• 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!

Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue[W:141]

How will SCOTUS rule on SSM issue?

  • They'll rule in favor of SSM, but I'm against it.

    Votes: 3 6.7%

  • They'll rule in favor of SSM, and I'm in favor of it too.

    Votes: 31 68.9%

  • They'll rule against SSM, and I'm against it as well.

    Votes: 1 2.2%

  • They'll rule against SSM, but I support SSM rights.

    Votes: 1 2.2%

  • They won't actually rule on it. Some loop hole will prevent a true decision.

    Votes: 4 8.9%

  • They'll wuss out and leave it to each state - which is total BS in my mind.

    Votes: 3 6.7%

  • They'll leave it to each state, as it should be in my opinion.

    Votes: 3 6.7%

  • other - please explain

    Votes: 2 4.4%
  • Total voters
    45
disneydude said:
The difference is California grew up and moved on.....like the rest of the country. Marriage equality is now favored by a large majority in California. You can't continue to live in the past.
Click to expand...

More like protecting what's left of the future where there will still be some decent, moral enclaves. I'm not ready to throw in the towel here in TX.
 
WCH said:
More like protecting what's left of the future where there will still be some decent, moral enclaves. I'm not ready to throw in the towel here in TX.
Click to expand...


I don't know that its possible to have a "decent moral enclave" in a place like Texas....but good luck trying.
 
WCH said:
Notice how Texas is making it more difficult to kill the unborn? We can do the same with those trying to usurp marriage.
Click to expand...


So share with us the plan?

Will Texas require that all marriages be performed in hospitals and only by medical personnel with admitting privileges for that hospital and this change will be applied to all new marriage licenses issued after the SCOTUS ruling in the summer?



>>>>
 
WCH said:
Not recognizing their marriage is not tyranny. It's called maintaining decency.
Click to expand...

nah equal protection seems decent so dose same sex marriage

not letting people get married because you don't like who has what gender seems tyrannical


tyr·an·ny
noun \ˈtir-ə-nē\

: cruel and unfair treatment by people with power over others
 
WCH said:
Notice how Texas is making it more difficult to kill the unborn? We can do the same with those trying to usurp marriage.
Click to expand...

but what if you care about people?
 
WCH said:
More like protecting what's left of the future where there will still be some decent, moral enclaves. I'm not ready to throw in the towel here in TX.
Click to expand...

your morals don't seem moral or decent though
 
WorldWatcher said:
So share with us the plan?

Will Texas require that all marriages be performed in hospitals and only by medical personnel with admitting privileges for that hospital and this change will be applied to all new marriage licenses issued after the SCOTUS ruling in the summer?



>>>>
Click to expand...

No way in HELL I'm I going to divulge that secret. ;)
 
blarg said:
nah equal protection seems decent so dose same sex marriage

not letting people get married because you don't like who has what gender seems tyrannical


tyr·an·ny
noun \ˈtir-ə-nē\

: cruel and unfair treatment by people with power over others
Click to expand...

Poor things....the'y just helpless.

Take your agenda elsewhere.
 
WCH said:
Poor things....the'y just helpless.

Take your agenda elsewhere.
Click to expand...

going to take my agenda hear gay marriage is fair and decent and if your going to let men marry women and women marry men then your violating the 14th amendment if you wont let men marry men and women marry woman

its tyrannical and indecent for you to do that

don't know why your so convinced that's good
 
WCH said:
Your actions and lifestyle are immoral. Get over yourself.
Click to expand...

um how are they immoral?

your actions seem immoral stop being immoral or explain why im mistaken please
 
blarg said:
um how are they immoral?

your actions seem immoral stop being immoral or explain why im mistaken please
Click to expand...

Cause you are what we use to call, young,dumb and full of yourself. You just don't know better.
 
Moderator's Warning:
I know that many of you can't seem to get enough of each other but please do try to stay on topic. Next person(s) trying to derail this thread into personal attacks will get a swift kick on the behind out of this thread with points to boot (pun intended)
 
WCH said:
Not recognizing their marriage is not tyranny. It's called maintaining decency.
Click to expand...

No. Its discriminatory and unconstitutional. "Decency" is subjective. What I consider decent and you consider decent are most definitely different in many, many ways.
 
WCH said:
Notice how Texas is making it more difficult to kill the unborn? We can do the same with those trying to usurp marriage.
Click to expand...

Not without making it harder for everyone in Texas to get married, including opposite sex couples. Plus, unlike abortion, more and more people, even in Texas, are accepting same sex marriage and/or simply not caring about it after it is made legal because it doesn't affect them nor is anyone they view as a "person" dying because of it.
 
WCH said:
Cause you are what we use to call, young,dumb and full of yourself. You just don't know better.
Click to expand...

aww not as young as I used to be but even if all that's true your not answering the question

what's immoral about gay marriage why should it be accepted that you know better in this case
 
What I don't understand is this.

99.9999999999999999999999% of the opposition to SSM is based solely on religion and/or religious belief.
Yet we're supposed to have freedom of religion, which means laws and rights can not be directly formed around or exclusive to any one particular religion.

THEN, when you take into consideration that SSM does not in any way, shape, or form change anything for anyone else there's just no legal grounds to stand on for why SSM should be banned from all of society.

Allow the religions of the world to decide for themselves, but federal, state, medical, and legal institutions should all be required to accept and recognize SSM.
 
Dragonfly said:
What I don't understand is this.

99.9999999999999999999999% of the opposition to SSM is based solely on religion and/or religious belief.
Yet we're supposed to have freedom of religion, which means laws and rights can not be directly formed around or exclusive to any one particular religion.

THEN, when you take into consideration that SSM does not in any way, shape, or form change anything for anyone else there's just no legal grounds to stand on for why SSM should be banned from all of society.

Allow the religions of the world to decide for themselves, but federal, state, medical, and legal institutions should all be required to accept and recognize SSM.
Click to expand...

My only guess as to their motivation is - "ewwwww! people having gay sex! ewwwww!" ... disregarding the fact that straight people do the same things that gay/lesbian people do.

"It's icky! I don't like it! therefore no one should do it!"

Really sad. Willing to deny people their choice of partner, and to deny their kids the benefits that marriage brings... because "ickypoo!"
 
paddymcdougall said:
My only guess as to their motivation is - "ewwwww! people having gay sex! ewwwww!" ... disregarding the fact that straight people do the same things that gay/lesbian people do.

"It's icky! I don't like it! therefore no one should do it!"

Really sad. Willing to deny people their choice of partner, and to deny their kids the benefits that marriage brings... because "ickypoo!"
Click to expand...

Right...like the whole honey boo-boo thing isn't icky either, yet that's okay?????
 
Dragonfly said:
Right...like the whole honey boo-boo thing isn't icky either, yet that's okay?????
Click to expand...

hey now just because you want to discriminate against people by gender because of your religion doesn't mean your ok with tlc ( the ironic channel )
 
Dragonfly said:
What I don't understand is this.

99.9999999999999999999999% of the opposition to SSM is based solely on religion and/or religious belief.
Yet we're supposed to have freedom of religion, which means laws and rights can not be directly formed around or exclusive to any one particular religion.

THEN, when you take into consideration that SSM does not in any way, shape, or form change anything for anyone else there's just no legal grounds to stand on for why SSM should be banned from all of society.

Allow the religions of the world to decide for themselves, but federal, state, medical, and legal institutions should all be required to accept and recognize SSM.
Click to expand...

Freedom of religion does not mean that people cannot shape their beliefs based upon their religion. In fact, that is constitutionally protected. If the legal argument was that SSM should remain illegal because the bible is against it, that would fail, but they start with SSM is bad because the bible says so, and then find legal justification to keep it illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom