• 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]

cabse5 said:
What's keeping a SS union from throwing a lavish celebration of their union if they aren't married? Sure the SS couple can find a lavish place to hold it. Can't force a christian wedding to be performed in a mosque, can you?.
Click to expand...

Can't get a marriage certificate. That's it.
 
A Boston Red Sox fan can't sit on the 3rd base line at Yankee Stadium for their home games , either. What's your point?
 
cabse5 said:
What's keeping a SS union from throwing a lavish celebration of their union if they aren't married? Sure the SS couple can find a lavish place to hold it, anyway. Can't force a christian wedding to be performed in a mosque, can you?
Click to expand...

Nothing. The point is that marriage is the legal document that grants state and federal recognition of legal spousehood and all the rights, benefits, and even responsibilities that come with it.

Even when same sex couples are allowed to enter into legal marriages, they nor anyone else can force any church, mosque, synagogue, temple, or other religious place/person to perform a wedding ceremony for them. (Despite popular belief, the ceremony is called a "wedding" not a marriage. The union itself is a marriage, the ceremony announcing, establishing, and/or celebrating that union is a wedding.)
 
cabse5 said:
A Boston Red Sox fan can't sit on the 3rd base line for their home games at Yankee Stadium, either. What's your point?
Click to expand...

Baseball is not a government recognized institution granting legal recognition of rights, marriage is. Baseball has nothing to do with the government or rights, marriage does.
 
roguenuke said:
Nothing. The point is that marriage is the legal document that grants state and federal recognition of legal spousehood and all the rights, benefits, and even responsibilities that come with it.

Even when same sex couples are allowed to enter into legal marriages, they nor anyone else can force any church, mosque, synagogue, temple, or other religious place/person to perform a wedding ceremony for them. (Despite popular belief, the ceremony is called a "wedding" not a marriage. The union itself is a marriage, the ceremony announcing, establishing, and/or celebrating that union is a wedding.)
Click to expand...

If you live in Colorado, California, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada a union also gives you all those rights.. This is going full circle. Signing off (until you've got more).
 
roguenuke said:
Baseball is not a government recognized institution granting legal recognition of rights, marriage is. Baseball has nothing to do with the government or rights, marriage does.
Click to expand...

I lied. Unions do too.
 
cabse5 said:
If you live in Colorado, California, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada a union also gives you all those rights.. This is going full circle. Signing off (until you've got more).
Click to expand...

Washington legalized same sex marriage in November. California legalized a couple of days ago with the demise of Prop 8. Nevada and Oregon already have bills/initiatives in the works to just allow same sex couples to marry and one is being pushed in Colorado. Other states had/have same sex civil unions as well, and all either have already gone to allowing same sex couples to marry or are pushing for it, including New Jersey.
 
Cardinal said:
*crickets*
Click to expand...

That question will be fielded by the state if homosexual challenges to state marriage definitions ever reach the Supreme Court. The state will then get to make it's argument regarding it's effect.
 
Papa bull said:
That question will be fielded by the state if homosexual challenges to state marriage definitions ever reach the Supreme Court. The state will then get to make it's argument regarding it's effect.
Click to expand...
Let's hear what you have, how has/will it effect your life?
 
Papa bull said:
That question will be fielded by the state if homosexual challenges to state marriage definitions ever reach the Supreme Court. The state will then get to make it's argument regarding it's effect.
Click to expand...

As dismissals go that was pretty weak sauce. People who object to gay marriage, like you, would have a more legitimate position if they were able to point to a victim, and I don't mean abstract victims like "religion" or "freedom," but actual, specific human victims. Don't try to pass the buck on to the state. In every other debate, such as abortion, immigration, or gun control, concrete victims are used as examples (deservedly or not). What makes the gay marriage debate unique is that not once has the anti-gay marriage position even attempted to bring up a legitimate victim.

So either explain who the victim is, or admit that your position against gay marriage has no legitimate basis.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Let's hear what you have, how has/will it effect your life?
Click to expand...

I am not the state. I don't have to handle the licenses, tax issues, insurance issues, divorces, etc. The state will ultimately make their case.
 
Papa bull said:
I am not the state. I don't have to handle the licenses, tax issues, insurance issues, divorces, etc. The state will ultimately make their case.
Click to expand...

So that's it, huh? You're abandoning your own position in this debate in the hopes that someone else will have better arguments?

I guess that's fair enough.
 
Papa bull said:
I am not the state. I don't have to handle the licenses, tax issues, insurance issues, divorces, etc. The state will ultimately make their case.
Click to expand...
I never said you were a state, I asked YOU to say how this will affect YOU. You are part of a state, the state can use your argument, whatever it is.

If it will not affect you, just admit it.
 
Cardinal said:
As dismissals go that was pretty weak sauce. People who object to gay marriage, like you, would have a more legitimate position if they were able to point to a victim, and I don't mean abstract victims like "religion" or "freedom," but actual, specific human victims. Don't try to pass the buck on to the state. In every other debate, such as abortion, immigration, or gun control, concrete victims are used as examples (deservedly or not). What makes the gay marriage debate unique is that not once has the anti-gay marriage position even attempted to bring up a legitimate victim.

So either explain who the victim is, or admit that your position against gay marriage has no legitimate basis.
Click to expand...

I can't tell you how your marrying a goat would affect me, either but I don't think that's sufficient reason for the state to sanction goat marriage, either. I think it is incumbent upon the homosexuals to explain how their ability to marry furthers the goals if the state that marriage was created to further.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I never said you were a state, I asked YOU to say how this will affect YOU. You are part of a state, the state can use your argument, whatever it is.

If it will not affect you, just admit it.
Click to expand...

You could marry your mother and it wouldn't affect me. I don't support that, either.
 
Papa bull said:
I can't tell you how your marrying a goat would affect me, either but I don't think that's sufficient reason for the state to sanction goat marriage, either. I think it is incumbent upon the homosexuals to explain how their ability to marry furthers the goals if the state that marriage was created to further.
Click to expand...

Homosexuals are benefiting the state by increasing liberty.
 
Papa bull said:
I can't tell you how your marrying a goat would affect me, either but I don't think that's sufficient reason for the state to sanction goat marriage, either. I think it is incumbent upon the homosexuals to explain how their ability to marry furthers the goals if the state that marriage was created to further.
Click to expand...
That was EXACTLY shown in the findings of Holingsworth v Perry that I linked to for you previously.

You DID NOT READ IT.
 
Papa bull said:
You could marry your mother and it wouldn't affect me. I don't support that, either.
Click to expand...
Non sequitur and a straw man, the topic is not incest.

If you cannot comment on the topic, then you should leave.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Non sequitur and a straw man, the topic is not incest.

If you cannot comment on the topic, then you should leave.
Click to expand...

The argument was that if I can't explain how it affects me, then it should be legal. My rebuttal is that your argument is not valid and incest was the proof. It doesn't affect me. That doesn't mean it should be legal. Dog fighting doesn't affect me. That doesn't mean it should be legal. Homosexual marriage doesn't affect me. That doesn't mean it should be legal. See the pattern?

But thank you for asking me to leave the discussion because you were too thick or dishonest to understand the rebuttal or acknowledge it. Yes, thanks but no thanks. I'll leave when I'm damned well good and ready.
 
Papa bull said:
The argument was that if I can't explain how it affects me, then it should be legal.
Click to expand...
Do you know what straw argument is? Do you know what a false premise is? You must since you do it so much. It was not "it should be legal since it does not affect you, i simply asked how does it affect you, you changed the question.


My rebuttal is that your argument is not valid and incest was the proof.
Click to expand...
You avoided the question with a non sequitur.

It doesn't affect me.
Click to expand...
Now there is the answer, everything else is a distraction.


That doesn't mean it should be legal. Dog fighting doesn't affect me. That doesn't mean it should be legal. Homosexual marriage doesn't affect me. That doesn't mean it should be legal. See the pattern?
Click to expand...
I see the pattern that you are continuing to use a false premise and straw argument.

But thank you for asking me to leave the discussion because you were too thick or dishonest to understand the rebuttal or acknowledge it. Yes, thanks but no thanks. I'll leave when I'm damned well good and ready.
Click to expand...
I can understand why you are upset and have to rely on straw/false premises, it is the only way to win, by changing the question.
 
Papa bull said:
I can't tell you how your marrying a goat would affect me, either but I don't think that's sufficient reason for the state to sanction goat marriage, either. I think it is incumbent upon the homosexuals to explain how their ability to marry furthers the goals if the state that marriage was created to further.
Click to expand...

The discussion is gay marriage, not incest or bestiality. Focus.

So the victim is...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom