• 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!

Let gays begin marrying, Schwarzenegger urges

Jetboogieman said:
In this case the voters are wrong, and are imposing THIER morals on everyone.
Click to expand...
And the minority wants to impose their morals on everyone: that homosexuality is acceptable and is marriage. The voters were wrong to elect Obama, but that doesn't mean I can throw him out of office because of that.
Religious institutions can choose NOT to recognize it for all i care. But a government which is suppose to not discriminate, they must recognize it.
Click to expand...
But a government run by the people and has no existing laws regarding sexuality can define marriage. The government shouldn't discriminate, which is why the beliefs of the voters should not be discriminated against simply because the opposition claims they are wrong.
It's called liberty, thought you guys liked that?
Click to expand...
We do, we have the liberty to vote and to have our morals put into laws.
 
digsbe said:
And the minority wants to impose their morals on everyone: that homosexuality is acceptable and is marriage. The voters were wrong to elect Obama, but that doesn't mean I can throw him out of office because of that.

But a government run by the people and has no existing laws regarding sexuality can define marriage. The government shouldn't discriminate, which is why the beliefs of the voters should not be discriminated against simply because the opposition claims they are wrong.

We do, we have the liberty to vote and to have our morals put into laws.
Click to expand...

no matter what fantasy world you live in and story you make up, nothing will be imposed on you, you will still get to think Gay marriage is wrong that wont change LMAO JUST LIKE RIGHT NOW

even though all these marriages exist people still dont believe in them or think they are right or moral
people still dont believe in interracial marriage
people still dont believe in non-religious marriage
people still dont believe in a discrepancy of religion between partners for marriage
people still dont believe in a discrepancy between wealth for marriage
people still dont believe in a citizen with a foreigner for marriage
people still dont believe in a large age discrepancy to be marriage
etc etc etc

all these marriages above and many more people still dont BELIEVE in even though they are legal

so calling it marriage is perfectly fine and how it should be and will have ZERO effect on you in reality, live in it or deny it, your choice LMAO :)
 
digsbe said:
And the minority wants to impose their morals on everyone: that homosexuality is acceptable and is marriage. The voters were wrong to elect Obama, but that doesn't mean I can throw him out of office because of that.

But a government run by the people and has no existing laws regarding sexuality can define marriage. The government shouldn't discriminate, which is why the beliefs of the voters should not be discriminated against simply because the opposition claims they are wrong.

We do, we have the liberty to vote and to have our morals put into laws.
Click to expand...

They can't impose anything as they are the minority. If you don't want to be gay, don't. No one is making you gay. If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, don't. No one is forcing you to marry anyone of the same sex. if you don't want to go to such a wedding, don't. Again, you're not forced to. if you personally don't want to recognize them, don't.


However, the state is different. They are required not to discriminate. You, however, are free to.

It is a silly argument that anone is imposing anything on you.
 
Boo Radley said:
They can't impose anything as they are the minority. If you don't want to be gay, don't. No one is making you gay. If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, don't. No one is forcing you to marry anyone of the same sex. if you don't want to go to such a wedding, don't. Again, you're not forced to. if you personally don't want to recognize them, don't.


However, the state is different. They are required not to discriminate. You, however, are free to.

It is a silly argument that anone is imposing anything on you.
Click to expand...

beyond silly, its down right ludicrous and trollish, its a total abandonment of logic
 
screw religion, it makes everything so arrogantly complicated.
 
I wouldn't say "screw religion" that is taking it to far. If a church would like to marry then great, if not then the gays can have a big ole gay time somewhere else.
 
chevydriver1123 said:
As long as the government doesnt force religious places to perform ceremonies everything should be fine.
Click to expand...

The govenment won't do that. Instead, the government will enable churches that support gays to escape being dictated to by others, who don't believe in God the same way they do.
 
I'm really expecting Chief Justice Kennedy to issue a stay on same sex marriages if Walker doesn't. That tends to be his style with these kinds of debates.
 
CriticalThought said:
I'm really expecting Chief Justice Kennedy to issue a stay on same sex marriages if Walker doesn't. That tends to be his style with these kinds of debates.
Click to expand...

And well he should until this is settled law.
 
American said:
This is why he didn't get a leading role in the Expendibles.
Click to expand...

OK, I admit it, I laughed in real life at this. Took me a second, then it clicked.
 
digsbe said:
We do, we have the liberty to vote and to have our morals put into laws.
Click to expand...


Not when those laws take away the rights of other citizens. Because the contract of marriage comes with certain rights and benefits it's unconstitutional to deprive a group of those rights.

That's why we have a constitutional republic. You can't have 51% of the population take away the rights of the other 49%.

On another note that's why as I've stared before the term marriage should be replaced with civil union for all citizens gay and straight.

Then if you want to get married you can do so at your church or wherever you want.
 
Seems like the right thing to do is wait a bit so that the dust can settle and people don't end up having to go through the whole process again.
 
chevydriver1123 said:
As long as the government doesnt force religious places to perform ceremonies everything should be fine.
Click to expand...

The 1st Amendment precludes the govt from doing so.
 
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court has extended a stay on same-sex marriages in California until it decides whether a ban on such unions is constitutional.

It is just the latest turn in a protracted legal battle over Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban.

The ruling, issued by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, came less than a week after a federal district judge, Vaughn R. Walker, lifted a stay he had imposed to allow proponents of the ban to argue why same-sex marriages should not proceed. On Aug. 4, Judge Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.

Even when lifting his stay on Thursday, Judge Walker allowed six days for the Ninth Circuit to review his ruling. That left many gay and lesbian couples and their supporters hopeful that same-sex marriages would resume Wednesday at 5 p.m., when Judge Walker’s stay would have expired.

That will not happen. Now, such weddings will not resume until, at least, the appeals court decides the case. And perhaps not until it is decided by the United States Supreme Court, where it seems to be headed.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/us/17prop.html

Walker knew his decision would be over ruled by the appeals court which is why he put a stay on his ruling in the first place. He then lifted his stay but set it back until tomorrow knowing the 3 judge panel would extend the stay until they had a chance to hear the appeal. If the appeals court over turns the California Constitutional amendment, they too will place a stay on their decision until it can get to the Supreme Court.......... And this how it should be IMNSHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom