• 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!

Same sex marriage compromise

Could you accept no government recognized marriages as a compromise?

  • I oppose SSM but could accept no government recognized marriage as a compromise.

    Votes: 6 9.0%

  • I support SSM but could accept no government reconized marriage as a compromise

    Votes: 19 28.4%

  • I oppose SSM It's a function of government to recognize legitimate marriages. No compromise.

    Votes: 6 9.0%

  • I support SSM. It's a function of government to recognize legitimate marriages. No compromise.

    Votes: 36 53.7%
  • Total voters
    67
None of the above. I support nationally recognized civil unions for any two consenting adults.
 
Jerry said:
...just letting you know that see through you bull****, having dealt with it many times before.
Click to expand...



I have to wonder where Henrin lives, that he was taught and believes that any place of public accommodation can refuse service to anyone based on race, color, religion, or national origin.

I lived in Southeast Louisiana for about 20 years and I ate and drank in a lot restaurants, bars, etc. and stayed in a lot of hotels, motels. Did not see a single place that refused service to anyone based on their race, color, religion, or national origin.

Henrin is full of malarkey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
Last edited:
shrubnose said:
I have to wonder where Henrin lives, that he was taught and believes that any place of public accommodation can refuse service to anyone based on race, color, religion, or national origin.

I lived in Southeast Louisiana for about 20 years and I ate and drank in a lot restaurants, bars, etc. and stayed in a lot of hotels, motels. Did not see a single place that refused service to anyone based on their race, color, religion, or national origin.

Henrin is full of malarkey.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Facepalm..

I'm aware of what the law says and I'm aware that is all you guys have. You should try reading in the future.

I'm still waiting for any defense of that part of the law. Anyone want to give it a shot?
 
Henrin said:
Facepalm..

I'm aware of what the law says and I'm aware that is all you guys have. You should try reading in the future.

I'm still waiting for any defense of that part of the law. Anyone want to give it a shot?
Click to expand...



If you don't like the law, you have a problem.

The law doesn't need defense, you need defense.

You are out of touch with the vast majority of Americans who are opposed to discrimination.
 
shrubnose said:
If you don't like the law, you have a problem.

The law doesn't need defense, you need defense.
Click to expand...

The only defense I ever seen for this part of the law is based almost entirely on fairness or that it's open to the public. Barring people from entering property is PART of private property and it doesn't matter what the reason for them doing this is. No one else has a right to be on the property. Period. You can NOT trump rights with claiming it is not fair or that the business is public. It doesn't matter if its fair for them to do this. It's also not open to the public as I have said earlier, but to who owner/s want in. Nothing will change this, not even law. It's simply a matter of fact and how property functions in the real world.

Since i just dealt with both possible angles you could take here on any possible defense I guessing you won't bother.
 
Last edited:
shrubnose said:
You are out of touch with the vast majority of Americans who are opposed to discrimination.
Click to expand...

I'm opposed to discrimination too. Sorry, but my feelings on the matter doesn't change that the owner/s have a right to deny me access to their property. :cool:
 
Henrin said:
The only defense I ever seen for this part of the law is based almost entirely on fairness or that it's open to the public. Barring people from entering property is PART of private property and it doesn't matter what the reason for them doing this is. No one else has a right to be on the property. Period. You can NOT trump rights with claiming it is not fair or that the business is public. It doesn't matter if its fair for them to do this. It's also not open to the public as I have said earlier, but to who owner/s want in. Nothing will change this, not even law. It's simply a matter of fact and how property functions in the real world.

Since i just dealt with both possible angles you could take here on any possible defense I guessing you won't bother.
Click to expand...



The law is the law and will remain the law whether you like it or not.

Violate it at your peril.

You are way outside of the mainstream of American politics.
 
shrubnose said:
The law is the law and will remain the law whether you like it or not.

Violate it at your peril.

You are way outside of the mainstream of American politics.
Click to expand...

Of course, you could always continue to offer nothing.
 
Henrin said:
I'm opposed to discrimination too. Sorry, but my feelings on the matter doesn't change that the owner/s have a right to deny me access to their property. :cool:
Click to expand...



I've heard the same malarkey from other so-called libertarians, and I'm not buying it.

When the effect of what someone does is racist, that person is a racist in my book.






"At the heart of racism is the religious assertion that God made a creative mistake when He brought some people into being." ~ Friedrich Otto Hertz
 
shrubnose said:
I've heard the same malarkey from other so-called libertarians, and I'm not buying it.

When the effect of what someone does is racist, that person is a racist in my book.
Click to expand...

Then you are being illogical. If I assert that the people have a right to control access to their property in any case what so ever I am neither supporting or showing disapproval of certain motivations towards those ends. I am simply stating that they are the sole arbiter over such matters. If I tell you that by doing so they are not violating the rights of those they deny due to the fact they never had a right to enter such property to begin with, again, I am not supporting or showing disapproval of their reasons.

You can pass whatever judgment you wish, but in the end it means nothing to me.
 
Henrin said:
You can pass whatever judgment you wish, but in the end it means nothing to me.
Click to expand...



The 1964 Civil Rights Act is here to stay whether you like it or not.

It wasn't put into law to please people like you.

I suggest that you, Rand Paul, and a few others learn to deal with it.

Your inane comments mean nothing to me.
 
shrubnose said:
The 1964 Civil Rights Act is here to stay whether you like it or not.

It wasn't put into law to please people like you.

I suggest that you, Rand Paul, and a few others learn to deal with it.
Click to expand...

You can continue to ignore reason if it makes you feel better, but it surely does not make you look better. Call me racist, call my arguments inane, but until you show something of substance you will undoubtedly have nothing to stand on.
 
Henrin said:
You can continue to ignore reason if it makes you feel better, but it surely does not make you look better. Call me racist, call my arguments inane, but until you show something of substance you will undoubtedly have nothing to stand on.
Click to expand...



What reason?

You don't have any reason, all you have is your minority opinion which is worth zilch against federal law which has been tested at the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
shrubnose said:
What reason?

You don't have any reason, all you have is your minority opinion which is worth zilch against federal law which has been tested at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

You can not simply excuse reason by a Argumentum ad populum argument.
 
Henrin said:
You can not simply excuse reason by a Argumentum ad populum argument.
Click to expand...



You lost this argument almost 50 years ago when the U.S. Congress passed, and President Johnson signed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Keep shoveling sand against the tide, won't change a thing.
 
shrubnose said:
You lost this argument almost 50 years ago when the U.S. Congress passed, and President Johnson signed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Keep shoveling sand against the tide, won't change a thing.
Click to expand...

Some people can't handle the reality that actually exists, they're too busy wishing for a reality that isn't true.
 
Cephus said:
Some people can't handle the reality that actually exists, they're too busy wishing for a reality that isn't true.
Click to expand...

I think it is established that I know the law exists. Do you have anything intelligent to add?
 
shrubnose said:
You lost this argument almost 50 years ago when the U.S. Congress passed, and President Johnson signed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Keep shoveling sand against the tide, won't change a thing.
Click to expand...

I have no reason to argue against something that refuses to engage in debate over the merits of what they support and instead wish to partake in an endless stream of logical fallacies. I consider this talk over and your argument pathetic.
 
Henrin said:
I have no reason to argue against something that refuses to engage in debate over the merits of what they support and instead wish to partake in an endless stream of logical fallacies. I consider this talk over and your argument pathetic.
Click to expand...

That's fine, we consider you the same way.
 
Henrin said:
I consider this talk over and your argument pathetic.
Click to expand...



You lost the argument when you started opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The merits of the 1964 Civil Rights Act have already been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, your minority opinion isn't worth the paper it's not printed on.

The fact that you don't see that shows exactly what kind of a person you are.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
:roll:

Whatever you say.
Click to expand...

Yes, whatever I say indeed. Learn to accept your complete lack of an argument is not the same as winning a debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom