• 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!

Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162:334]

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Now run along.

you said you were going to a while back welcome back by the way
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

There's simply no integrity in the debate to begin with. We've just heaped a new definition on a word that already had a definition. It's like deciding that English is the same language as Russian. You can say it, or pass a law declaring it, but that doesn't make it so. That's where our system has lost any sense of integrity.

This whole thing is simply about votes and political power. Nothing more. Otherwise this would have been changed sometime in the past 3,000 years or so.

and that's why making women the legal equals of men makes no sense o wait people ****ing up in the past for a long time doesn't make you right whoops
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

They want to have families...and yes, some choose to have kids, others choose surrogates, some choose adoption.

But why arent they entitled to the same benefits as other married couples?

And polygamy is fine with me, I think it's dumb for women, but who cares. As for getting a pig to sign a contract...let me know when that's possible and we'll discuss you marrying one.

Again....let's stick to the rational, logical here, if you can.

Thats impossible

Because they dont fit the states definition of marriage. And again i dont want anyone getting benefits for being married

So polygamy means one man and many women? Thats not the only way. How about 1 woman with many husbands?
Yes you should try some logic.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Then why do states still have these laws?

Because court challenges take time. Heck, we just stopped involuntarily committing homosexuals about 40 years ago.

Interracial marriage bans were challenged in the 1800s, and the Pace v Alabama decision ruled that the restrictions on marriage based on race were constitutional in 1883. It took another 80 years for the SCOTUS to overturn this decision.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

No they are not. A man is man and a woman is a woman no matter the race.

And a person is a person when it comes to being a spouse. No spouse in a marriage has anymore rights/privileges or even responsibilities in a marriage due to their sex.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Hold on. So you've just spent a good portion of the thread attempting to use the SCOTUS and their not having ruled on marriage yet as justification for your beleif that the current laws aren't constitutional.

NOW you're suggesting SCOTUs isn't the final arbiter of whether a law is or isn't constitutional?
Im not suggesting Im stating facts. No where in the constitution does it give SCOTUS that power

Things not in the constitution

Congressional Districts
The Electoral College
Executive Order
Executive Privilege
Freedom of Expression
(Absolute) Freedom of Speech and Press
"From each according to his ability..."
God
Immigration
Impeachment means removal from office
Innocent until proven guilty
It's a free country
Judicial Review
Jury of Peers
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
Marriage
Martial Law
No taxation without representation
Number of Justices in the Supreme Court
"Of the people, by the people, for the people"
Paper Money
Political Parties
Primary Elections
Qualifications for Judges
The right to privacy
The right to travel
The right to vote
The separation of church and state
The Separation of Powers Clause
Slavery
"We hold these truths to be self-evident"
Other topics
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

They have the same rights under the current laws as everyone else.
Can I leave my property to my dog? Sure i can. I dont need a legal contract to get married and neither do gays unless i want something from the state
The definition of having to be the same race was not universal in fact it was the exception

I dont want to block anyones rights. Im a Libertarian. What part of get government out of the marriage business escapes you? Let anyone marry anyone and anything they like. It wont effect me. If your going to do it go all the way. Of course marriage wont mean much anymore but then again its been all down hill since progressives introduced no fault divorce

Whatever discrimination is made in the punishment prescribed in the two sections is directed against the offense designated and not against the person of any particular color or race. The punishment of each offending person, whether white or black, is the same.

Pace v. Alabama (1883) - Profile of Pace v. Alabama, the First Supreme Court Interracial Marriage Case
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

You really cannot connect the dots can you?



Your implied claim was that SSM isnt even worth bothering with because you dont know what causes sexual orientation. As if it doesnt exist even tho you dont know what causes it, lololol. So I gave you examples of things that 'exist' and we cant necessarily explain.



Good Lord, do we need to stick to words of one syllable for you?

First off, I don't care about SSM marriage. or for that matter. marriage at all. The state has no business thinking it should be sanctioning marriage or licensing it, or offering people benefits of it. Having a government marriage is not a rights issue, but a contract and equal treatment issue. Besides that, it's just all whiny bitches that I'm sick of hearing from. If people want to get married or not I don't give two flips, but they have no business involving the state in their personal affairs and the state has no business humoring the offer. Get married, hell it's your right to get married, but it's not your right to have a government marriage, and while the fourteenth amendment comes into play because the state is already involved in marriage, for the love of god stop saying government marriage is a right. It is not, and the court never said it was.

As for what I was doing earlier, no, if you ever bothered to pay attention my argument was simply stating we don't know the causes of being gay, so acting authoritatively that someone is wrong on the matter is shear idiocy.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Perfectly fine.

Know this. No one, ever, in the history of this forum or any other, has ever changed their opinion based on these meaningless exchanges on the internet anyway. And my side of this has few that care to even bother, while your side pretty much lives on these sites 24/7. I'm in unfriendly territory every time I peak into this digitally socialist baby shower of a chat room.

We're all just practicing our typing skills and refining our grammatical prowess. Nothing more.

and posting silly videos

well some times
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

A legal contract would mean involving the state in marriage would it not? Once more Im against this. Im also not interested in marrying anyone. Who needs it?

Im a Diest not a christian. Truthfully I hate organized religion. I was just pointing out that the age of consent has varied wildly over the centuries and societies. It took until very recently however for this notion of gay marriage to come about

The government is involved in recognizing legal family and marriages create legal families of people. They are very little different than adoption records and birth certificates, except for providing an extra contract for the two people involved in the marriage as well because that contract makes things easier for the couple and society as a whole in dealing with issues that come up with marriage and dissolving a marriage.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

yes it is retarded to say that's a special right discriminating against a couple based on gender when a persons gender has no bearing on the requirements of marriage is senseless

yes it is retorted to limit gay people to marriage with someone of the other gender as they don't want it and don't have the choice of marriage to the consenting unclosely related adult adult of their choice

yes it is retarded to use the same kind of argument a racist would use against interracial marriage to say that gay marriage is retarded

The right to marry someone of a different race. I don't have it nor do i want it. Its retarded.

But it does have a bearing according to the law.

Im so sick of this comparing it to racial discrimination.

Civil Rights Activist: ‘No Comparison’ Between Civil Rights, Gay Rights Movement - See more at: Civil Rights Activist:

Civil Rights Activist:

CNSNews.com) – Civil rights activist Rev. William Owens, who is founder and president of the Coalition of African-American Pastors, said Tuesday there is no comparison between the civil rights movement and the gay community’s fight for same-sex marriage.

“I marched and many other thousands of people marched in this same location years ago on the claim that we were being discriminated against, and today the other community is trying to say that they are suffering the same thing that we suffered, but I tell you they are not,” said Owens, who gathered on the National Mall with other traditional marriage supporters in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act.
- See more at: Civil Rights Activist:
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

They want to make children? The main reason for marriage is so the state knows who owns what. Not so two people who supposedly love each other can live together for benefits
Why not allow polygamy? Why cant I marry a pig? And dont tell me because it cant consent. It doesnt consent when I eat bacon. It wont hurt anyone if i do.

you can assign property in a gay marriage like you could for a hetero sexual one

marriage to a pig or to multiple people is not exactly like some hetero sexual marriages that we allow homosexual marriages are

you cant scare people away from gay marriage by running out of reasons to objecting to it and then pretending your not able to find any reasons to object to something else

its like your saying, O no! I=If we have gay marriage we must allow these other things, because I cant come up with a sensible reason to stop them either. Gosh we gots to ban the gay marriage now![/QUOTE]

No i cant and neither can you. Being gay is a deviant sex act if you participate in it. Just like banging a sheep/ Even christians dont believe being gay is a sin. But having sex with a man or woman without the benefit of marriage is a sin. In fact Catholics are taught that the only reason they can have sex is to procreate.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

gay couples fit the laws they meet every requirement you have for a hetero sexual couple 2 people not to closely related can give legal consent to the marriage

its obvious reproductive potential is not an issue when theirs no requirement to have kids or to be able to have kids of your own

you don't even have to stick a penis into a vagina so

everything you need to do they can do as well
Except thats not the law says in most states and you know it.

Its obvious potential is the reason. That does not mean that if a couple is infertile they cant get married as they fit the letter of the law as written. They are the exception not the rule

They can not have children
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

their people under the protraction of the 14 amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Again not ratified properly and what does thqt have to do with anything/. They are not depriving anyone of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor denying it to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Many think this amendment makes anyone born in the US a citizen. But if you read it carefully it says no such thing
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

But it does have a bearing according to the law.

Im so sick of this comparing it to racial discrimination.

Civil Rights Activist: ‘No Comparison’ Between Civil Rights, Gay Rights Movement - See more at: Civil Rights Activist:

Civil Rights Activist:

And the thing you fail to realize is the point of the law that has a bearing is exactly what is being challenged as to why it is there. There is no bearing in how the law functions when it comes to sex/gender and being a spouse.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Except thats not the law says in most states and you know it.

Its obvious potential is the reason. That does not mean that if a couple is infertile they cant get married as they fit the letter of the law as written. They are the exception not the rule

They can not have children

Having children or having the ability between two people getting married to have children is not a requirement to marriage. That is your excuse to deny same sex couples marriage. Nothing more. There is no necessity within US marriage laws to be able to have children or even to want to have/raise children at all. In fact, we have some laws in some states that deny certain couples the right to marry only if they can have children with each other.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

But it does have a bearing according to the law.

Im so sick of this comparing it to racial discrimination.

Civil Rights Activist: ‘No Comparison’ Between Civil Rights, Gay Rights Movement - See more at: Civil Rights Activist:

Civil Rights Activist:

There is a difference in Comparing and Equating. Any two or more things can be compared. Not all things can be equated.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

you can assign property in a gay marriage like you could for a hetero sexual one

marriage to a pig or to multiple people is not exactly like some hetero sexual marriages that we allow homosexual marriages are

you cant scare people away from gay marriage by running out of reasons to objecting to it and then pretending your not able to find any reasons to object to something else

its like your saying, O no! I=If we have gay marriage we must allow these other things, because I cant come up with a sensible reason to stop them either. Gosh we gots to ban the gay marriage now!

No i cant and neither can you. Being gay is a deviant sex act if you participate in it. Just like banging a sheep/ Even christians dont believe being gay is a sin. But having sex with a man or woman without the benefit of marriage is a sin. In fact Catholics are taught that the only reason they can have sex is to procreate.[/QUOTE]

sex between consenting adults and religion have no impact on who can or can't get married
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Thats impossible

Because they dont fit the states definition of marriage. And again i dont want anyone getting benefits for being married

So polygamy means one man and many women? Thats not the only way. How about 1 woman with many husbands?
Yes you should try some logic.

Any argument for polygamy exists now, without same sex marriage being legal across the US or any ruling saying sex/gender limitations on marriage are unconstitutional. The two factors used in restricting marriage have different arguments for why they are in place and why they should be removed (particularly though why they are in place/further a legitimate state interest). Limiting the number of people in a contract like marriage can be shown to further a legitimate state interest, but restricting the gender/sex combinations of marriages furthers no legitimate state interest.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Except thats not the law says in most states and you know it.

Its obvious potential is the reason. That does not mean that if a couple is infertile they cant get married as they fit the letter of the law as written. They are the exception not the rule

They can not have children

if you let people with no potential to breed marry its obvious the rule is not a rule and not applied equally

and children raised by gay couples would benefit from a legal marriage as much as any other children

so no its not obvious potential have kids is a reason to let some one get married when you don't let parents get married and don't require the married to have kids or to be able to do so
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

now to be fair their not all that perverted because their gay

about on par with us lefty's ( handed that is kids left handed )

I am left handed.

I am not sure what you are trying to say. I had assumed by perverted you meant gay, I personally don't believe homosexuality is a perversion, but enough here do, that I make the assumption.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

But it does have a bearing according to the law.

Im so sick of this comparing it to racial discrimination.

Civil Rights Activist: ‘No Comparison’ Between Civil Rights, Gay Rights Movement - See more at: Civil Rights Activist:

Civil Rights Activist:

you cant use the same tactics as anti interracialmarriage racists and say theirs no comparison you act like oppressive racists so your getting compered to them deal with it
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

There was no social engineering involving gay people. People are just realizing that there is nothing wrong with being gay and happily living your life. These people aren't hurting society, and they do just as much of a good job raising children.

People are also afraid of being called bigots, or hateful if they don't cower in acquiescence. One can disagree with Homosexuality without hate or malice, but not in this day and age because our society has been warped into a lie.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Again not ratified properly and what does thqt have to do with anything/. They are not depriving anyone of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor denying it to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Many think this amendment makes anyone born in the US a citizen. But if you read it carefully it says no such thing

well liberty to an extent and clearly there denied equal protection under the law
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Any argument for polygamy exists now, without same sex marriage being legal across the US or any ruling saying sex/gender limitations on marriage are unconstitutional. The two factors used in restricting marriage have different arguments for why they are in place and why they should be removed (particularly though why they are in place/further a legitimate state interest). Limiting the number of people in a contract like marriage can be shown to further a legitimate state interest, but restricting the gender/sex combinations of marriages furthers no legitimate state interest.

ding ding ding ding

100% correct

there is ZERO, i repeat ZERO precedence based solely on equal rights for gays that lends itself to polygamy

while i would support polygamist fighting for a new right to marry it has nothing to do with equal rights for gays
 
Back
Top Bottom