• 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!

Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

That your little schtick now?

The view is of truth, my fellow citizen...if you can't handle the truth, to bad so sad...for you. I am fine with how well they, the founders, put it all together... they understood the unrestrained power of the few... and the Federal government.

...Seriously?

“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.” -Thomas Jefferson

"The great danger in republics is that the majority will not respect the rights of minority.” -James Madison
 
Nice incoherent rant... not much to pick from the muddled mess to discuss.

Perhaps these two.

You are free to love and to marry whomever you care to [ as long as they want as well ], nobody is stopping you. Just do not expect the marriage to be sanctioned by the state... or by the rest of us. Oh, and if your penchant is love and marriage to children, I would wait on the whole consummation of marriage thing. Prison may or may not be your bag.

And we are at least somewhat in agreement on the whole taxes thing... I agree, lets pay less taxes to this overbearing government, limit its size...yeah man...kumbaya my lord, kumbaya...

Who the **** said anything about marriage to kids?
 
Loving v. Virginia, SCOTUS, 1967 says that marriage is a "basic civil right."

Therefore it is a right subject to equal protection challenges.
So that would mean anybody that is not married could sue who, the Federal government, if they are not married? Would that not be an undeniable denial of one's civil rights?
 
Who the **** said anything about marriage to kids?
Hey, if we are gonna be so preposterously idiotically silly as to who can be married from your ideological viewpoint, why not just bring on the kids... try to keep up, your side is the one that is taking things to the point of ludicrously absurd, don't blame me.

You see, it is we who are the ones arguing for sanity in such cases.
 
Hey, if we are gonna be so preposterously idiotically silly as to who can be married from your ideological viewpoint, why not just bring on the kids... try to keep up, your side is the one that is taking things to the point of ludicrously absurd, don't blame me.

You see, it is we who are the ones arguing for sanity in such cases.

My side is the one acting ludicrous by asking for the same civil rights that every heterosexual has while your side uses the usual ignorant crap such child molestation and humping animals fear tactics? Right. We're the ones with issues. Maybe when your side actually has a valid argument, we could take the discussion more seriously.
 
So that would mean anybody that is not married could sue who, the Federal government, if they are not married? Would that not be an undeniable denial of one's civil rights?

Wow.

That is all I can say.
 
Wow, got no real winning arguments so you slink down to this, huh? Nice.

You deny the fundamental principles of our Constitution. You deny the new majority which supports same sex marriage. You deny individual rights. You deny reality. What argument can be made against your delusions? I recommend medication.
 
You deny the fundamental principles of our Constitution. You deny the new majority which supports same sex marriage. You deny individual rights. You deny reality. What argument can be made against your delusions? I recommend medication.
Where did you get that lame idea? I think we have aptly proven whose thoughts on our Constitution are delusions, those mirages taught by liberal profs just not materializing like you had thought sure they would, huh?

Self proscribing are ya? Hazardous. I would suggest not getting addicted like you have become to your false assumptions, yano? :lamo :peace
 
As I said regarding polls, except for election polls...well, you can go back and read it yourself...

However, where are all those conservative pollsters you were so confidently bandying about, yet I note that you are not here citing...??

Wow, you didn't even bother to read any of the links. Color me surprised.
 
My side is the one acting ludicrous by asking for the same civil rights that every heterosexual has while your side uses the usual ignorant crap such child molestation and humping animals fear tactics? Right. We're the ones with issues. Maybe when your side actually has a valid argument, we could take the discussion more seriously.
Well, we have to get your attention somehow, since logic doesn't really attract liberals and those so rabid for what they want they can see little else, yano?

Nobody here, despite the alleged invalidity of our side's arguments, has been able to prove your side's point... kinda makes a thinking person wonder. How about you?
 
Where did you get that lame idea? I think we have aptly proven whose thoughts on our Constitution are delusions, those mirages taught by liberal profs just not materializing like you had thought sure they would, huh?

Self proscribing are ya? Hazardous. I would suggest not getting addicted like you have become to your false assumptions, yano? :lamo :peace

Whatever. :roll:
 
Well, we have to get your attention somehow, since logic doesn't really attract liberals and those so rabid for what they want they can see little else, yano?

Nobody here, despite the alleged invalidity of our side's arguments, has been able to prove your side's point... kinda makes a thinking person wonder. How about you?

I do believe the point has been made several times for our side. The point being that there is no legal reason or interest in denying gays the civil right to get married. Your side only leave people scratching their head saying "WTF are they even jabbering about." Just the point that you had to bring up pedophiles alone shows that you have no case and only fallacies.
 
Sounds like an attention deficit symptom being expressed. Don't feel so bad, many, too many, have trouble focusing over long periods.

But do try looking over the the thread, have shown what is required time and time again, all legal...read read read my man...sure am not gonna invest more time than this to such a vacuously offensive post... But I would suggest that better advantage of the trip you suggest might be achieved, why don't you go to Iran, ha ha ha, maybe then you may gain a proper understanding and an appreciation of what tolerance is actually worth. Take a few of your buddies over, maybe one out of three of you can come back [ if they let you keep your head ] and start a movement in appreciation to just how well we all have it here...yano? :lamo

Best one might say in general reply to insipid/vapidly agressive posts such as this, just shut up. Please don't reply to my future posts if you don't have anything even minimally worthwhile and only the banal and loud-mouthedly confrontational to say. ;):mrgreen::2wave::peace

you need to take your own advice so far your not making much sense
 
I do believe the point has been made several times for our side. The point being that there is no legal reason or interest in denying gays the civil right to get married. Your side only leave people scratching their head saying "WTF are they even jabbering about." Just the point that you had to bring up pedophiles alone shows that you have no case and only fallacies.
Oh its been said plenty of times from our side...If the majority of the people don't want it as a part of our culture, we have no need to allow it. That is more than legal, it is the will of the people, we being the ultimate sovereigns here.

Just when are you referencing that I brought up pedophiles... not that it isn't a "valid" argument? Just because its useful, applicable and effective... and you don't like it does not make an argument against it. But you can cry about it and tears might get you sympathy from some quarters.
 
Well then, maybe you can make it your mission to work on making that happen? Procreation isn't the whole deal though, man...yano?

its not part of the deal at all reproducing with one another is not required and is not required to even be possible a homosexual couple can do anything we actually do ask of a hetero sexual one to do
 
Oh its been said plenty of times from our side...If the majority of the people don't want it as a part of our culture, we have no need to allow it. That is more than legal, it is the will of the people, we being the ultimate sovereigns here.

Just when are you referencing that I brought up pedophiles... not that it isn't a "valid" argument? Just because its useful, applicable and effective... and you don't like it does not make an argument against it. But you can cry about it and tears might get you sympathy from some quarters.

The fact that pedophiles do not equate to Homosexuals makes it invalid. I don't have to cry because your side is dying out and yeah, whether or not the majority likes it or not, it is coming because homosexuals are still protected under the Constitution of the United States. This is why your side is throwing its temper tantrum.
 
Oh it is a great explanation to nothing I actually espoused. A more careful reading of that and the post it was a response to, my mere recapping of a position taken by the other poster, only to make a point. I don't have a desire to stop the random couples who, unfortunately, are unable to create children with their opposite sex spouse... they, surely less we, often don't even know until later. We do know immediately with SS couples... but it was only a supplementary point in a discussion of reasons to have marriage, the ideas under-girding marriage in the first place...

ummm, get it?


we know immediately if a woman is above a certain age she cant reproduce

which makes you a hypocrite and makes trying to ban same sex marriage on the grounds of reproductive potential unequal treatment under the law and senseless



umm get it?
 
Back
Top Bottom