• 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!

SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

Gimmesometruth said:
You avoided the point (no surprise) that the issue is not "extending" anything, it is instead the ending of denying a right.
Click to expand...

Marriage is defined as this: [xy]

Homosexuals want the definition expanded to: [xy;xx;yy]

that is "extending".
 
Papa bull said:
Legislating it state by state is the right thing to do. Homosexual advocates need to win the hearts and minds of the people. If you think you're going to do that by calling them hateful bigots, you're not too sharp. And lots of homosexuals posting on this here aren't too sharp.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. But it is required up to a point unfortunately.

However, the hearts and minds of people have already been won and are being won. Now it is just a matter of getting the voters out and the legislatures to actually do their jobs and do what the people want, which is to allow same sex couples to marry legally in many states. We've already reached the turning point in public opinion on this issue. Same sex marriage is winning.

Just look at this year alone, the number of states that allow same sex couples to marry legally have doubled in less than a year, and not a single one of those I'm talking about was a court action (because I don't even have to include California in this since we really don't know exactly what is going to happen here yet).
 
Papa bull said:
Marriage is defined as this: [xy]

Homosexuals want the definition expanded to: [xy;xx;yy]

that is "extending".
Click to expand...

In our laws, x = y, so x + x and y + y are both equal to x + y.

Unless you want to show some marriage laws where genders of those involved affects how the marriage works legally or the ability of a spouse to fulfill their legal obligations/responsibilities of marriage.
 
Papa bull said:
Why are homosexuals arguing over a name? Call them civil unions and most of the bickering goes away. But nooooooo..... homosexuals want to argue over a name. It does take two to argue, you know.
Click to expand...

we argue over the term because calling the same thing two different things is stupid and overly complex.

Marriage is already a civil union.

Why do you want to argue over a name?

I do because separate is not equal. There is not interracial civil union. separate drinking fountains are not equal.

if you want to just make it civil union for everyone I would be OK with it.
 
roguenuke said:
In our laws, x = y.....
Click to expand...

Yeah? I don't think you'd want the boys football team showering in the cheerleaders locker room, would you? Why not? X = Y. No difference. Right?
 
Papa bull said:
Marriage is defined as this: [xy]

Homosexuals want the definition expanded to: [xy;xx;yy]

that is "extending".
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree that there will be more PEOPLE getting married, the context was that "rights would be extended". No, rights would not be extended, they exist already they would just stop being denied.

Prop 8 was a denial, a banning, of the state recognizing a marriage.
 
captainawesome said:
we argue over the term because calling the same thing two different things is stupid and overly complex.

Marriage is already a civil union.

Why do you want to argue over a name?

I do because separate is not equal. There is not interracial civil union. separate drinking fountains are not equal.

if you want to just make it civil union for everyone I would be OK with it.
Click to expand...

I'd be OK with that, too. But then if those horrid awful "evanglicals" decided to start calling their version something else, would you still have your panties in a wad over it?
 
Papa bull said:
Yeah? I don't think you'd want the boys football team showering in the cheerleaders locker room, would you? Why not? X = Y. No difference. Right?
Click to expand...

Actually, I couldn't care less if we had no gender based bathrooms/restrooms/locker rooms. At one of my duty assignments in the Navy there were no actual changing rooms in our work space and the guys simply changed by the lockers in the back. I was the first woman to ever fill a billet in that shop so for the first week or so, I changed at the gym. I got tired of walking all that way, and talked to my LPO/LCPO and arranged to change in back with the guys. If they didn't want to change with me, they could wait or change before me, but it didn't bother me to change with them and it didn't bother most of them to change with me.

But I qualified that as being within a marriage. We are talking specifically about marriage and the laws of marriage. In those laws, x = y.
 
Last edited:
Papa bull said:
I'd be OK with that, too. But then if those horrid awful "evanglicals" decided to start calling their version something else, would you still have your panties in a wad over it?
Click to expand...

I don't care what any individual calls it. it is what government calls it that is the issue.
 
Papa bull said:
Tell ya what. You just go ahead and duke it out with CptAwsum over this.
Click to expand...
No, it was directed at your continual assertion that civil unions have the same protections and legal standing as marriage.

This is just more denial of the facts by you.
 
Papa bull said:
Yeah? I don't think you'd want the boys football team showering in the cheerleaders locker room, would you? Why not? X = Y. No difference. Right?
Click to expand...
LOL....gay HS students ALREADY shower with each other!

FFS....what you are worried about are hetero's !!!
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Oh, I agree that there will be more PEOPLE getting married, the context was that "rights would be extended". No, rights would not be extended, they exist already they would just stop being denied.

Prop 8 was a denial, a banning, of the state recognizing a marriage.
Click to expand...

It was not abotu "recognizing a marriage". It was about retaining the traditional definition of marriage. You can't recognize a chicken as a duck unless you redefine duck to include birds that don't have webbed feet, don't go quack and go cluck cluck cluck instead. In the USA, marriage was always understood to be a man and a woman. The notion that it could be anything else is very new and not everyone buys it. Many think it's a perverse form of insanity. I was on the fence about it and have only taken a hard anti-SSM stance based on the attitude of it's proponents (including my little brother, who can also kiss my ass) that anyone who doesn't see things their way is a vile hater.

Thanks to all the nastiness from militant homosexual advocates, I will campaign against homosexual marriage at every opportunity and not be content to just "see what everyone wants to do" from a disconnected and ambivalent point of view. You folks wanted to get people involved and damned if you aren't being very successful in your efforts. I'd wager I'm not the only one that that has been turned to a hardline position by the hate-speech of the SSM advocates, either.

The fact that none of these people can understand why people born in a time when there was no hint that marriage would, could or should ever be anything but what it is are having a hard time accepting that this "evolution" is a good thing. And worst of all, most of the punks running their mouths about homosexual marriage have no intention whatsoever of ever BEING in a homosexual marriage. It's all about "proving a point" and getting attention for them.

We'll just see how it works out over time. I'll do my part at the grass roots level to campaign against it until I get the impression that there's more to it than an anti-boredom campaign for a bunch of angry red-assed attention whores looking for something to do to make them feel "alive" by "changing" everything they can change.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
LOL....gay HS students ALREADY shower with each other!

FFS....what you are worried about are hetero's !!!
Click to expand...

That's my point. Apparently everyone worry about the "heteros" because there is no XY shower in high schools for the boys and girls to experience their "equality".
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No, it was directed at your continual assertion that civil unions have the same protections and legal standing as marriage.

This is just more denial of the facts by you.
Click to expand...

Whether a civil union carries the same protections as marriage depends entirely on how it's written.
 
Papa bull said:
It was not abotu "recognizing a marriage". It was about retaining the traditional definition of marriage. You can't recognize a chicken as a duck unless you redefine duck to include birds that don't have webbed feet, don't go quack and go cluck cluck cluck instead. In the USA, marriage was always understood to be a man and a woman. The notion that it could be anything else is very new and not everyone buys it. Many think it's a perverse form of insanity. I was on the fence about it and have only taken a hard anti-SSM stance based on the attitude of it's proponents (including my little brother, who can also kiss my ass) that anyone who doesn't see things their way is a vile hater.

Thanks to all the nastiness from militant homosexual advocates, I will campaign against homosexual marriage at every opportunity and not be content to just "see what everyone wants to do" from a disconnected and ambivalent point of view. You folks wanted to get people involved and damned if you aren't being very successful in your efforts. I'd wager I'm not the only one that that has been turned to a hardline position by the hate-speech of the SSM advocates, either.

The fact that none of these people can understand why people born in a time when there was no hint that marriage would, could or should ever be anything but what it is are having a hard time accepting that this "evolution" is a good thing. And worst of all, most of the punks running their mouths about homosexual marriage have no intention whatsoever of ever BEING in a homosexual marriage. It's all about "proving a point" and getting attention for them.

We'll just see how it works out over time. I'll do my part at the grass roots level to campaign against it until I get the impression that there's more to it than an anti-boredom campaign for a bunch of angry red-assed attention whores looking for something to do to make them feel "alive" by "changing" everything they can change.
Click to expand...

Yeah people who want equality are just bored. Like MLK or Rosa Parks. George Washington should have just STFU.
 
Papa bull said:
It was not abotu "recognizing a marriage".
Click to expand...

Proposition 8 consisted of two sections. Its full text was:[225]

Section I. Title

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."

Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:

Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
 
Papa bull said:
Whether a civil union carries the same protections as marriage depends entirely on how it's written.
Click to expand...

write it as the same type of civil union as marriage with the same name and it will be the same.
 
Papa bull said:
That's my point. Apparently everyone worry about the "heteros" because there is no XY shower in high schools for the boys and girls to experience their "equality".
Click to expand...
Hint: your diversion that blew up in your face......is still flawed.

Most HS students do not have most of the "equal rights".....since they are minors.

Will you drop this infantile argument and get back to the main points?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Proposition 8 consisted of two sections. Its full text was:[225]

Section I. Title

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."

Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:

Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Click to expand...

Anything else doesn't fit their definition of marriage and since it was clear that there was an overt attempt to backdoor (no pun intended) homosexual marriage by exploiting the laws of the most liberal states for marriage and then importing an illegitimate "marriage" back into the state, this was the response. It ultimately boiled down to the definition of marriage, though, and the desire for some people (like you) to change it.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Hint: your diversion that blew up in your face......is still flawed.

Most HS students do not have most of the "equal rights".....since they are minors.

Will you drop this infantile argument and get back to the main points?
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about high school students having equal rights. The argument I was refuting was that X=Y. It does not.
 
Papa bull said:
Whether a civil union carries the same protections as marriage depends entirely on how it's written.
Click to expand...
No, you see you did not read the article, civil unions are most often not recognized by other states and do not have the same status at the federal level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom