emotions. They 'justified' it...but there was zero question as to the direction Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg, and Kennedy were voting. It had nothing to do with the Constitution.

All good. Its not like this stuff isnt all expected.

It was expected, yes. But that is your personal opinion that they manipulated the law based on emotion. Their (legal) justifications in the quote were quite clear and you just assuming they were based on emotion is pure speculation based on what 'you believe.'
 
They aren't performing them to make money; at most you should only be paying the pastor/rabbi/priest for his time.

They will still have ceremonies, but they won't sign the state's paper. They will send folks somewhere to get it signed.

Lots of Protestant churches have been performing gay marriages for more than a decade. Do you think they'll stop now? Why?

(I cant speak for other faiths tho).
 
Back
Top Bottom