• 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!

Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

j-mac said:
Too bad Obama is fighting to uphold DOMA.
Click to expand...
Well, WJBC -did- sign it into law.
But, the pro-gay marriage crowd will contine to support Him and defend Him - the (D) next to His name is a get-out-of-jail-free card.
 
Redress said:
And he just lost the first round. Your point?
Click to expand...


My point is that I thought he campaigned on overturning DOMA? Now he is fighting for it? That can not make him popular at the local gay pride parade.


j-mac
 
Goobieman said:
Well, WJBC -did- sign it into law.
But, the pro-gay marriage crowd will contine to support Him and defend Him - the (D) next to His name is a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Click to expand...

Or, more likely and logically, we agree with him on more than we disagree with him, unlike conservative politicians.

Do you actually believe that kind of stupid crap, or just post it for effect?
 
j-mac said:
My point is that I thought he campaigned on overturning DOMA? Now he is fighting for it? That can not make him popular at the local gay pride parade.


j-mac
Click to expand...

PolitiFact | Support repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) - Obama promise No. 294:

A DOJ spokesman has said that the president supports a legislative repeal of DOMA, but it is a long-held practice for the administration to defend federal laws that have not been deemed unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Really.
Watch this.

Video: Respect My Authoritah | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

Tell me how many of these acrtions you do not support.
Then compare that to His actions that you DO support.
THEN tell me why it is you support Him, if not the (D) next to His name.
Click to expand...

And this is where your faulty reasoning comes into play. I do not "support" him, I support the policies of his I agree with. I voted for him because I agreed with him on more issues than I agreed with McCain on. Trying to spin it into something it is not is doomed to fail.
 
Redress said:
And this is where your faulty reasoning comes into play. I do not "support" him, I support the policies of his I agree with.
Click to expand...
Ok.... and you supported the policies of GWB that you agreed with.
What's your point?
 
Redress said:
And this is where your faulty reasoning comes into play. I do not "support" him, I support the policies of his I agree with. I voted for him because I agreed with him on more issues than I agreed with McCain on. Trying to spin it into something it is not is doomed to fail.
Click to expand...


What policies did you agree with McCain on? and why?


j-mac
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Jerry said:
As I understand it, yes. Kentucky doesn't have to issue polygamist licenses if they don't want, but they have to recognize another state's license.
Click to expand...

Talk about an insurance nightmare.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

texmaster said:
Talk about an insurance nightmare.
Click to expand...

"There's too much paperwork" is not a really good reason to ban something. :)
 
What "Legitimate" government interest is served by prohibiting gay marriage?

Name one.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Deuce said:
"There's too much paperwork" is not a really good reason to ban something. :)
Click to expand...

So if polygamy is legal, and I have 15 wives and 46 kids, can I now insure them all with my single employee insurance policy?

Can I claim all of them as 61 dependants on my federal income taxes?

Can I get a welfare check based on 61 dependants?

This is going to be AWESOME!
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Erod said:
So if polygamy is legal, and I have 15 wives and 46 kids, can I now insure them all with my single employee insurance policy?

Can I claim all of them as 61 dependants on my federal income taxes?

Can I get a welfare check based on 61 dependants?

This is going to be AWESOME!
Click to expand...

You could have 61 dependents and never get married. So, I fail to see the issue.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

rivrrat said:
You could have 61 dependents and never get married. So, I fail to see the issue.
Click to expand...

If polygamy was accepted as legal marriage, this would be far more the norm, not so much the exception, because it would be monetarily rewarded.

You know, like welfare.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Erod said:
If polygamy was accepted as legal marriage, this would be far more the norm, not so much the exception, because it would be monetarily rewarded.

You know, like welfare.
Click to expand...

yeah, it would be as much the norm as people doing it now. So, no increase. If people want to do it, they can do it now.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Erod said:
Can I claim all of them as 61 dependants on my federal income taxes?

Can I get a welfare check based on 61 dependants?

This is going to be AWESOME!
Click to expand...

I bet the Duggar family could tell you about that.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Deuce said:
"There's too much paperwork" is not a really good reason to ban something. :)
Click to expand...

I never said it was

Ther are plenty of better reasons.
 
Hint to those who don't comprehend: This ruling has exactly jack **** to do with polygamy. The polygamy red herring is going to fail, just as it always does in any gay marriage thread.
 
Redress said:
Hint to those who don't comprehend: This ruling has exactly jack **** to do with polygamy. The polygamy red herring is going to fail, just as it always does in any gay marriage thread.
Click to expand...

Its not a red herring Redress if you classify marriage as a right for alternative lifestyles.
 
texmaster said:
Its not a red herring Redress if you classify marriage as a right for alternative lifestyles.
Click to expand...

And who is classifying marriage as that? Certainly not the judge who rules on this. I posted a bunch from his ruling, which I read in it's entirety. Good reading.
 
Redress said:
Hint to those who don't comprehend: This ruling has exactly jack **** to do with polygamy. The polygamy red herring is going to fail, just as it always does in any gay marriage thread.
Click to expand...

See, they love to throw up the polygamy red herring because they aren't as stupid as they pretend to be. They know that all rulings on marriage up to this point define the contract based on two participants of the age of majority and their elevation of worth to each other, solely, in the eyes of the law. They think spewing nonsense about marrying sea urchins and toddlers and the whole hippy commune will deflect from the fact that they haven't got a leg to stand on when it comes to the right to contract coupled with equal protection in their pursuit to define marriage for the convenience of their archaic sensibilities.

It's not so much a red herring as it is an idiotic appeal to the absurd. It just amuses me at this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom