• 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!

Court halts Calif. gay marriages pending appeal

rivrrat said:
No, it wasn't. And now I have a headache.
Click to expand...

here it is on me:

aspirin.jpg


oh and here is your chaser:

Whiskey%20shot.jpg
 
Hicup said:
Now, Contract LAW absolutley demands that any written contract be indicated as same. This means that if it is a contract it MUST contain the words "This is a contract".

Tim-
Click to expand...
really? they don't use the term "contract" with something like a driver's license which has contractual obligations associated with it. For instance, CO is a implied consent state. Meaning that if you accept the CO State license, you automatically are giving consent to sobriety checks and things of that nature. It’s a signed contract with the State. In exchange for a bunch of money to get a license, filing the paper work, all my tax dollars that went to build the road, my submision to the State as the all high authority; I can drive my car I paid for with tags I paid for with taxes I paid for on roads I paid for. Man, it’s a pretty ****ty deal. But the point is, that’s a signed contract. State and me. Yet I don’t remember the word “contract” being part of it.

****ing government stealing my money
 
texmaster said:
Absolutely!

Its nice to see the courts stand up for the rights of 7 million voters :)
Click to expand...

I see it this way - The courts are standing up against mob rule.
 
Ikari said:
really? they don't use the term "contract" with something like a driver's license which has contractual obligations associated with it. For instance, CO is a implied consent state. Meaning that if you accept the CO State license, you automatically are giving consent to sobriety checks and things of that nature. It’s a signed contract with the State. In exchange for a bunch of money to get a license, filing the paper work, all my tax dollars that went to build the road, my submision to the State as the all high authority; I can drive my car I paid for with tags I paid for with taxes I paid for on roads I paid for. Man, it’s a pretty ****ty deal. But the point is, that’s a signed contract. State and me. Yet I don’t remember the word “contract” being part of it.

****ing government stealing my money
Click to expand...

Alrighty then..


Tim-
 
texmaster said:
Only if you classify legally voting on a law "mob rule" :roll:
Click to expand...

Some people also voted for segregation and against interracial marriage. That was a popular vote as well. Guess you were for that too huh?
 
TheNextEra said:
Some people also voted for segregation and against interracial marriage. That was a popular vote as well. Guess you were for that too huh?
Click to expand...

Segregation had to do with race, a proven genetic link.

Homosexuality has no such proven link therefore you cannot directly compare the two. Unless you are ready to accept other alternative lifestyles when they claim they are "born that way" too.
 
texmaster said:
Segregation had to do with race, a proven genetic link.

Homosexuality has no such proven link therefore you cannot directly compare the two. Unless you are ready to accept other alternative lifestyles when they claim they are "born that way" too.
Click to expand...

It can be compared because it was a POPULAR vote, you know, the will of democracy that you spout off soo much anhd like. So you are obviously for majority rule.
 
texmaster said:
Segregation had to do with race, a proven genetic link.

Homosexuality has no such proven link therefore you cannot directly compare the two. Unless you are ready to accept other alternative lifestyles when they claim they are "born that way" too.
Click to expand...

It's easy to compare the two since the discrimination is based on GENDER.

However, I'd wonder what your response and defense would be if they decided not to allow Christians to marry each other. I mean, being Christian isn't genetic, so it would be okay to disallow certain denominational marriages, right?
 
rivrrat said:
It's easy to compare the two since the discrimination is based on GENDER.

However, I'd wonder what your response and defense would be if they decided not to allow Christians to marry each other. I mean, being Christian isn't genetic, so it would be okay to disallow certain denominational marriages, right?
Click to expand...

Ah, see, but gender is an identity isn't it? It appears to be immutable. Some people here have even argued that gender is as fluid as sexuality. Do you believe that, Rivrrat? Didn't you say that this is the 21st century? I'm curious how exactly you define gender..

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Ah, see, but gender is an identity isn't it? It appears to be immutable. Some people here have even argued that gender is as fluid as sexuality. Do you believe that, Rivrrat? Didn't you say that this is the 21st century? I'm curious how exactly you define gender..

Tim-
Click to expand...

So, would it be okay if we disallowed christians from marrying since religious denominations are a "fluid" identity?
 
Moreover, with the judge's ruling, he essentially gives permission for two heterosexual bachelors to get married, or two heterosexual bachelorettes to marry, and why limit it to two people.. It dirties the traditional meaning, it renders marriage inconsequential to society. It is this reason why the SCOTUS will overturn it.

Tim-
 
texmaster said:
.

Homosexuality has no such proven link therefore you cannot directly compare the two. Unless you are ready to accept other alternative lifestyles when they claim they are "born that way" too.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked neither theory has been proven 100% so the social cons cant fully claim that its a choice. There are studies the show either way but a full conclusion has yet to be a choice or genetics.
 
Hicup said:
Moreover, with the judge's ruling, he essentially gives permission for two heterosexual bachelors to get married, or two heterosexual bachelorettes to marry, and why limit it to two people.. It dirties the traditional meaning, it renders marriage inconsequential to society. It is this reason why the SCOTUS will overturn it.

Tim-
Click to expand...

So how does it affect you again?
 
rivrrat said:
So, would it be okay if we disallowed christians from marrying since religious denominations are a "fluid" identity?
Click to expand...

Answer my questions first, and I'll answer yours. :)


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Moreover, with the judge's ruling, he essentially gives permission for two heterosexual bachelors to get married, or two heterosexual bachelorettes to marry, and why limit it to two people.. It dirties the traditional meaning, it renders marriage inconsequential to society. It is this reason why the SCOTUS will overturn it.

Tim-
Click to expand...

Indeed. Since one's sexual orientation is entirely irrelevant to marriage, a lesbian and a gay man can marry NOW. Does that render marriage inconsequential and dirty the traditional meaning too?
 
chevydriver1123 said:
So how does it affect you again?
Click to expand...

It affects the ideal mode for posterity. The affects of huge social changes like this cannot be quantiifed in present tense, and that's why people like you ask the question. It doesn't affect me, and my marriage, it affects societies future. How, remains to be seen.


tim-
 
Hicup said:
It affects the ideal mode for posterity. The affects of huge social changes like this cannot be quantiifed in present tense, and that's why people like you ask the question. It doesn't affect me, and my marriage, it affects societies future. How, remains to be seen.


tim-
Click to expand...

It will affect society in a good way, not a negative one.
 
Hicup said:
It affects the ideal mode for posterity. The affects of huge social changes like this cannot be quantiifed in present tense, and that's why people like you ask the question. It doesn't affect me, and my marriage, it affects societies future. How, remains to be seen.


tim-
Click to expand...

In other words you have no answer. What ever to famous conservative line

"You do NOT have the Right NOT to be offended"
 
rivrrat said:
Indeed. Since one's sexual orientation is entirely irrelevant to marriage, a lesbian and a gay man can marry NOW. Does that render marriage inconsequential and dirty the traditional meaning too?
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, because no one cares if a gay man marry's a woman. It makes their marriage a sham, and that's kind of the point.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
No it doesn't, because no one cares if a gay man marry's a woman. It makes their marriage a sham, and that's kind of the point.


Tim-
Click to expand...

So, if a gay man and a lesbian marrying doesn't render marriage inconsequential and dirty the meaning, then how does two women marrying do so?
 
chevydriver1123 said:
In other words you have no answer. What ever to famous conservative line

"You do NOT have the Right NOT to be offended"
Click to expand...

I'm not offended by a gay marriage, I'm concerned how gay marriage will affect society in the long term. Do you have an answer as to why the state, or our state would have any vested interest in marriage outside of procreation? Why would the state care at all. Anyone?


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
I'm not offended by a gay marriage, I'm concerned how gay marriage will affect society in the long term. Do you have an answer as to why the state, or our state would have any vested interest in marriage outside of procreation? Why would the state care at all. Anyone?


Tim-
Click to expand...

For the last time, marriage is not essential to procreation. And allowing SSM won't change the number of straight people that can procreate via intercourse.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom