• 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!

DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

"We the People" also includes many homosexuals who have defined theme selves as married.

It also includes polygamists, it also includes those from all walks of life. We have referendums, this issue goes in front of the voters quite often...and it's absolutely crushed in most voter polled decision making. Clearly, the overwhelming number of Americans define marriage as between one man and one woman. But, it is up to each individual state and where the constituencies from any state approve of ssm, then the law changing the definition of marriage is appropriate. Where the majority do not consider those of the same gender being married, that is respected as well.

There are power of attorneys and a number of states that offer domestic partnership laws, should homosexuals want to live together and enjoy those bennies, so be it.
 
You didn't answer my question. How would a gay marriage affect someone who is not gay?

He just did. You didn't read his response.

If you use an argument of "human rights" to argue for gay marriage and it is upheld based on that argument, you could never limit any humans in any number from demanding the same thing based on the same argument.

I would agree and do not support taking government out of marriage.

And politicians are supposed to listen to the will of the voters. We did elect them.

Then you should be disappointed in this board denying the vote by the people. Yet you are not. Why?
 
It also includes polygamists, it also includes those from all walks of life. We have referendums, this issue goes in front of the voters quite often...and it's absolutely crushed in most voter polled decision making. Clearly, the overwhelming number of Americans define marriage as between one man and one woman. But, it is up to each individual state and where the constituencies from any state approve of ssm, then the law changing the definition of marriage is appropriate. Where the majority do not consider those of the same gender being married, that is respected as well.

There are power of attorneys and a number of states that offer domestic partnership laws, should homosexuals want to live together and enjoy those bennies, so be it.

Americans continue to find civil unions for gays and lesbians more palatable than full-fledged marriage. Fifty-five percent of respondents favored legally sanctioned unions or partnerships, while only 39 percent supported marriage rights. Both figures are notably higher than in 2004, when 40 percent backed the former and 33 percent approved of the latter. When it comes to according legal rights in specific areas to gays, the public is even more supportive. Seventy-four percent back inheritance rights for gay domestic partners (compared to 60 percent in 2004), 73 percent approve of extending health insurance and other employee benefits to them (compared to 60 percent in 2004), 67 percent favor granting them Social Security benefits (compared to 55 percent in 2004) and 86 percent support hospital visitation rights (a question that wasn't asked four years ago). In other areas, too, respondents appeared increasingly tolerant. Fifty-three percent favor gay adoption rights (8 points more than in 2004), and 66 percent believe gays should be able to serve openly in the military (6 points more than in 2004).

NEWSWEEK Poll: Support for Gay Marriage Grows | Newsweek Politics | Newsweek.com


It seems the tide is a changing.
 
I say let them experience all the joys of the commitment, and the downfalls as well. Once the divorce lawyers get ahold of it, they will learn quickly of the rule of unintended consequences.


j-mac
 
Ah tyranny of the majority what a great thing, not.

That's what the minority always says when they don't get their way.

..and when they do get their way, someone like Navy Pride starts ranting about judicial activism and legislating from the bench.

No, I'm not going to tell you all to STFU. I think you should complain to your hearts content, because you can. In America you are free to bitch and moan and protest and demonstrate about anything you wish, I'll not stand in your way....though I will offer perspective ;)
 
That's what the minority always says when they don't get their way.

..and when they do get their way, someone like Navy Pride starts ranting about judicial activism and legislating from the bench.

No, I'm not going to tell you all to STFU. I think you should complain to your hearts content, because you can. In America you are free to bitch and moan and protest and demonstrate about anything you wish, I'll not stand in your way....though I will offer perspective ;)

It would be nice for someone to give a perspective, to give a reason as to why gays should not be treated equally before the law.
 
Not enough to win any vote in 31 attempts.

When amendment in Texas passed only 13% of the electorate bothered to show up. The majority really don't give a damn if gays get married.
 
When amendment in Texas passed only 13% of the electorate bothered to show up. The majority really don't give a damn if gays get married.


If they didn't show up to vote, isn't that their own tough luck? I mean are we now going to start reading minds to decide election questions?


j-mac
 
If they didn't show up to vote, isn't that their own tough luck? I mean are we now going to start reading minds to decide election questions?


j-mac

I think the majority which is heterosexual for the most part just don't give a damn one way or the other.
 
13% is hardly a majority of the electorate.


If they didn't elect to vote in that referendum, then they are not counted right?

So then, how can you express their wishes for them?


j-mac
 
If they didn't elect to vote in that referendum, then they are not counted right?

So then, how can you express their wishes for them?


j-mac

Well what conclusion would you draw?
 
It seems the tide is a changing.

And when it changes, you let me know. Until then, you would hopefully agree that marriage is society's institution and society, that is We the People, should decide how it is defined. When the tide changes and referendums are being won by same sex marriage initiatives, you can rightfully claim ssm should be legal. Until then......:2wave:
 
It would be nice for someone to give a perspective, to give a reason as to why gays should not be treated equally before the law.

They already are.

Maybe we should change the law, but that's besides the point.

When (not if) gay marriage is created federally, gays will not get to do something heteros can already do; everyone will get to do something no one could before.
 
Last edited:
And when it changes, you let me know. Until then, you would hopefully agree that marriage is society's institution and society, that is We the People, should decide how it is defined. When the tide changes and referendums are being won by same sex marriage initiatives, you can rightfully claim ssm should be legal. Until then......:2wave:

"We The People" also includes homosexual citizens who define theme selves as married.
 
Just more proof that DC (even local authorities) care NOTHING about the will of the people, as across the nation, even in Commiefornia, the people vote against gays getting married... 'er maybe there are just more deviants in DC?
 
Just more proof that DC (even local authorities) care NOTHING about the will of the people, as across the nation, even in Commiefornia, the people vote against gays getting married... 'er maybe there are just more deviants in DC?

You all crack me up with your ridiculous assertions. It's really pathetic.
 
Well what conclusion would you draw?


The conclusion I would have to draw is that the measure either passed, or didn't pass based on those who participated. Which means only that if you or anyone else think that the outcome should be different then we have a system for bringing it back up for referendum. And those in support, can do a better job at getting their vote out.


Using your logic seem to infer that if we only knew what was in the hearts of those that didn't bother to vote in the last Presidential election, Obama would not be President. That is not how it works, is it?


j-mac
 
The conclusion I would have to draw is that the measure either passed, or didn't pass based on those who participated. Which means only that if you or anyone else think that the outcome should be different then we have a system for bringing it back up for referendum. And those in support, can do a better job at getting their vote out.


Using your logic seem to infer that if we only knew what was in the hearts of those that didn't bother to vote in the last Presidential election, Obama would not be President. That is not how it works, is it?


j-mac


I merely responding to the point that has been brought up about this is what the majority of the people want in regards to the gay marriage issue. It really is not that complicated.
 
I merely responding to the point that has been brought up about this is what the majority of the people want in regards to the gay marriage issue. It really is not that complicated.


I am not making it complicated. A vote was taken. The people voted it down, and the council overruled the people no? That is not what is supposed to happen in our system is it?


j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom