• 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

Anthony60 said:
See, you are wrong. It is not marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Procreation is just an aspect that does not exist between SS couples. You know, just a building block of society, the family unit, and the continuation of human kind. No big deal.

More twisting of my words. Please show where I said it was THE defining issue. Also show where I said it was REQUIRED to use the word marriage. Bet you can't. Well, I shouldn't say that, since I've already been quoted here as saying things I did not say.
And you finish up nicely with the old invalid comparison of interracial marriage, which is between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you are wrong, gays marrying IS marriage, whether you like it or not. You can take it up with your sky god all you want.

YOU brought up procreation, which is NOT a requirement for marriage, and you used it as a comparison between heterosexual marriage and gay marriage. YOU are wrong.

No two marriage, heterosexual or not are NEVER equal in every way. So suck it up, eventually gay marriage will be legal in all states and YOU will have to deal with it. Just like those against interracial marriage had to deal with it. You are in good company with racists and bigots. Enjoy your company.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Anthony60 said:
Well, then leave me out of that argument. I was responding to someone that claimed SSM and normal marriage are exactly the same. I pointed out that SS couple can never produce a child. Had nothing to do with the law.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "normal marriage". It is relative. My marriage would not be considered "normal" for many reasons and yet it could also be normal for many others. It all depends on the comparison being made.

We are discussing the "law" here. Your personal definition of marriage or what you feel is "normal" marriages is irrelevant and frankly not accurate since your only measure of normal or abnormal is what genders are involved in the marriage.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Anthony60 said:
Apples and oranges, wether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You were talking about how people view marriages. I gave you one way that people did and do view marriages that limit marriages even more based on race. You don't agree because you want a more expanded definition of marriage, but still with some restrictions based on nothing more than your personal views.
 
disneydude said:
If there was any doubt that this war is over:

Record Support for Gay Marriage; Half See it as a Constitutional Right - ABC News


Record numbers of Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll support gay marriage, say adoption by gay couples should be legal and see gays and lesbians as good parents. Most oppose a right to refuse service to gays, including on religious grounds. And, by a closer margin, more also accept than reject gay marriage as a constitutional right.

The results continue a dramatic transformation of public attitudes on the issue, led by political, legislative and court-ordered developments alike. Seventeen states now allow gay marriage, and federal courts in four others – most recently Texas and Virginia – have rejected laws banning it.

See PDF with full results and charts here.

http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1159a2GayMarriage.pdf
Click to expand...

Well the dazed and confused virus is racing at break neck speeds through once pure and pristine America.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Anthony60 said:
I'm getting a little tired of people twisting what I say, to something I didn't say, so as to fit their inadequate argument.
Click to expand...

I'm not twisting anything you said. These are my thoughts, not yours. Quit trying to deflect every conversation by squealing over being misrepresented. It's pathetic and transparent. You ran out of actual arguments to make ages ago.

It doesn't matter that same-sex couples can't make babies with each other. That is not an integral component to marriage, as has been proven to you. If procreation was a deal breaker, you'd be arguing to dissolve the marriage of infertile couples. But you aren't so clearly procreation isn't a deal breaker. So why keep talking about it?
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

TheNextEra said:
Sorry but you are wrong, gays marrying IS marriage, whether you like it or not. You can take it up with your sky god all you want.

YOU brought up procreation, which is NOT a requirement for marriage, and you used it as a comparison between heterosexual marriage and gay marriage. YOU are wrong.

No two marriage, heterosexual or not are NEVER equal in every way. So suck it up, eventually gay marriage will be legal in all states and YOU will have to deal with it. Just like those against interracial marriage had to deal with it. You are in good company with racists and bigots. Enjoy your company.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to repost everything for no good reason, but you are wrong and let's leave it at that. So suck it up. I have no problem dealing with whatever way it goes. What I do have a problem with is when the people vote and express themselves and then one corrupt judge overturns millions of votes.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Anthony60 said:
I'm not going to repost everything for no good reason, but you are wrong and let's leave it at that. So suck it up. I have no problem dealing with whatever way it goes. What I do have a problem with is when the people vote and express themselves and then one corrupt judge overturns millions of votes.
Click to expand...

It's not corrupt. The laws are unconstitutional.

It doesn't matter how many people vote for something unconstitutional.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Anthony60 said:
I'm not going to repost everything for no good reason, but you are wrong and let's leave it at that. So suck it up. I have no problem dealing with whatever way it goes. What I do have a problem with is when the people vote and express themselves and then one corrupt judge overturns millions of votes.
Click to expand...

Nope I am not wrong, you are, let's just leave it at that. Deal with it. Gays marrying IS marriage. Go move to Iran if you feel differently for like minded bigots.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Deuce said:
I'm not twisting anything you said. These are my thoughts, not yours. Quit trying to deflect every conversation by squealing...
Click to expand...

Really, "squealing"? You better get a grip, a little too emotional over this issue. Don't worry, the left wing courts will force it down our throats.

It doesn't matter that same-sex couples can't make babies with each other. That is not an integral component to marriage, as has been proven to you.
Click to expand...

LOL! That was "proven"? You sure have a loose definition of proven! Oh wait, then I "proved" that marriage is between a man and a woman.

If procreation was a deal breaker, you'd be arguing to dissolve the marriage of infertile couples. But you aren't so clearly procreation isn't a deal breaker. So why keep talking about it?
Click to expand...

And clearly, you have no idea what I am saying.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

TheNextEra said:
Nope I am not wrong, you are, let's just leave it at that. Deal with it. Gays marrying IS marriage. Go move to Iran if you feel differently for like minded bigots.
Click to expand...

That is so weak, "Oh, you don't agree with me, so you are a bigot!"
I guess you are then a bigot against christians.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

"I'm surrounded by idiots!" -- unknown
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Anthony60 said:
That is so weak, "Oh, you don't agree with me, so you are a bigot!"
I guess you are then a bigot against christians.
Click to expand...

Let's see, I don't interfere with Christian marriages, but Christians interfere with gays marrying. Nope I'm not the bigot. Sorry you don't like the shoe that you fit.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Deuce said:
It's not corrupt. The laws are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Now you are twisting the Constitution. Well, the left has done that for a long, long time. Those corrupt judges are there for a reason.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Anthony60 said:
Really, "squealing"? You better get a grip, a little too emotional over this issue. Don't worry, the left wing courts will force it down our throats.



LOL! That was "proven"? You sure have a loose definition of proven! Oh wait, then I "proved" that marriage is between a man and a woman.



And clearly, you have no idea what I am saying.
Click to expand...

Inability to procreate is not grounds to deny marriage. Feel free to refute that statement.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Anthony60 said:
Now you are twisting the Constitution. Well, the left has done that for a long, long time. Those corrupt judges are there for a reason.
Click to expand...

No, I am not. You are ignoring the fact that gender is a protected classification.

And not all of those judges were appointed by Democrats.

You don't have a counter argument because there isn't one.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

TheNextEra said:
Let's see, I don't interfere with Christian marriages, but Christians interfere with gays marrying. Nope I'm not the bigot. Sorry you don't like the shoe that you fit.
Click to expand...

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Deuce said:
No, I am not. You are ignoring the fact that gender is a protected classification.

And not all of those judges were appointed by Democrats.

You don't have a counter argument because there isn't one.
Click to expand...

No counter argument needed, my argument stands.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Anthony60 said:
No counter argument needed, my argument stands.
Click to expand...

You havent made one that other posters havent defeated yet
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Deuce said:
Inability to procreate is not grounds to deny marriage. Feel free to refute that statement.
Click to expand...

Why should I, since I never said that? More twisting, that you claim you don't do. Inability to be a man and a woman is. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Anthony60 said:
No counter argument needed, my argument stands.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Equal protection under the law applies to gender. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is a gender-based distinction. The state must justify such a distinction with an important state interest, and show that the measure is substantially related to that interest. Otherwise, the law falls to the equal protection challenge.

Provide that interest. We both know you can't. You wont even try, because you think you can just declare you don't need to. That's because you don't know, or don't want to know, how equal protection actually works.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Anthony60 said:
No counter argument needed, my argument stands.
Click to expand...

You're argument was defeated long ago. In fact it was proven your comments are quite bigoted.
 
Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Anthony60 said:
Why should I, since I never said that? More twisting, that you claim you don't do. Inability to be a man and a woman is. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Click to expand...

Admission of the gender-based distinction. See the equal protection problem above.
 
sneakosview said:
Well the dazed and confused virus is racing at break neck speeds through once pure and pristine America.
Click to expand...

"Pure and pristine?" By whose historically challenged definition?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom