• 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!

Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

Since that is what you're doing, sticking your fingers in your ears so you don't hear the truth you can't handle about the likely scenarios that will occur if SS activists continue to push their marriage-hijacking agenda on 92% of the population, you should understand then that that likely reality simply won't go away because you have your fingers in your ears.

All can change quickly in a short-time power-play.

man, you can pout like no one else...
 
man, you can pout like no one else...
As usual, when you lose the debate on relevant facts, you resort to erroneous ad hominems.

Nevertheless, this appears to be your method of capitulation.

Good enough.
 
As usual, when you lose the debate on relevant facts, you resort to erroneous ad hominems.

Nevertheless, this appears to be your method of capitulation.

Good enough.

Ah, interesting. I've been hard at work on several projects for that past few months (and hence my particularly lackluster performance on this board) and now that they're just about wrapped up I see that "having all the facts and moral authority on your side of the debate" now equates to losing.

Alrighty then.
 
And this fact has nothing to do with marriage. If you disagree, show any legal precedent that requires someone to procreate in order to marry. If you cannot... and we know you cannot, your position is refuted. Which it is.

If you knew anything at all, you wouldn't be making such asinine claims and would know thatMarriage isn't defined by law, but only recognized by law. The court decision recognizes this fact but only when convenient, somehow imagining that recreation of marriage is a "state power" when States have no original jurisdiction over marriage, any more than the federal government does itself. It is a social structure, and neither the federal government, nor the states, are provided the authority to exercise social engineering to redesign it by their tyrannous dictate.

This is precisely the sort of tyrannous government the founders sought to prohibit, and instituted into the Constitution. .


And everything you wrote shows why it is unconstitutional. Based on the full faith and credit clause, it is not the Federal government's place to dictate to the states how they can license something like this. DOMA violated this and was appropriately deemed unconstitutional. As usual, and as was shown in today's ruling, you are wrong.

This is the second time I've had to correct you on what's actually in the court decision you're pontificating about. That decision was nether hinging on state's rights, which no were nowhere denied, nor on the full faith and credit clause, which I've already indicated the court entirely ignored the impact of, so that it could condemn Congress' legitimate authority in writing DOMA!

Yes, it is IN FACT the federal government's place to legislate and dictate "things like this", as this 'thing" is exclusively related to Federal ISSUES and FEDERAL LAW, and it is extremely asinine to assert otherwise.... but don't worry, you're actually surpassed by a corrupt and hypocritical Court, as I've already pointed out, but you are apparently incapable of addressing directly.

Before you continue to expose your ignorance on this decision, why don't you actually go and read it, instead just pulling what you imagine might be in that decision, out of ...well, thin air.
 
If you knew anything at all, you wouldn't be making such asinine claims and would know thatMarriage isn't defined by law, but only recognized by law. The court decision recognizes this fact but only when convenient, somehow imagining that recreation of marriage is a "state power" when States have no original jurisdiction over marriage, any more than the federal government does itself. It is a social structure, and neither the federal government, nor the states, are provided the authority to exercise social engineering to redesign it by their tyrannous dictate.



Tyranny? LMAO Tyrants are known for restricting freedoms and rights. What freedom and or right of yours has been restricted?
 
Yesterday's and today's SCOTUS Corruptus decisions are both designed to energize different tentacles of the GOP octopus. With DOMA following the decision against voter rights, we haven't heard much voter talk today, have we. Strictly by design.
 
Tyranny? LMAO Tyrants are known for restricting freedoms and rights. What freedom and or right of yours has been restricted?

How much time have you got?


I can go forwards from the Civil War, or backwards from the current time period.

How about we just look at something like ObamaCare in which the federal government has taken over de facto ownership of each individual citizens body without any authority, abrogated a full 80% of those 'unalienable' Bill of Rights, and fundamentally changed the relationship between citizen and government by inappropriate means, not that even an amendment might even fundamentally change that relationship, since the Bill of Rights are not grants by the Constitution, but only a listing of particulars.

Did you not recognize any of this on your own? If you're not regarding the constitution, which your posts continually show, then its hypocritical to be asking about freedoms or rights, when your evident ideological focus will ensure subjugation.
 
How much time have you got?


I can go forwards from the Civil War, or backwards from the current time period.

How about we just look at something like ObamaCare in which the federal government has taken over de facto ownership of each individual citizens body without any authority, abrogated a full 80% of those 'unalienable' Bill of Rights, and fundamentally changed the relationship between citizen and government by inappropriate means, not that even an amendment might even fundamentally change that relationship, since the Bill of Rights are not grants by the Constitution, but only a listing of particulars.

Did you not recognize any of this on your own? If you're not regarding the constitution, which your posts continually show, then its hypocritical to be asking about freedoms or rights, when your evident ideological focus will ensure subjugation.


The thread is about gay marriage not healthcare.
 
Tyranny? LMAO Tyrants are known for restricting freedoms and rights. What freedom and or right of yours has been restricted?

You were expecting something logical?
 
The thread is about gay marriage not healthcare.

Then specify your questions, and pay attention to the thread.

I just had a big long post about government violating its authority, and acting by indiscriminate and conflicted rationales so as to dictate a determined agenda - that's tyranny, and that's in no way legitimate government in this Republic under the Constitution.

I realize some actually want government dictate, and compulsion, but that's actually not the terms of this country.

Evidently all that went over your head, or you'd not have asked the question to begin with.
 
Then specify your questions, and pay attention to the thread.

I just had a big long post about government violating its authority, and acting in by indiscriminate and conflicted rationales so as to dictate a determined agenda - that's tyranny, and that's in no way legitimate government in this Republic under the Constitution.

But evidently all that went over your head, or you'd not have asked the question to begin with.

Pay attention to the thread? I'm not the one ranting about healthcare in a gay marriage thread!

Now then pay attention. In the context of the thread, gay marriage, what freedom and or right of yours has been restricted?
 
Pay attention to the thread? I'm not the one ranting about healthcare in a gay marriage thread!

Now then pay attention. In the context of the thread, gay marriage, what freedom and or right of yours has been restricted?

Read your question. Read my answer. Your question only questioned the existence of tyranny. My answer was entirely within the constraints of your question. What you challenged was the existence of any tyranny, and I answered that question.

If you want a specific answer next time, then try actually asking the question you expect an answer to - it works better that way. In the meantime, you might go re-read my previous "big, long post" since you apparently didn't get even the overall significance of it. Next time, i'll just ignore your question because responding to you is evidently nothing but a waste of time.
 
Read your question. Read my answer. Your question only questioned the existence of tyranny. My answer was entirely within the constraints of your question. What you challenged was the existence of any tyranny, and I answered that question.

If you want a specific answer next time, then try actually asking the question you expect an answer to - it works better that way. In the meantime, you might go re-read my previous "big, long post" since you apparently didn't get even the overall significance of it. Next time, i'll just ignore your question because responding to you is evidently nothing but a waste of time.


So IOW in the context of the thread you have not lost any freedoms and or rights. Thanks for undermining your own hyperbolic rhetoric.
 
Uh, that "opposite sex booty call" is still heterosexual reproduction, and the term "relationship" does not necessitate nor imply any sort of ongoing relationship between people, but references the ongoing and immutable relation of the sperm and ovum necessary for reproduction, to those two heterosexual sexes.

Likewise, artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization also rely on that same heterosexual reproduction process, and rape as well.

Again, and quite obviously, the reference to "relationship" does not refer to any ongoing relationship between partners, much less a stable one, but the relationship of the reproduction process to that heterosexuality... and it really is an inane claim that it might be.

And it is not considered a "healthy relationship".

And reproduction does not happen in even the majority of cases of heterosexual copulation. In fact, in many cases, heterosexuals go out of their way to prevent procreation.

Marriage is not about procreation and procreation does not require marriage. Heck, now procreation doesn't even require sex.

Overall though you are still wrong. There are still people who exist without any heterosexual relationship. A sperm and egg being joined is in no way a heterosexual relationship.
 
Since that is what you're doing, sticking your fingers in your ears so you don't hear the truth you can't handle about the likely scenarios that will occur if SS activists continue to push their marriage-hijacking agenda on 92% of the population, you should understand then that that likely reality simply won't go away because you have your fingers in your ears.

All can change quickly in a short-time power-play.

As usual, there is nothing based on reality here. The majority of the population supports SSM and it's growing. The nice thing is, just like CT said, when people like you make really dumb statements that are based on some extreme ideology, most people see it for what it is; nothing of consequence, just some ideologue screaming nonsense. It'll turn fence sitters against you. You are doing my side a great service... as usual.
 
Last edited:
So IOW in the context of the thread you have not lost any freedoms and or rights. Thanks for undermining your own hyperbolic rhetoric.

I didn't say that anywhere.

Not only do you need to heed the words that you use, but you also need to heed those I use.

Evidently you have not yet read that "big, long post", or else you don't understand that mong our rights, real rights, not fabricated rights that involve some sort of collective pairing, not rights granted by statist dictate, and not non-existent guarantee of reward and outcome, there's an overriding right to a Constitutional and Republican form of government.

Do you have any idea what either of these references entail, and to what we're entitled when these are denied?
 
If you knew anything at all, you wouldn't be making such asinine claims and would know thatMarriage isn't defined by law, but only recognized by law.

Wrong, and if you understood law and licensing, you wouldn't be making such dumb comments. When someone gets a marriage license, they need to fill out forms and fulfill certain requirements. Please show ANYWHERE where any of these requirements call for procreation. If you can't, then you have no position. Go.

The court decision recognizes this fact but only when convenient, somehow imagining that recreation of marriage is a "state power" when States have no original jurisdiction over marriage, any more than the federal government does itself. It is a social structure, and neither the federal government, nor the states, are provided the authority to exercise social engineering to redesign it by their tyrannous dictate.

We are talking about the legalities of marriage. THAT'S what this is about. In that case, the state certainly has the power to have jurisdiction over the licensing and legalities around marriage. THIS is the context that we are discussing. So... point us to anything that states that procreation is a requirement to get a marriage license, or where procreation has any legal standing in marriage. If you can't then your position is refuted. Go.

This is precisely the sort of tyrannous government the founders sought to prohibit, and instituted into the Constitution.

Oh, so now you are talking about legalities? Guess what? DOMA was struck down. You were wrong.

This is the second time I've had to correct you on what's actually in the court decision you're pontificating about. That decision was nether hinging on state's rights, which no were nowhere denied, nor on the full faith and credit clause, which I've already indicated the court entirely ignored the impact of, so that it could condemn Congress' legitimate authority in writing DOMA!

Yes, it is IN FACT the federal government's place to legislate and dictate "things like this", as this 'thing" is exclusively related to Federal ISSUES and FEDERAL LAW, and it is extremely asinine to assert otherwise.... but don't worry, you're actually surpassed by a corrupt and hypocritical Court, as I've already pointed out, but you are apparently incapable of addressing directly.

Before you continue to expose your ignorance on this decision, why don't you actually go and read it, instead just pulling what you imagine might be in that decision, out of ...well, thin air.

No, I am on target and you, of course were wrong, not only in the decision, but in pretty much everything you said about the Constitutionality of the issue.
 
As usual, there is nothing based on reality here.
False, obviously.


The majority of the population supports SSM and it's growing.
False again.

The majority of American citizens supports recognition of SS couples' committed monagamous romantic relationship civil union domestic partnerships by both government and private enterprise.

However, this majority is not a large one.

And, only a small minority supports oxymoronically calling these civil union domestic partnerships "marriages".

Of those who support SS couples' civil union domestic partnerships, a significant marjority of them prefer that a different name be used.

And the minority that opposes SS couples' civil uion domestic partnerships by any name are adamantly opposed.

That's reality.



The nice thing is, just like CT said, when people like you make really dumb and statements that are based on some extreme ideology,
Now you're bashing a strawman and simply for the purpose of rabble-rousing.

Meaningless .. and a failed debate tactic.


most people see it for what it is;
But .. not the way you think. :shock:


nothing of consequence, just some ideologue screaming nonsense.
That's precisely the description of your post here. :lol:


You are doing my side a great service... as usual.
When casual readers pass this way, and they see all you're doing is denying the specific details of reality, and rabble-rousing ..

.. And they see the thought and consideration and intelligence reflected in the details of my topically relevant posts, who do you think they're going to align with if they're on the fence?

Uh huh .. that's right ... :cool:

The only one doing his "side" a disservice here .. is you ..

.. Obviously.
 
False, obviously.

In your opinion... which has nothing to do with facts.

]False again.

The majority of American citizens supports recognition of SS couples' committed monagamous romantic relationship civil union domestic partnerships by both government and private enterprise.

However, this majority is not a large one.

And, only a small minority supports oxymoronically calling these civil union domestic partnerships "marriages".

Of those who support SS couples' civil union domestic partnerships, a significant marjority of them prefer that a different name be used.

And the minority that opposes SS couples' civil uion domestic partnerships by any name are adamantly opposed.

That's reality.

Please post links that prove this assertion.

Now you're bashing a strawman and simply for the purpose of rabble-rousing.

Meaningless .. and a failed debate tactic.

No, I'm making an accurate assessment of what you posted. A tactic that is not for you, but for others who happen to read you. Based on how people respond to you, it's quite an effective tactic... in fact VERY effective. Of course the nonsense you post is a FAR more effective tactic than me just pointing it out.

But .. not the way you think. :shock:

Of course they do. Nonsense. Look at how people respond. They KNOW that what you say is nonsense.

That's precisely the description of your post here. :lol:

I know it bothers you when I point out and render your comments as irrelevant, but I want to make sure that people get correct information around here.


When casual readers pass this way, and they see all you're doing is denying the specific details of reality, and rabble-rousing ..

.. And they see the thought and consideration and intelligence reflected in the details of my topically relevant posts, who do you think they're going to align with if they're on the fence?

Uh huh .. that's right ... :cool:

The only one doing his "side" a disservice here .. is you ..

.. Obviously.

Look around you. When people see the nonsense you present and then my retorts and destruction of that nonsense, you get no support and no agreements. Now, you can pretend that you do, but the rest of us know the truth. It's right here in black and white.

Btw... I noticed that you ran from our discussing on definitions and what I said. You didn't post where I used the term "redefined" or where I said that the issue was anything but a state's rights issue. Are you ready to concede that you were wrong and were just straw manning or am I going to have to continue to confront you on this?
 
And it is not considered a "healthy relationship".

And reproduction does not happen in even the majority of cases of heterosexual copulation. In fact, in many cases, heterosexuals go out of their way to prevent procreation.

Marriage is not about procreation and procreation does not require marriage. Heck, now procreation doesn't even require sex.

Overall though you are still wrong. There are still people who exist without any heterosexual relationship. A sperm and egg being joined is in no way a heterosexual relationship.

You probably missed my repeated references to reproduction not being mandatory, nor even having to be capable, but rather only possible for that sort of union. Psst! that reproduction is not happening for gay couples, not even for a scant minority of cases, nor is it actually ever possible.

No, I'm not wrong, and your unfathomable ignorance and disregard, for quite literally every society throughout mankind's history, really indicates that the problem is your own ignorance. Which is heightened by the enormous irony of you being undeniably the byproduct of a heterosexual relationship.

And, you hit the nail on the head, which is extremely amusing, in stating that procreation does not require marriage, and does not even require sex, which .......... again.......... is the whole reason why committed heterosexual unions - i.e. marriage, are valued by society, recognized and rewarded... and not gay unions.

It boggles the mind that people can actually leave American schools and be so entirely clueless about fact, common sense, and even the most simple social history, such as WHY marriage is recognized.
 
You probably missed my repeated references to reproduction not being mandatory, nor even having to be capable, but rather only possible for that sort of union. Psst! that reproduction is not happening for gay couples, not even for a scant minority of cases, nor is it actually ever possible.

Possible is irrelevant in regards to obtaining a marriage license. THIS is the point that you keep missing.

No, I'm not wrong, and your unfathomable ignorance and disregard, for quite literally every society throughout mankind's history, really indicates that the problem is your own ignorance. Which is heightened by the enormous irony of you being undeniably the byproduct of a heterosexual relationship.

And, you hit the nail on the head, which is extremely amusing, in stating that procreation does not require marriage, and does not even require sex, which .......... again.......... is the whole reason why committed heterosexual unions - i.e. marriage, are valued by society, recognized and rewarded... and not gay unions.

It boggles the mind that people can actually leave American schools and be so entirely clueless about fact, common sense, and even the most simple social history, such as WHY marriage is recognized.

At this point, you are back to contradicting yourself, making logically fallacious arguments, and saying things that make no sense. Marriage is valued by society because of the positive effect these unions have on the raising of children. It is also valued by society because of the positive effects these unions have on the stability of the individuals, hence the stability of the society. Gay unions have been shown to fulfill both of these purposes equal to straight unions. Therefore there is no reason to deny the legality of marriage to gay couples. We KNOW that you cannot refute anything I just said. All you will now do is make the same erroneous argument that you've been making.
 
Back
Top Bottom