• 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!

New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

That's my question.

That's our question. Why if it's only a name fight so hard against it? You all just look like children when you try to deny SSM.
 
what the hell is so important about calling it marriage, since marriage, up to this point, did not include SS couples? Now we get to the heart of the matter. It never was about equal treatment, it was about co-opting the word. Thanks for showing all your cards.

Nice assumption there buddy.
If a gay couple wants to say "We're married", then why the hell can't they?
Since you advocate SSM, I figured you would want to play Gay Gordons
I only play that on Sundays.
 
That's our question. Why if it's only a name fight so hard against it? You all just look like children when you try to deny SSM.

So why, if it's only a name fight, isn't the rights and protections of civil unions more important? If a compromise is reached where one side gets the rights and protections they claim they want and the other side gets to keep the name...why is that not good enough? I've already disproven that segregation is not the issue.
 
Segregation is not at issue here. Will homosexuals have civil unions in separate homosexual only courthouses? Hell, they can even use the same form from NH, just check off one box for civil union and one for marriage. Any church that wishes to marry them can marry both SS couples and opposite sex couples, they would not be required by government to have two separate places for marriage.

Go fish.

No. That isnt the point though. Homosexuals will have an entirely separate institution then heterosexuals. Thats unconstitutional.
 
...and if they can exercise that right anywhere anyplace anytime they want to...then what, exactly is the issue?


...and what the hell is so important about calling it marriage, since marriage, up to this point, did not include SS couples? Now we get to the heart of the matter. It never was about equal treatment, it was about co-opting the word. Thanks for showing all your cards.



Since you advocate SSM, I figured you would want to play Gay Gordons



Well duh.


The issue is they are creating a separate right which makes it unequal. So yes it is about equality under the law.
 
So why, if it's only a name fight, isn't the rights and protections of civil unions more important? If a compromise is reached where one side gets the rights and protections they claim they want and the other side gets to keep the name...why is that not good enough? I've already disproven that segregation is not the issue.

First off segregation is the issue, it's pretty evident, secondly the people against SSM have proven time and time again that they do not want to give the same rights, it is just an argument to stop SSM from becoming law. And one the anti side likes because it hides the bigotry behind their motivation. Also benefits as marriage, in fact civil unions are not marriage, and do not have as much legal power, nor precedence as marriage does. It's about the rights that marriage brings with it, and the only way to get that is to get marriage.
 
Homosexuals will have an entirely separate institution then heterosexuals.

If there is no difference in the law and how it applies to two sets of people, it is not discriminatory. Again, this has zero to to with gay only toilets and lunch counters. SS couples will be able to go and do anything and everything that an OS couple can and in the same places. The ONLY issue is the word. So I wonder, again, it it's really about equality.
 
First off segregation is the issue, it's pretty evident, secondly the people against SSM have proven time and time again that they do not want to give the same rights, it is just an argument to stop SSM from becoming law. And one the anti side likes because it hides the bigotry behind their motivation. Also benefits as marriage, in fact civil unions are not marriage, and do not have as much legal power, nor precedence as marriage does. It's about the rights that marriage brings with it, and the only way to get that is to get marriage.
If a civil union as proposed by the particular state is any way deficient compared to marriage, then you have a point. Can you name a state where their proposal for civil unions is deficient?
 
If there is no difference in the law and how it applies to two sets of people, it is not discriminatory. Again, this has zero to to with gay only toilets and lunch counters. SS couples will be able to go and do anything and everything that an OS couple can and in the same places. The ONLY issue is the word. So I wonder, again, it it's really about equality.

Why is it such a problem if it's just called marriage? Do you have something wrong with gay couples being called married?
 
Last edited:
If a civil union as proposed by the particular state is any way deficient compared to marriage, then you have a point. Can you name a state where their proposal for civil unions is deficient?

By name it is deficient, there are certain rights which only pertain to marriage. Marriage is a legal institution, and denying it to a certain member of the populace based solely on the sex of the two people involved is wrong. End of discussion.
 
To me if the people of any state vote to approve gay marriage I would reluctantly live with that decision...I ask my Liberal friends if the people of a state vote to have marriage defined ad a union between a man and a woman will you accept that decision..........Never mind I know the answer, and you lefties call us the intolerant ones....HYPOCRITES!!!!!!!!!!
 
To me if the people of any state vote to approve gay marriage I would reluctantly live with that decision...I ask my Liberal friends if the people of a state vote to have marriage defined ad a union between a man and a woman will you accept that decision..........Never mind I know the answer, and you lefties call us the intolerant ones....HYPOCRITES!!!!!!!!!!

I would live with it to.

But good to know you can make assumptions.
 
To me if the people of any state vote to approve gay marriage I would reluctantly live with that decision...I ask my Liberal friends if the people of a state vote to have marriage defined ad a union between a man and a woman will you accept that decision..........Never mind I know the answer, and you lefties call us the intolerant ones....HYPOCRITES!!!!!!!!!!

Your intolerant because you promote intolerant laws, don't call me intolerant for opposing intolerance.

****ing ludicrous argument.
 
To me if the people of any state vote to approve gay marriage I would reluctantly live with that decision...I ask my Liberal friends if the people of a state vote to have marriage defined ad a union between a man and a woman will you accept that decision..........Never mind I know the answer, and you lefties call us the intolerant ones....HYPOCRITES!!!!!!!!!!

Oh-he-mad.jpg
 
A law redefining ALL marriages between any two consenting adults to instead become civil unions would be equal.

A law recognizing some couples as legally married, while others as having a civil union...would not be equal.

In any case, there's no rational basis for having different terms in the first place, and appeal to "tradition" (typically a code word for some of the more socially conservative strains of organized religion which continually -- and falsely -- appoint themselves guardians of a monolithic culture which never existed in the first place) has no place in the legislature.

In the era of open de jure segregation, there were mobs all over the south (and many more people silently backing them) Who Simply Didn't Get It, and were more than content to fight tooth and nail to oppose and prevent effective equality under the law so long as they maintained the social, political, and financial power to do so. People arguing against legal recognition of marriage for gay couples are today's equivalent of those mobs and silent armchair supporters.
 
Your intolerant because you promote intolerant laws, don't call me intolerant for opposing intolerance.

****ing ludicrous argument.

I like the law where it is.........you are the one who wants a special law to accomadate 1% of the population.
 
I like the law where it is.........you are the one who wants a special law to accomadate 1% of the population.

It's more like 3-4%, and I love how you don't actually address my point, I'm sure your conceding that your point is the intolerant one.
 
Back
Top Bottom