• 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]

Ontologuy said:
Here you exhibit typical ideologue fantasizing.

You present the poll question that validates precisely what I stated, that 63% oppose the word "marriage" applying to SS couples, and that if given a choice between "marriage" or "no recognition" 55-57% support "marriage" (as the general poll in the link stated) but if you allow state recognition without the word "marriage", "marriage" support drops to 37% and opposition to recognition also drops to 25%, meaning that then recognition support jumps from 55-57% to a whopping 70%! This clearly proves that SS activists' best chances for success in winning public support for state recognition in the remaining great majority of states -- where there are already state constitutional amendments stating that "marriage is only between a man and a woman as husband and wife" -- is to enact civil union domestic partnership statutes for SS couples and call them homarriage or the like.

But then you just pretend that's not the obviously presented case! :shock:

Instead you then you just deny the obvious realities with "Nuh uh, no it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not!!!" in true ideologue disconnect from reality fashion.

So here's a reality check for you: only liberal run states are going to allow the ludicrous oxymoronic SS "marriage".

The rest of the states are run by centrists and conservatives, together comprising the vast majority of Americans.

These people aren't susceptible to the brainwashing of SS activists' employment of repetitive mantra oxymoronic chanting.

And, that's reflected in this poll.

Only big-city liberals support the oxymorons, and that demographic is essentially all used up now.

Facing reality is really for the best, and, as the statistics show, that means facing the reality that the states with constitutional amendments banning SS "marriage", many requiring a two-thirds majority to change their constitution, well, it simply ain't gonna happen.

I've tried to show you how "homarriage" opens the door to getting what you really and initially wanted: state recognition of SS relationships all across America.

But you SS activists are so oppositionally defiant about stealing what from a foundational definitive propriety appeal simply does not belong to you that you uttterly fail to see the reasonableness of my recommendation.

But, that's the legacy ideologues always leave: unresonable oppositional defiance and fantasy denial of obvious realities.
Click to expand...

I did not figure you would admit to your lies. Even when faced with numbers, you keep repeating the same lies. Much like the homosexuality is a birth defect thing.
 
Papa bull said:
And because of that history, it's no surprise that homosexuals are trying to position themselves as a "race". If they can successfully convince people that their sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic like race, then they have a good legal argument for getting whatever they want up to and including affirmative action.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry...is religion an "immutable characteristic"?
 
Redress said:
I did not figure you would admit to your lies. Even when faced with numbers, you keep repeating the same lies. Much like the homosexuality is a birth defect thing.
Click to expand...
Your erroneous ad hominem is simply that.

That you call relevant facts "lies" simply because your ideology doesn't like these relevant facts is about you, not about me.

You'd do well to ditch your pre-conceived ideology, as it's doing you a disservice.
 
Papa bull said:
I've no conflict with any of that. I don't see homosexual marriage as an equal rights issue. It is a special rights issue. Homosexuals have always been able to get married. Just ask former New Joisey governor Jim McGreevey. It's the fact that homosexuals are treated just like everyone else that is actually the problem for them here. They don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else has always done. They want something different. Something special to them. It's not about equal rights at all.
Click to expand...

So the foundation for your "special rights" objection is that they are seeking to marry someone of the same sex? Your basis is that opposite sex marriage is some sort of "natural right" and because thats what everyone else "has always done?"

Well if your basis for this belief is solely because its what "everyone else has always done," but same-sex does not have a similar basis in history then you would be factually incorrect.

Historical records show that same-sex unions were a part of Ancient Egyptian culture, Ancient Mesopotamian culture, Ancient and Medieval Chinese and South Asian cultures, Ancient Greek and Roman culture, and even Medieval Roman culture, as well as among many tribal groups in North and South America. Currently, the following Modern Western nations allow it legally; Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, and is scheduled to become legal in Uruguay and New Zealand in August of this year. Bills allowing it are pending in Andorra, England and Wales, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Nepal, Scotland, and Taiwan; as well as several more States in the USA.

In the USA it is currently legal in: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, the District of Columbia and five Native American tribes (Coquille, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Santa Ysabel Tribe, and Suquamish).

Furthermore, the following religious groups currently support and/or perform same-sex marriage ceremonies: Quakers, U.S. Episcopalians, the Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ, the United Church of Canada, Buddhism in Australia, Reform and Conservative Jews, Wiccans, Druids, Unitarian Universalists, and Native American religions with a two-spirit tradition, as well as various progressive and modern Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and Jewish groups and various minor religions and other denominations.

So, both historically and in current international and State jurisdictions same-sex marriage is not a special right because "everyone has been doing it and is still doing it" today.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
So the foundation for your "special rights" objection is that they are seeking to marry someone of the same sex? Your basis is that opposite sex marriage is some sort of "natural right" and because thats what everyone else "has always done?"
Click to expand...

Yes. Everyone that matters to the USA. I've heard all the homosexual claims of exceptions to the rule, but they're exceptions, not the rule.

So, both historically and in current international and State jurisdictions same-sex marriage is not a special right because "everyone has been doing it and is still doing it" today.
Click to expand...

Everyone has not been doing same sex marriage all along and neither is everyone still doing it. It is a break with both tradition and history despite dishonest claims to the contrary by advocates of homosexual marriage. You can claim there were exceptions to the rule, but that's all they were - deviations and exceptions. Marriage in the United States (and all the free world, for that matter) were always between one man and one woman for the entire history of the USA until the last dozen years and longer than that throughout the rest of the world.

You're bucking history and claiming that you're not isn't honest and I'm, not sure who you think you're kidding with that but it's not me.
 
Papa bull said:
Yes. Everyone that matters to the USA. I've heard all the homosexual claims of exceptions to the rule, but they're exceptions, not the rule.



Everyone has not been doing same sex marriage all along and neither is everyone still doing it. It is a break with both tradition and history despite dishonest claims to the contrary by advocates of homosexual marriage. You can claim there were exceptions to the rule, but that's all they were - deviations and exceptions. Marriage in the United States (and all the free world, for that matter) were always between one man and one woman for the entire history of the USA until the last dozen years and longer than that throughout the rest of the world.

You're bucking history and claiming that you're not isn't honest and I'm, not sure who you think you're kidding with that but it's not me.
Click to expand...

It's YOU who are being selective. You are saying basically, "as long as the MAJORITY of people have been doing it, that means EVERYONE has been doing it." I'm saying it has been going on since the dawn of effing time all over the world, in just about every era of human history where unions of some form occur. That means it is NOT some kind of recent temporal insanity that is disrupting your world-view, it's been around a long looong time.

Regardless of your feelings on THAT argument, you would have more basis if marriage was a purely religious bonding. However, marriage as an "institution" has many legal ramifications which your view-point would deny same-sex couples. Personally, if civil unions were authorized in every jurisdiction of the USA, and such unions granted same-sex couples ALL the legal rights and entitlements of a married opposite-sex couple then I believe there would be no problem. Thats because they could get the civil union license and then seek a wedding ceremony from one of those many religions I listed who conduct and sanctify same-sex marriages.
 
Captain Adverse said:
It's YOU who are being selective. You are saying basically, "as long as the MAJORITY of people have been doing it, that means EVERYONE has been doing it." I'm saying it has been going on since the dawn of effing time all over the world, in just about every era of human history where unions of some form occur. That means it is NOT some kind of recent temporal insanity that is disrupting your world-view, it's been around a long looong time.

Regardless of your feelings on THAT argument, you would have more basis if marriage was a purely religious bonding. However, marriage as an "institution" has many legal ramifications which your view-point would deny same-sex couples. Personally, if civil unions were authorized in every jurisdiction of the USA, and such unions grants same-sex couples ALL the legal rights and entitlements of a married opposite-sex couple then I believe there would be no problem. Thats because they could get the civil union license and then seek a weding ceremony from one of those many religions I listed who conduct and sanctify same-sex marriages.
Click to expand...

And I'm saying that any pretense that homosexual marriage has been a fixture in human life throughout eternity is... well.... lying. There's no other way to put it. It is, in fact, a recent temporary insanity despite all the attempts by homosexuals to convince people that homosexual marriages were part of normal life for everyone UNTIL recent history. You can scour arcane history and find homosexual relationships and even some rare examples of homosexual unions that were recognized by "the state", but they are deviations from the norm. For most people, most cultures and most of history, gay marriage has been an oxymoron. I think the majority view has been correct on that all along.

By the way, you are wrong in your assumption that there would be no problem if civil unions with all the benefits of marriage were bestowed. When they have been offered, they have been rejected. It's never been about the rights and that was, in my opinion, absolute proof of that. I was all on the "rights" bandwagon, too, until the homosexual community proved that was just the angle and not the real issue.
 
Last edited:
Papa bull said:
And because of that history, it's no surprise that homosexuals are trying to position themselves as a "race". If they can successfully convince people that their sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic like race, then they have a good legal argument for getting whatever they want up to and including affirmative action.
Click to expand...
I'm going to keep asking you this until you stop ignoring it:


I'm sorry...is religion an "immutable characteristic"?
 
Papa bull said:
And I'm saying that any pretense that homosexual marriage has been a fixture in human life throughout eternity is... well.... lying. There's no other way to put it. It is, in fact, a recent temporary insanity despite all the attempts by homosexuals to convince people that homosexual marriages were part of normal life for everyone UNTIL recent history. You can scour arcane history and find homosexual relationships and even some rare examples of homosexual unions that were recognized by "the state", but they are deviations from the norm. For most people, most cultures and most of history, gay marriage has been an oxymoron. I think the majority view has been correct on that all along.
Click to expand...

So you are calling me a liar, despite the fact I provided factual statements about same-sex marriages or their equivalents existing in multiple cultures and throughout the history of couple-unions. Just off the cuff you say this without fact-checking yourself. Amazing. Simply amazing.

Papa bull said:
By the way, you are wrong in your assumption that there would be no problem if civil unions with all the benefits of marriage were bestowed. When they have been offered, they have been rejected. It's never been about the rights and that was, in my opinion, absolute proof of that. I was all on the "rights" bandwagon, too, until the homosexual community proved that was just the angle and not the real issue.
Click to expand...

In the first place, I meant "I" would see no problem. Still, when civil unions were first put forward many in the so-called "gay community" had hopes for them....UNTIL they found out that as simple "contracts" they were extremely limited and often dishonored by relatives of a "spouse" when it came to hospital visitation rights, wills, burial rights, and by States who issued them when it came to visitation rights in prison, death benefits, property ownership, etc., etc. etc. THATS when the "gay community" began to oppose the idea of civil unions.

BTW I am not gay, but I believe in equal rights.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I'm going to keep asking you this until you stop ignoring it:


I'm sorry...is religion an "immutable characteristic"?
Click to expand...

Take it up with the Supreme Court. If you want to argue that homosexuality equates to religion, go for it. If you want to argue that homosexuality must be a suspect class since religion doesn't possess "immutable characteristics" in your opinion, you go for it. Good luck with that. Homosexuality is defined by behavior and there is no suspect class that is determined to be so based entirely on their behavior. But what the heck.... you give it your best shot. Maybe you can pave the way for child molesters, rapists or robbers to become suspect classes since they are also defined by their behavior.
 
mac said:
Red herring. Freedom of Religion is a specified right in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Thank you for making my point, we have rights that are not limited to "immutable characteristics". To argue that sexual orientation might not be an immutable characteristic and therefore no protections of rights can be associated with it, is false.
 
Papa bull said:
And because of that history, it's no surprise that homosexuals are trying to position themselves as a "race". If they can successfully convince people that their sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic like race, then they have a good legal argument for getting whatever they want up to and including affirmative action.
Click to expand...

Tell you what, why don't you change your sexual orientation. Go ahead. I'll wait.
 
Captain Adverse said:
So you are calling me a liar, despite the fact I provided factual statements about same-sex marriages or their equivalents existing in multiple cultures and throughout the history of couple-unions. Just off the cuff you say this without fact-checking yourself. Amazing. Simply amazing.



In the first place, I meant "I" would see no problem. Still, when civil unions were first put forward many in the so-called "gay community" had hopes for them....UNTIL they found out that as simple "contracts" they were extremely limited and often dishonored by relatives of a "spouse" when it came to hospital visitation rights, wills, burial rights, and by States who issued them when it came to visitation rights in prison, death benefits, property ownership, etc., etc. etc. THATS when the "gay community" began to oppose the idea of civil unions.

BTW I am not gay, but I believe in equal rights.
Click to expand...

Incest existed in numerous cultures over time, too and that doesn't mean they should be part of the norm in our society. I disagree about when civil unions became rejected. I think you're buying the propaganda instead of the truth. Here, get it from the horse's mouth.

Gays Against Gay Marriage | Just another WordPress.com weblog

Gay activists are rejecting civil unions that are literally identical to state-enforced marriage contracts except in name, on principle. This is because they want to mimic the religious heterosexuals that hate them.
Click to expand...
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Thank you for making my point, we have rights that are not limited to "immutable characteristics". To argue that sexual orientation might not be an immutable characteristic and therefore no protections of rights can be associated with it, is false.
Click to expand...

To argue that it must, though, is also false.
 
Aderleth said:
Tell you what, why don't you change your sexual orientation. Go ahead. I'll wait.
Click to expand...

When I said choice, I mean my choice, not yours. You can stick anything you want in your mouth and I won't wait because I don't want to know. It's your chocie. It's your business and if you keep it your business we're all happy for that.
 
Papa bull said:
When I said choice, I mean my choice, not yours. You can stick anything you want in your mouth and I won't wait because I don't want to know. It's your chocie. It's your business and if you keep it your business we're all happy for that.
Click to expand...

Are you admitting that you can't change your sexual orientation?
 
mac said:
To argue that it must, though, is also false.
Click to expand...

That's the problem. That it MIGHT be an immutable characteristic isn't a powerful argument even though it seems to be the central thrust of gay propaganda.
 
Papa bull said:
Have you considered getting some help with your reading comprehension?
Click to expand...

Nope. I've got that covered. I'll ask again: can you change your sexual orientation?
 
Papa bull said:
Take it up with the Supreme Court. If you want to argue that homosexuality equates to religion, go for it.
Click to expand...
Straw, that is not my argument beyond the fact that we have rights for other than IC's.

If you want to argue that homosexuality must be a suspect class since religion doesn't possess "immutable characteristics" in your opinion, you go for it.
Click to expand...
Straw again, neither is an IC but both ARE suspect classes since both are groups that are subject to discrimination. That was determined long ago.


Good luck with that. Homosexuality is defined by behavior and there is no suspect class that is determined to be so based entirely on their behavior. But what the heck.... you give it your best shot. Maybe you can pave the way for child molesters, rapists or robbers to become suspect classes since they are also defined by their behavior.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is what I am doing, arguing for "child molesters, rapists or robbers" to be considered a suspect class.

FFS, look at what your argument has been reduced to, your "immutable characteristic" is a shambles and your defense is to create multiple straw men.

Sad.
 
Papa bull said:
That's the problem. That it MIGHT be an immutable characteristic isn't a powerful argument even though it seems to be the central thrust of gay propaganda.
Click to expand...

Right. Agreed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom