• 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!

Gay marriage is approved by popular vote in Maine, Maryland

hopefully, the SCOTUS will eventually solve this nationwide. it's a clear cut equal protection issue. kudos to Maine and Maryland, though.
 
Not right, just liberal. Doing what's liberal, for a while now. I wonder when liberals will open the gates to things like plural marriage?

I have no issue with plural marriage either. Why should I? Why should you?

Multiple people can start a business. Why can't multiple people get married?

The complexity rises, but if people want that why should I care? I don't.

I won't be married to more than one person, but why should I prevent somebody else from doing just that?

Right is right. It's not "liberal right" or "conservative right". It's just right. As in equal rights.
 
Not right, just liberal. Doing what's liberal, for a while now. I wonder when liberals will open the gates to things like plural marriage?

Tomorrow yep tomorrow:roll:
 
I have no issue with plural marriage either. Why should I? Why should you?
At what point would you take issue?

We both should because it's contrary to the definition of marriage and there's no real purpose behind it.... other than for selfish reasons, of course.
 
Last edited:
Tomorrow yep tomorrow:roll:
Don't be absurd. You need to legalize gay marriage in at least 30 states, or more, before you tackle that issue. ;)
 
I personally don't have a problem with homosexuals having relationships or civil unions. That being said, marriage shouldn't have legal standings for anyone, straight, gay, etc.
 
Don't be absurd. You need to legalize gay marriage in at least 30 states, or more, before you tackle that issue. ;)

Well I was replying to your absurdity;)
 
Well I was replying to your absurdity;)
Oh, OK, I see. So you're trying to say that all designs on revising the definition of marriage ends with homosexual couples?
 
At what point would you take issue?

We both should because it's contrary to the definition of marriage and there's no real purpose behind it.... other than for selfish reasons, of course.

That's the point. If you take issue that's fine. Don't do it.
Why should you then force your beliefs on others?
Others don't think like you.

I don't smoke - but I don't think tobacco should be illegal.
 
Oh, OK, I see. So you're trying to say that all designs on revising the definition of marriage ends with homosexual couples?

I don't currently see any significant movement for plural marriage.
 
Oh, OK, I see. So you're trying to say that all designs on revising the definition of marriage ends with homosexual couples?

Where does this magical definition come from? And why should it be carved in stone as YOU define it?
 
Which ever way the wind blows, right winston? ;)

No not really. I just don't think there is any significant movement for plural marriage. So your slippery slope contention is to say the least absurd.
 
I'm waiting for marriage between close relations. Should pretty much close the loop on estate taxes.
 
If you choose to let a book do your thinking for you,that of course is your own right.
Thank you, Verthaine. Are you saying that you are the original "they" in "they say"?

Verthaine;1061116367I said:
I see no Amendment in the US Constitution stating that definition must remain that way throughout eternity or because you say so.
Just like you don't see anything to the contrary, either. It comes down to "change", doesn't it, liberal? How much will America change over the next four years? Do you see full blown Socialism for us within the next four years?
 
I'm waiting for marriage between close relations. .


Well, I've got a hot cousin, too, but I never really considered it, myself.
 
Just like you don't see anything to the contrary, either. It comes down to "change", doesn't it, liberal? How much will America change over the next four years? Do you see full blown Socialism for us within the next four years?


Not much change, slight improvement in the economic scene, lowered crime rates and not a chance in the lowest regions of Hell that America will experience "full blown Socialism" - ooops, there are way too many "independents" with their own definitions of multiple words for me to say there won't be "Full blown Socialism" in the US. I'm fairly sure they will be able to fit some actions by the President and Congress that will fit into the fantasy that they call "full blown Socialism" but none of the remainder of the world's population will agree with them. This disagreement will of course be seen as validation for their fantasy.
 
Thank you, Verthaine. Are you saying that you are the original "they" in "they say"?
No,and if I did,do you care to point out which post I said it?
Willing to bet you can't.
Just like you don't see anything to the contrary, either.

My prerogative.

It comes down to "change", doesn't it

That's the nature of the Universe,now isn't it?
Things change,and either one deals with it,or they don't.
I deal with it and make it work to myn advantage.



Take a look at the box at the left of my posts.Scan down to where it says "Lean".
Does it say "Liberal"?
My name is "Verthaine",not "liberal".

How much will America change over the next four years?

How should I know?
I never claimed to be able to predict the future.
Every moment is different from the one preceding it.
All I can say is that if I am still alive,I hope my bank account continues to go upward,like its been doing since Reagan.


Do you see full blown Socialism for us within the next four years?

Nope.
 
At what point would you take issue?

We both should because it's contrary to the definition of marriage and there's no real purpose behind it.... other than for selfish reasons, of course.

Oh, OK, I see. So you're trying to say that all designs on revising the definition of marriage ends with homosexual couples?

Where does this magical definition come from? And why should it be carved in stone as YOU define it?

This magical source, for starters:

Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

What do you think, Dragonfly, is Merriam Websters a magical source? Unicorns and wood fairies?

So Merriam Websters is essentially full of s***, right, professor?

Did I say that? I thought I was just quoting a definition from a credible source. All you've done so far, is blow hot air.


oh...look who's getting snippy.

Please try to follow along.

You are the one who brought up definition and "change".

You are the one who will have to learn to deal with equal rights for all regardless of sexual orientation.

Have fun with that.
 
Historic marriage definitions:

One man and his property (any number of women)
One man and his property (one woman)
One man and one woman (any age)
One man and one woman (same race, adults only)
One man and one woman (mixed race ok)
One person and one person (any gender. look, SSM is already legal in some places. society did not collapse)
 
Back
Top Bottom