• 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 judge rules against Kansas's gay marriage ban

apdst said:
Then, people should stop crying when the government bans gay marriage.
Click to expand...

That's like saying "The people should stop crying when the government bans interracial marriage". It isn't going to happen. Even the GOP are starting to run away from SSM bans.
 
TheNextEra said:
That's like saying "The people should stop crying when the government bans interracial marriage". It isn't going to happen. Even the GOP are starting to run away from SSM bans.
Click to expand...

If the government wasn't in the marriage business, there wouldn't be a ban.
 
apdst said:
If the government wasn't in the marriage business, there wouldn't be a ban.
Click to expand...

And government is not going to get out of marriage. It's too much a money maker, but again it isn't reality that government is going to ban interracial marriage or SSM It is an irrational fear at this point.

Also, the right as a whole did not have a problem with government being in the business of marriage until SSM came up. Tell me, where was the outcry from the right of government being involved in marriage in the 80s?
 
TheNextEra said:
And government is not going to get out of marriage. It's too much a money maker, but again it isn't reality that government is going to ban interracial marriage or SSM It is an irrational fear at this point.

Also, the right as a whole did not have a problem with government being in the business of marriage until SSM came up. Tell me, where was the outcry from the right of government being involved in marriage in the 80s?
Click to expand...

Whether the government gets out of the marriage business, or not, is irrelevant. However, it's an en-escapable reality that if the government wasn't in the marriage business, there wouldn't be a ban on gay marriage.

It's ironic that the people who support same-sex marriage the most, are the same people who support more government control of our private lives.
 
apdst said:
Whether the government gets out of the marriage business, or not, is irrelevant. However, it's an en-escapable reality that if the government wasn't in the marriage business, there wouldn't be a ban on gay marriage.

It's ironic that the people who support same-sex marriage the most, are the same people who support more government control of our private lives.
Click to expand...

And it's funny how conservatives such as yourself did not have problems with the government being involved in marriage UNTIL SSM looked like it was going to happen. So spare us your faux outrage.

Would I like to see government out of marriage? Yes. Is it going to happen? Nope. Therefore SSM will be legalized as well.
 
TheNextEra said:
And it's funny how conservatives such as yourself did not have problems with the government being involved in marriage UNTIL SSM looked like it was going to happen. So spare us your faux outrage.

Would I like to see government out of marriage? Yes. Is it going to happen? Nope. Therefore SSM will be legalized as well.
Click to expand...

What's even funnier than that, is when I agree with Liberals, you all bust your asses to figure out how we still disagree. :roll:
 
apdst said:
What's even funnier than that, is when I agree with Liberals, you all bust your asses to figure out how we still disagree. :roll:
Click to expand...

So now I am a liberal according to you :lamo You just can't help yourself spewing out partisan diarrhea comments can you? :lamo

Sorry but again you are wrong.
 
TheNextEra said:
So now I am a liberal according to you :lamo You just can't help yourself spewing out partisan diarrhea comments can you? :lamo

Sorry but again you are wrong.
Click to expand...

You lean Left more than you lean Right, on any given issue. So...:shrug:

You can't say, "Conservatives like you", then complain about partisan comments.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Why is that? Why cant all humans in this country be seen equal under the law?
Click to expand...


what you have described in equality BY law.

which is law created by government to force people to treat others equality as determined by government.

equality under the law is law created by government, which no person is exempt from whether that person is rich or poor.
 
apdst said:
You lean Left more than you lean Right, on any given issue. So...:shrug:

You can't say, "Conservatives like you", then complain about partisan comments.
Click to expand...

Really? Do yourself a favor and stop while you are behind. Do a search for my comments about Obama, the Dems, 2A rights, and the ACA before you embarrass yourself further. I have comments against many of Obama and the Dems policies as well as the GOP. I am full supportive of 2A rights. So save your partisan diarrhea comments that you spew. Your just flat out wrong and not man enough to admit it.

I can say conservatives such as yourself because it is the truth. What you fail to realize is that one can be against the Dems and the GOP. Cons had NO problem with marriage being in the hands of the government BEFORE SSM came around.
 
TheNextEra said:
You'll have to show where heterosexuals "own" the right to the word marriage. And please don't use religion as "marriage" is done also by the Justice of the Peace (non-religious). Words change or are modified all the time.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I was talking about. The issue "was" to have the same rights as a "married" couple and I supported that the gays in that issue. I voted for civil unions. It was a work around for our state constitution. It is also a religious issue regardless of the "Justice of the Peace" problem that you have with it. Now that we solved that problem the word "marriage" is the issue. I am a Christian and I happen to support gay rights but I also think the definition should stay as it has been for thousands of years. The word doesn't give anyone anything tangible. The state law already gives a gay couple all the rights that a married couple has. Nobody said anyone "owned" the word. That sentence is hyperbole. If they want to change the definition then they lose my support totally and I will not be as readily supportive of gay rights. Most of my gay friends don't give a rats butt what it is called as long as they have the same rights. I think it is a minority of gays that see this as an issue. That would make it a minority of a minority. It is called "compromise". Sometimes you can't have it all. They want it all after we agreed to a compromise. The compromise being that we have a constitution that defines marriage and also give the same rights as a married couple. The gays get what they wanted and the Christians get what they want. I guess that was naive of me to think both sides could be reasonable. I won't make that mistake again.
 
NonoBadDog said:
This is exactly what I was talking about. The issue "was" to have the same rights as a "married" couple and I supported that the gays in that issue. I voted for civil unions. It was a work around for our state constitution. It is also a religious issue regardless of the "Justice of the Peace" problem that you have with it. Now that we solved that problem the word "marriage" is the issue. I am a Christian and I happen to support gay rights but I also think the definition should stay as it has been for thousands of years. The word doesn't give anyone anything tangible. The state law already gives a gay couple all the rights that a married couple has. Nobody said anyone "owned" the word. That sentence is hyperbole. If they want to change the definition then they lose my support totally and I will not be as readily supportive of gay rights. Most of my gay friends don't give a rats butt what it is called as long as they have the same rights. I think it is a minority of gays that see this as an issue. That would make it a minority of a minority. It is called "compromise". Sometimes you can't have it all. They want it all after we agreed to a compromise. The compromise being that we have a constitution that defines marriage and also give the same rights as a married couple. The gays get what they wanted and the Christians get what they want. I guess that was naive of me to think both sides could be reasonable. I won't make that mistake again.
Click to expand...

Luckily your "support" or "acceptance" of gays using the marriage is not needed. Marriage is used by gays in most of the states in the U.S. and I would wager serious money that it will be legal in all states in just a few years (if that).

You talk about compromise as if you have the right to even initiate the compromise in the first place. You don't own the word marriage so you are not in the position to bargain for its usage. There was a time the definition of marriage was a man and woman of the same race. Separate but equal does not work in most cases, yet you want to apply it here out of some bruised ego of gays using the word marriage. Sorry, not going to happen.

I will agree with you that you were naïve in thinking that you owned the word marriage to bargain with in the first place.
 
apdst said:
Get the government out of the marriage business.
Click to expand...

Not going to happen. Most people don't really want it to happen.

I'm willing to bet that the first time a state tries this it would end in disaster and they would recognize marriages again so quickly that other states wouldn't have time to follow suit.
 
ernst barkmann said:
what you have described in equality BY law.

which is law created by government to force people to treat others equality as determined by government.

equality under the law is law created by government, which no person is exempt from whether that person is rich or poor.
Click to expand...

So what? That is what has been our national reality. In fact, every form of government has that reality.

Invent a new form of government that does not... See how long that nation lasts.

There has never been any government or societal group in the total history of the world that was ruled not by force.

Even the pacifist Amish have force of law and government./
 
1750Texan said:
So what? That is what has been our national reality. In fact, every form of government has that reality.

Invent a new form of government that does not... See how long that nation lasts.

There has never been any government or societal group in the total history of the world that was ruled not by force.

Even the pacifist Amish have force of law and government./
Click to expand...


oh, so America was instituted to rule over the people by force?

you seem to not like the Constitution at all, because you don't want to follow it.

again it is equability under the law, not by law.

when government forces you to do things, against your will when you have not violated anyone's rights, or threaten the health and safety off the public..........then its a violation of your rights.......or do you care about your own rights?
 
ernst barkmann said:
oh, so America was instituted to rule over the people by force?

you seem to not like the Constitution at all, because you don't want to follow it.

again it is equability under the law, not by law.

when government forces you to do things, against your will when you have not violated anyone's rights, or threaten the health and safety off the public..........then its a violation of your rights.......or do you care about your own rights?
Click to expand...

Without force of some kind behind it, the Constitution is just words on parchment.
 
ernst barkmann said:
oh, so America was instituted to rule over the people by force?
Click to expand...

When America was founded was slavery allowed? Who's rights did that violate?

Were women allowed to vote? Who's rights did that violate?

Were children able to be used and abused as child labor? Who's rights did that violate?

From the VERY start people's rights were violated, so you stand here and say they weren't?


you seem to not like the Constitution at all, because you don't want to follow it.
Click to expand...

Seems you don't know about the start of our country.

when government forces you to do things, against your will when you have not violated anyone's rights, or threaten the health and safety off the public..........then its a violation of your rights.......or do you care about your own rights?
Click to expand...

From the start the government used force to make laws and enforce them on people. From the START.
 
roguenuke said:
Without force of some kind behind it, the Constitution is just words on parchment.
Click to expand...

the Constitution does not grant the federal government power over the people, no where are there dictates to the people...since you wish to use the Constitution.

the constitution is about federalism......that's what its about....show me the clause where it empowers the government over the people life's.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
When America was founded was slavery allowed? Who's rights did that violate?

Were women allowed to vote? Who's rights did that violate?

Were children able to be used and abused as child labor? Who's rights did that violate?

what does this have to do with my statement???????

From the VERY start people's rights were violated, so you stand here and say they weren't?

Seems you don't know about the start of our country.



From the start the government used force to make laws and enforce them on people. From the START.
Click to expand...



voting is not a right, it was a privilege in America.

its clear you have no idea what i am talking about

you are stating rights have been violated, which is a terrible thing

yet, you want to keep it going by having government continue to violate rights, why is that?
 
ernst barkmann said:
yet, you want to keep it going by having government continue to violate rights, why is that?
Click to expand...

You are about 200 years too late wanting the government not to violate YOUR rights. If you think it is so bad here, please let us know what country you move to that's better. Better yet, why weren't you vocal in getting the government out of marriage when it was just heterosexuals?

Spare us your faux outrage.
 
TheNextEra said:
You are about 200 years too late wanting the government not to violate YOUR rights. If you think it is so bad here, please let us know what country you move to that's better. Better yet, why weren't you vocal in getting the government out of marriage when it was just heterosexuals?

Spare us your faux outrage.
Click to expand...

so i see, you for government violating people rights?....do i have you correct.

i would love to have government out of marriage........oh, and by way......if government allows heterosexuals to marry, then it should allow homosexuals marry to. ...or have you figured that out yet.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the Constitution does not grant the federal government power over the people, no where are there is dictates to the people...since you wish to use the Constitution.

the constitution is about federalism......that's what its about....show me the clause where it empowers the government over the people life's.
Click to expand...

You are free to believe as you wish, but without force of the federal government variety, the Constitution is worthless.
 
ernst barkmann said:
so i see, you for government violating people rights?....do i have you correct.
Click to expand...

Yes, because THAT'S what I said :roll:

BTW What candidates did you vote for in the last election?
 
roguenuke said:
You are free to believe as you wish, but without force of the federal government variety, the Constitution is worthless.
Click to expand...

you have no clue do you.........the constitution is only about federalism, and restrictions on the federal government concerning rights.

why don't you just post you are not for freedom, rights of people, you are for force on people, dictation of their lifes..........just say it plain and straight out........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom