• 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!

Texas Gay Marriage Ban Latest to Be Struck Down[W:97]

I will wait until you actually find out the definition of a fact, it is a fact that rulings were made but it is also those rulings were opinions. If those rulings were indeed fact then we wouldn't be having this argument here and SSM would be legal in 50 states. The lower courts understood that they didn't have that authority thus their opinions have to be validated. I would have thought someone of your superior intelligence would understand that. Being a legend comes with responsibility and you have yet to prove you even have a clue what a fact is

LMAO wow a complete dodge and deflection after having your post destroyed and factually proved wrong, do you think anybody honest, respected and educated is buying your posts? nobody is . . .nobody
i will ask you again

you posted the lie REPEATEDLY that civil unions are equal to marriage and then your "proof" was that YOU claim texes has civil union equal to marriage

so here are my VERY VERY simple questions

does that civil union gets all 1200 federal rights and protections that marriage does?
does every state recognize that civil union as marriage and give it all the rights and protections that come with marriage?

who wants to bet these questions are dodged again
 
Very weak argument that has absolutely no merit.
 
Do you know the impact of deviate sexual behavior on a society over an extended period of time? Can you prove it or do we just have to live it?

what deviate sexual behavior are you talking about?
 
Very weak argument that has absolutely no merit.

yes all your posts have been this so far and i agree with you, do you have any that do have factual merit?
 
LMAO wow a complete dodge and deflection after having your post destroyed and factually proved wrong, do you think anybody honest, respected and educated is buying your posts? nobody is . . .nobody
i will ask you again

you posted the lie REPEATEDLY that civil unions are equal to marriage and then your "proof" was that YOU claim texes has civil union equal to marriage

so here are my VERY VERY simple questions

does that civil union gets all 1200 federal rights and protections that marriage does?
does every state recognize that civil union as marriage and give it all the rights and protections that come with marriage?

who wants to bet these questions are dodged again


Not at all, TX has no authority to grant federal rights to people in civil unions. Civil unions have to be defined at the Federal level. I would have thought someone of your superior intelligence would understand the limitations of what a state can do. Seems to me a rather simple process vs. redefining marriage, get the Federal Govt. to grant people in civil unions the same financial benefits as married couples
 
There not as long as its kept out of my church and were not forced to condone it. If it is forced in my church I'll just stay home worship. The institution as a whole will be fouled so yes it will mean less than it did. No matter the outcome I will obey the law.
 
Not at all, TX has no authority to grant federal rights to people in civil unions. Civil unions have to be defined at the Federal level. I would have thought someone of your superior intelligence would understand the limitations of what a state can do. Seems to me a rather simple process vs. redefining marriage, get the Federal Govt. to grant people in civil unions the same financial benefits as married couples

You dodged his second question.
 
The what is your problem and why waste your time here. The issue is solved in your opinion. I don't think you are going to like the outcome of the SC decision or the Constitutional Amendment that the American people will pass.

I have a complete understanding of how the laws in this country work and you better stick with selling your position to the states and quit fighting this in court. You cannot have same sex "marriage" and still not have the definition of marriage defined.

I will eventually like the outcome of this issue because I know that my side has won, it is only a matter of time. In all likelihood, given the sheer number of times now that lower courts have said that it is unconstitutional, and the support that same sex marriage now has (let alone how much it will have once a case reaches the SCOTUS), the SCOTUS very likely will rule that restrictions/bans on marriage based on sex/gender are unconstitutional.
 
I sorry I left my crayons at work or I'd draw you a picture. You know we don't agree so why challenge me? You don't have a hope in hell of changing my opinion.
what deviate sexual behavior are you talking about?
 
Gender means man and woman, States have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. You have the same rights as I have, you don't like it, take it up with states and have the states change the law, many have. Stop going to the courts. If the people of TX support SSM then so be it. Texans don't like Courts ruling on something that doesn't exist in the Constitution

Luckily another minority, blacks, didnt take your advice. Or they'd still be sitting in the back of the bus and not being served in restaurants and not receiving equal job opportunities in several, mostly Southern, states. Or at least it would have taken a whole lot longer....meanwhile...it was wrong and everyone knew it. Why should people have to wait longer for what is right? To be treated equally? They are Americans and deserve the same rights and privileges as other Americans.

Sorry if all the 'hub bug' like protests and marches, petitions and legislation, are 'inconvenient'....but as we've seen with women and blacks...people DO have to fight for their civil rights.
 
Not at all, TX has no authority to grant federal rights to people in civil unions. Civil unions have to be defined at the Federal level. I would have thought someone of your superior intelligence would understand the limitations of what a state can do. Seems to me a rather simple process vs. redefining marriage, get the Federal Govt. to grant people in civil unions the same financial benefits as married couples

translation: every time you said civil rights are equal to marriage you were factual wrong

thanks for playing facts win again

but lets further kick you failed post and lies while they are down

what about the states that don't allow civil unions?

so using your broken logic you want to redefine civil unions (which still factually wont be equal because of court precedence) but just granting equal rights is harder?

once again thank you so much for this post, you provide more proof that your posts are factually wrong, illogical and based on failed fallacies than i ever could
 
Do you know the impact of deviate sexual behavior on a society over an extended period of time? Can you prove it or do we just have to live it?

"Deviate sexual behavior" is a subjective phrase and is legal no matter how much you may not approve (at least what I assume you are trying to claim as "deviate sexual behavior" in relation to this subject). I argue that there is nothing deviant at all about same sex sexual activities let alone relationships, so you have nothing here. And you have absolutely no evidence that there is any negative impact from allowing same sex couples to marry. You have to prove the negative impact. I do not have to prove there won't be any.
 
Last edited:
I sorry I left my crayons at work or I'd draw you a picture. You know we don't agree so why challenge me? You don't have a hope in hell of changing my opinion.

translation: you have nothing to back up your failed claim, thats what i thought

also there's nothing to challenge, you haven't provided anything and lastly i have ZERO interest in changing your OPINION i was just pointing out the fact its meaningless and some of it is factually wrong.
 
There not as long as its kept out of my church and were not forced to condone it. If it is forced in my church I'll just stay home worship. The institution as a whole will be fouled so yes it will mean less than it did. No matter the outcome I will obey the law.

No church is ever forced to perform any ceremonies (i.e. weddings) that they don't want to. A church can even refuse weddings for race or religion, and do all the frickin time.
 
You dodged his second question.

shhhhhhhhhh its not fair to use facts to keep destroying those failed posts he made
 
:applaud
If 69 were a crime, I'd be the Osama Bin Laden of that ****.

hahahahaha niiiiiiiiiiice

you dog you:applaud
 
Remember when I said you'd say it ain't so?
"Deviate sexual behavior" is a subjective phrase and is legal no matter how much you may not approve (at least what I assume you are trying to claim as "deviate sexual behavior" in relation to this subject). I argue that there is nothing deviant at all about same sex sexual activities let alone relationships, so you have nothing here. And you have absolutely no evidence that there is any negative impact from allowing same sex couples to marry. You have to prove the negative impact. I do not have to prove there won't be any.
 
You dodged his second question.

No, sorry, forgot who I was dealing with, people that don't understand state law and responsibility. Marriage is a state issue so are civil unions. It is up to the people of the state to create that civil union which based upon the passion you people have more marriage shouldn't be a problem
 
Well I'll never discuss sexual activities with you or anyone else, that's called manners. Still insulting, good tactics.
translation: you have nothing to back up your failed claim, thats what i thought

also there's nothing to challenge, you haven't provided anything and lastly i have ZERO interest in changing your OPINION i was just pointing out the fact its meaningless and some of it is factually wrong.
 
No, sorry, forgot who I was dealing with, people that don't understand state law and responsibility. Marriage is a state issue so are civil unions. It is up to the people of the state to create that civil union which based upon the passion you people have more marriage shouldn't be a problem

translation: sorry hatuey i still cant answer it and i have no factual defense of the lie i posted since it was proven wrong by facts. Civil unions are factually not equal to marriage and i was wrong"
 
Back
Top Bottom