• 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]

None. Same sex marriage is illegal, which puts it at a greater level of scrutiny for the states to defend their position on it furthering a state interest.

And DOMA violates many Amendments/rights, for much the same reasons that the state anti-same sex marriage laws do.

Gay marriage is NOT illegal - IN ANY STATE - reason? because there are no laws against gay marriage.
 
Why should the government bestow benefits to an individual or couple because of their life choices?

Were you forced to fall in love and marry your wife?

If not, then it was a choice.

Why do you get to choose your partner and someone else not?
 
Were you forced to fall in love and marry your wife?

If not, then it was a choice.

Why do you get to choose your partner and someone else not?

In what universe are homosexual relationships illegal?

You may have a point if our government were throwing people in jail for being involved in a homosexual relationship however I find your post to be dramatic.
 
Then call your relationship a marriage. Just don't expect me to recognize it as such. Because THAT is not your right.

Actually, yes it is a right to call a marriage a marriage.

Just for the record, I am in a legal marriage to a man. I support the right of same sex couples to be able to enter into marriages just like I was able to do because there is no reason to deny them that.
 
Gay marriage is NOT illegal - IN ANY STATE - reason? because there are no laws against gay marriage.

Same sex marriage is not recognized in 30 states at least. Yes, there are many state laws against two people of the same sex getting married and that is gender discrimination.
 
Were you forced to fall in love and marry your wife?

If not, then it was a choice.

Why do you get to choose your partner and someone else not?

I would have married her whether or not there was a benefit. This is what most don't understand. Why do you think the government has any business bestowing benefits for acting in any manner?
 
Who the hell are you to say two loving and willing people cant marry??? Sounds familiar to your argument right? I suppose it is a different story when you have an opinion on marriage?
Non sequitur. We see time and time again that polygamous and incestual relationships do not involve consenting adults in non-abusive relationships. We see that throughout history and even today. And those who violate the rights of others, do not deserve to have the ability to marry. Should, let's say, there be such a relationship that falls into one of those categories that is not abusive, is between consenting persons, and involves those who have reach an age of majority -- perhaps that should become a discussion that society ought to have. However, that has nothing to do with this discussion right now.
 
if were are looking at DOMA itself...no it does not.


Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

It violates plenty of other rights.
 
Same sex marriage is not recognized in 30 states at least. Yes, there are many state laws against two people of the same sex getting married and that is gender discrimination.

Prove it...

List citations instead of "claiming" X,Y and Z...
 
Actually, yes it is a right to call a marriage a marriage.

Just for the record, I am in a legal marriage to a man. I support the right of same sex couples to be able to enter into marriages just like I was able to do because there is no reason to deny them that.

Andnit is your right to recognize their relationship any way you want. But it is not your right to force me to recognize it the same way.
 
I would have married her whether or not there was a benefit. This is what most don't understand. Why do you think the government has any business bestowing benefits for acting in any manner?
Does government not have an interest in fostering families based on healthy partnerships?

 
Andnit is your right to recognize their relationship any way you want. But it is not your right to force me to recognize it the same way.

It is a guaranteed right of the US Constitution that citizens must be treated equally under the laws, regardless of their race, sex, religion, etc. unless the state is able to show a legitimate state interest is served by not treating groups equally.
 
So a minority group is justified in changing the definition of a word used to describe the relationships of the majority and that is NOT descrimination? I think it's about time we stopped pandering to every special interest group that CLAIMS to want equality but in reality wants to be "specialer" than everyone else. Here's a tip for you. Your "right" to be special ends at your ability to alter the definition of the word that describes my relationship with my wife. And don't give me the I'm not allowed in the ICU BS. That is not a federal law, it is a hospital policy. I own a business, I'll let you in on a little secret. A policy is a rule made by an administrator for them to hide behind. Nothing more. Federal agents will not prevent you from entering a wing of the hospital. Find a gay doctor or administrator, don't be a douchebag and you might just charm your way in. Thing is, when your particular club expects the world to change for them you come off as douchebags, in which case we point at the sign on the wall and say "I'm sorry, it's policy and I can't do anything about it."

I have a sign in my office that states that due to insurance policies customers are not allowed in the shop. It's not true. It's there for me to be able to keep douchebags out of my workspace. So if you insist on changing the meaning of a wordnto mean something it doesn't, you can have a seat in the office. Sorry, it's company policy. I can't do anything about it.

You are actually crying about a words definition.

A string of letters that represent a sequence of sounds which conveys a concept?

And you expect to be taken seriously?

Gay marriage does no demonstrable harm to your marriage.

You have no right to a words definition. Where does the constitution grant you one?

And to answer your question, no.

Gays aren't trying to deny you the use of the word. Nor the legal benefits.
 
Last edited:
Does government not have an interest in fostering families based on healthy partnerships?



You would think so, but that is not the case. Otherwise they would not have used welfare to destroy the black family.
 
Non sequitur. We see time and time again that polygamous and incestual relationships do not involve consenting adults in non-abusive relationships. We see that throughout history and even today. And those who violate the rights of others, do not deserve to have the ability to marry. Should, let's say, there be such a relationship that falls into one of those categories that is not abusive, is between consenting persons, and involves those who have reach an age of majority -- perhaps that should become a discussion that society ought to have. However, that has nothing to do with this discussion right now.

I think you underestimate how delusional this world is and how crazy some people are... One doesn't have to be abused to be crazy, stupid or not all in the head.

If it matters incest is NORMAL in many cultures....

I'm sorry if you just don't like the answer to the: "why cant people marry any human they want" argument.
 
It is a guaranteed right of the US Constitution that citizens must be treated equally under the laws, regardless of their race, sex, religion, etc. unless the state is able to show a legitimate state interest is served by not treating groups equally.
That's all fine and good, but in reality Christians are marginalized regularly in this country while Muslims are feared and held as sacred. A law that is not enforced is useless.
 
Really, you don't know that there are many states that do not allow same sex couples to enter into a legal marriage? Defining Marriage: Defense of Marriage Acts and Same-Sex Marriage Laws NC was the last state to put into its constitution that marriage was between a man and a woman.
Prove it... List citations instead of "claiming" X,Y and Z...
Mr. Nick is not an idiot. He knows full well how discrimination is directly written into our States' constitutions. Repeating that back to him ("proving it") is not going to advance the conversation in anyway.
 
You are actually crying about a words definition.

A string of letters that represent a sequence of sounds which conveys a concept?

And you expect to be taken seriously?

Gay marriage does no demonstrable harm to your marriage.

You have no right to a words definition. Where does the constitution grant you one?

The Constitution is not a document that defines the world. To me marriage means one man and one woman. To you it means something different. You seem to think you have the right to force me to think the way you do.nIt's not going to happen.
 
Back
Top Bottom