• 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 throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

Kal, Kal, you KNOW that's not true right? You MUST know that even clones would have genetic drift and random mutations. Surely you KNOW this. Further, there is some research that suggests that in the future, and when we finally get to a point where Eugenics will be a reality (Which it will) we will be able to design our offspring however we choose. Incest, although repulsive (Kind of ironic since most people up until this latest push by gays to shame anyone that is verbally repulsed by gay sex, were indeed repulsed by gay sex as well) and taboo, isn't taboo for science sake. In fact I'd say that science or any harmful effects of familial breeding are nonsense and demonstrably not true. In other words, much like gay rights advocates use the "what harm does it cause", mantra, the same exact argument can be said of consensual incestuous relationships. Mother, son, brother sister, sister father.. What a brave new world eh?

Tim-

Sure, genetic science will make that part moot. Doesn't make the second part moot though. Too easy for the dominant sibiling to "convince" the other sibiling. For the same reason that we don't allow teachers in universities to fratenize with their students we should not allow incestual relationships.
 
I personally find the idea of incest repulsive, but isn't it hypocritical to support open marriage for all, and not incestuous marriage? It is.

Nope, because there is a valid reason to not support incestuous marriages. Both of which I already outlined in the post you quoted. There is no valid reason to not allow gay marriage or polygamy.
 
That's nice, but when the 14th was written as a reconstruction amendment (1868) until Brown V the Board of Education (1954) the SCOTUS did not recognize segregation of the races as unconstitutional. Try again.

My point still stands. May not be exactly or over 200 years but the time frame is still significant. Which is what your arguement was about.
 
You didn't answer the question. Everyone has the right to call names and label people. You have the right to ignore them.

The question is what right is taken from YOU when SSM is legalized and you can't even answer the question without making an appeal to your emotions, which don't matter.

My rights aren't in question.

I've never said I was against Gay Marriage because I thought it's existence would infringe upon my rights.

Now I think your'e being a bit disingenuous when you describe their labels as something that's innocuous and harmless. When they apply these labels to high profile people who disagree with their agenda, it's not with the intention of causing them harm.

It's to set an example. If you disagree with us, we'll target you and ruin your reputation, Professional or otherwise.
 
And for a couple of centuries homosexuals were treated as criminals and they dared not come out...much less demand that they be treated with equal rights. As such it was never brought before the courts before. Now that they have the security to come out they are bringing their case before the courts. As is proper.

BTW: It took a couple of centuries before Loving v. Virginia to happen also. ;) Are you going to try and use your excuse on that case as well? It would at least be consistant.....

Until Lawrence versus Texas in 2003 actually. It has been an amazing 10 years.
 
My rights aren't in question.

I've never said I was against Gay Marriage because I thought it's existence would infringe upon my rights.

Now I think your'e being a bit disingenuous when you describe their labels as something that's innocuous and harmless. When they apply these labels to high profile people who disagree with their agenda, it's not with the intention of causing them harm.

It's to set an example. If you disagree with us, we'll target you and ruin your reputation, Professional or otherwise.

I'm gay. And your whole argument hinges are your right to view, and thus label, me as a second class citizen, a deviant, and someone who is otherwise unequal to you. That is your right. But you now want to argue that Labels and words can hurt? Suck it up buddy.
 
I can already call whatever I want to be marriage. The only thing being fought for is the legal definition. I could care less what Webster's dictionary has for the definition of marriage. All I care about is all people having the same protection under the law. They dont. Legal marriage WAS voted on at some point for it to be a law.

Again, it is wrong for a person to be attacked and ostracized for it.


No, the issue is NOT just about legalities.

If that were the case then these people would have been satisfied with Civil Unions.

No, this is activism, a coordinated attack of a age old definition that transcends Religion and cultures and races.
 
My rights aren't in question.

I've never said I was against Gay Marriage because I thought it's existence would infringe upon my rights.

Now I think your'e being a bit disingenuous when you describe their labels as something that's innocuous and harmless. When they apply these labels to high profile people who disagree with their agenda, it's not with the intention of causing them harm.

It's to set an example. If you disagree with us, we'll target you and ruin your reputation, Professional or otherwise.

You are full of bullcrap! Whose rights am I attacking by trying to seek marriage for me and my partner? How would my marriage in any way change your marriage? How am I forcing you to do anything? You have taken like 4 or 5 cases that had to do with violations of antidiscrimination laws in various states and which had very little to nothing to do with same sex marriage and DELUDED yourself into believing in this country of 320 million people that represented some huge effort to persecute you and people who think like you. That is laughable and pathetic. Get real.
 
How about being labeled a Bigot and a Hater because I believe the proper definition of Marriage is between a Man and Woman.

How about those who claim to have their agenda justified on the basis of "equal rights" purposely ignoring and attacking the rights of those who may disagree with them.

My problem with Gay marriage has always been a issue of a activist minority getting to redefine a age old definition thats transcended Culture, religion and race.

And they're method of forcing their agenda on the rest of America.

You are a bigot and a hater if you want to stop people from marrying because they don't fit your narrow view of marriage. Just as I would be if I tried to stop you from marrying because of your religion or race or whatever. But that has nothing to do with rights. You don't have the right to a positive reputation that you don't deserve.

Again, what rights of yours are being attacked? You don't have the right to not have your opinions criticized.

"Activist minority". When blacks marched for civil rights, they were an "activist minority" redefining an age old definition about races. Also, the modern view of monogamous heterosexual marriage doesn't transcend culture, religion, and race. The only age old definition that really transcend those things is the subjugation of women, and I don't think that's one we want to keep.

"Forcing their agenda" by not allowing unconstitutional laws. That's what the courts are for. This is not usurpation of power. This is not forcing anything. This is not "nine people in robes deciding instead of the people". If they were throwing out a law you didn't like, you'd be cheering. Attacking the validity of the court system and judicial review is just a stupid argument.
 
No, the issue is NOT just about legalities.

If that were the case then these people would have been satisfied with Civil Unions.

No, this is activism, a coordinated attack of a age old definition that transcends Religion and cultures and races.

Wow. You are ridiculously, poorly informed. 20 states banned BOTH civil unions and same sex marriages in their state constitutions. Those civil union bans were not passed by gay rights activists. What world are you living in? Do you even know what you are debating? At least know the FACTS!
 
1.)No, the issue is NOT just about legalities.
2.) If that were the case then these people would have been satisfied with Civil Unions.
3.) No, this is activism, a coordinated attack of a age old definition that transcends Religion and cultures and races.

1.) lol yes it is that why these wrongful discrimination (bannings) go to court and are found to be ILLEGAL
2.) no civil unions are NOT equal rights so wrong again, also many s bigoted states have banned those too
3.) sorry wrong again because none of those things have anythign to do with equal rights.

facts win again

are you ever going to post anything you can support? please do so now, thanks.
 
I'm gay. And your whole argument hinges are your right to view, and thus label, me as a second class citizen, a deviant, and someone who is otherwise unequal to you. That is your right. But you now want to argue that Labels and words can hurt? Suck it up buddy.

Good for you and I could really could care less who you sleep with.

Marriage is a fundamental Human institution that predates our Constitution and our Laws. Its based around Sociological tenants that have been in place since humans had the intelligence to form Unions with specific partners for the purpose of bearing and raising children.

So what defines that institution ? Love ? Companionship ?

No,because if that were the case you could conceivably be married to a Parakeet or a Cat or even a child.

So Sex ?? No that doesn't define the institution of marriage either.

What defines a Marriage is the ability of two people to maintain a monogamous relationship and bear children.
To pass on their genes to their offspring.

Your " Rights " aren't being denied and the refusal to allow Gays to be married doesn't make you a second class citizen.

Rights are extended out to the individual not to a Couple. and you STILL have the right to get married. NO PERSON, regardless of Sexual preference has ever had the Right to marry what or whoever he or she wanted. You cant marry a child, close blood relative, someone who's already married, etc.

Our laws govern marriage but were not the source of the definition of marriage.
 
What defines a Marriage is the ability of two people to maintain a monogamous relationship and bear children.
To pass on their genes to their offspring.

So by that logic anyone who can not bare children should not be allowed to marry? Do you understand this excludes more than just homosexuals?

Your " Rights " aren't being denied and the refusal to allow Gays to be married doesn't make you a second class citizen.

Yes they absolutely are. To say otherwise is complete idiocy.
 
1.) What defines a Marriage is the ability of two people to maintain a monogamous relationship and bear children.
To pass on their genes to their offspring.
2.) Your " Rights " aren't being denied and the refusal to allow Gays to be married doesn't make you a second class citizen.
3.) Rights are extended out to the individual not to a Couple. and you STILL have the right to get married.
4.) NO PERSON, regardless of Sexual preference has ever had the Right to marry what or whoever he or she wanted. You cant marry a child, close blood relative, someone who's already married, etc.
5.) Our laws govern marriage but were not the source of the definition of marriage.

1.) your OPINION on this is meaningless BUT lets look at your failed theroy
gays can bear children
straights dont always have children
some couples do not practice monogamy
well that theory completely fails and is meanignless to equal rights and legal marriage
2.) false has 30 federal judges alon disagree with you. DO you have anythign to back your false claim up?
3.) correct and individuals are begin denied, thanks for proving your own post wrong.
4.) good thing nobody wants that nor are they calling that equal rights
5.) your subjective meanignless definition of marriage doesnt matter to law, rights or legal marriage.

your posts fails again.

WHy are you against equal rights?
 
1.) lol yes it is that why these wrongful discrimination (bannings) go to court and are found to be ILLEGAL


Nonsense. If it were just about " legalities" we wouldn't be having this debate. By now most States would have agreed to Civil Unions and the issue would have been dealt with.

This is a small activist minority attacking a age old definition as they attempt to redefine it based on what suites them.

2.) no civil unions are NOT equal rights so wrong again, also many s bigoted states have banned those too

See ? IT IS about activism over legalities.

And no one's violating your " Rights ". Rights are extended out to the individual, not to the Gay couple, or any couple for that matter.



3.) sorry wrong again because none of those things have anythign to do with equal rights.

facts win again

LOL !! " Facts win again " ?? Gotta love it when you guys claim victory.

Again, your rights aren't being "violated". You can still get married.

Your issue is that you don't agree with the current laws that regulate who or what you can get marry too.

are you ever going to post anything you can support? please do so now, thanks.

Are you ever going to post anything that makes sense ?
 
Good for you and I could really could care less who you sleep with.

Marriage is a fundamental Human institution that predates our Constitution and our Laws. Its based around Sociological tenants that have been in place since humans had the intelligence to form Unions with specific partners for the purpose of bearing and raising children.

So what defines that institution ? Love ? Companionship ?

No,because if that were the case you could conceivably be married to a Parakeet or a Cat or even a child.

So Sex ?? No that doesn't define the institution of marriage either.

What defines a Marriage is the ability of two people to maintain a monogamous relationship and bear children.
To pass on their genes to their offspring.

Your " Rights " aren't being denied and the refusal to allow Gays to be married doesn't make you a second class citizen.

Rights are extended out to the individual not to a Couple. and you STILL have the right to get married. NO PERSON, regardless of Sexual preference has ever had the Right to marry what or whoever he or she wanted. You cant marry a child, close blood relative, someone who's already married, etc.

Our laws govern marriage but were not the source of the definition of marriage.

No marriage has ever been annulled in the United States because a couple could not bear children, no divorce has ever been granted in the history of the United States because a couple did not bear children, and the fertility of a couple has never in the history of the United States been a prerequisite to obtain a marriage license. There is not and has never been a requirement in US law that procreation is required for marriage. Furthermore, same sex couples have children through surrogacy and in vitro fertilization. Your argument is without precedent or rationality.

Loving v. Virginia established that marriage is a fundamental and Constitutionally protected right.
 
Good for you and I could really could care less who you sleep with.

Marriage is a fundamental Human institution that predates our Constitution and our Laws. Its based around Sociological tenants that have been in place since humans had the intelligence to form Unions with specific partners for the purpose of bearing and raising children.

So what defines that institution ? Love ? Companionship ?

No,because if that were the case you could conceivably be married to a Parakeet or a Cat or even a child.

So Sex ?? No that doesn't define the institution of marriage either.

What defines a Marriage is the ability of two people to maintain a monogamous relationship and bear children.
To pass on their genes to their offspring.


Your " Rights " aren't being denied and the refusal to allow Gays to be married doesn't make you a second class citizen.

Rights are extended out to the individual not to a Couple. and you STILL have the right to get married. NO PERSON, regardless of Sexual preference has ever had the Right to marry what or whoever he or she wanted. You cant marry a child, close blood relative, someone who's already married, etc.

Our laws govern marriage but were not the source of the definition of marriage.

Didn't think that one through, didja.
 
Nonsense. If it were just about " legalities" we wouldn't be having this debate. By now most States would have agreed to Civil Unions and the issue would have been dealt with.

This is a small activist minority attacking a age old definition as they attempt to redefine it based on what suites them.



See ? IT IS about activism over legalities.

And no one's violating your " Rights ". Rights are extended out to the individual, not to the Gay couple, or any couple for that matter.





LOL !! " Facts win again " ?? Gotta love it when you guys claim victory.

Again, your rights aren't being "violated". You can still get married.

Your issue is that you don't agree with the current laws that regulate who or what you can get marry too.



Are you ever going to post anything that makes sense ?

The "couple" argument is laughable. In the United States even corporations are recognized as having Constitutional rights. Or are you opposed to Hobby Lobby having the right to refuse to pay for birth control on the basis of that corporation's religious rights?
 
1.)Nonsense. If it were just about " legalities" we wouldn't be having this debate.
2.)By now most States would have agreed to Civil Unions and the issue would have been dealt with.
3.) This is a small activist minority attacking a age old definition as they attempt to redefine it based on what suites them.
4.) See ? IT IS about activism over legalities.
5.) And no one's violating your " Rights ".
6.) Rights are extended out to the individual, not to the Gay couple, or any couple for that matter.
7.) LOL !! " Facts win again " ?? Gotta love it when you guys claim victory.
8.) Again, your rights aren't being "violated".
9.) You can still get married.
10.) Your issue is that you don't agree with the current laws that regulate who or what you can get marry too.
11.) Are you ever going to post anything that makes sense ?

1.) well facts and reality disagree with you. Its factually about equal rights and legalities. You havent posted ONE thing that changes that.
2.) false civil unions are NOT equal rights nor to they address legality. ALso please learn the facts almost just as many states have banned those too.
3.) nobody will ever by this lie since one, its the majority and its not being redefined. Only equal rights is being granted
4.) nope as already prove equal rights, see court cases lol
5.) correct nobody is violating my rights since im can marry. But gays rights are being violated. see court rulings
6.) correct and the states violated INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, again see court cases

do you actually know anythign accurate and factual about this topic?

7.) its not me its just reality. ALl your points failed and some of them are factually false.
8.) marriage is a right see SOCUTUS 14 rulings and the many rulings for equal gay rights
9.) yes i can since im straight
10.) correct I dont agree with laws that violate individual rights this is why the FED is fixing them. I believe in the constitution and rights. Sorry that bothers you.
11.) so your answer is no, thats what we thought lol

let us know when you can defend any false claims you made and when you have any argument that is accurate, factual; and matters to equal rights and legal marriage


heck we'll take ONE . . . lol

facts win again
 
Oh yes great slave to the alter of huge government. May it bestow on you your every fantasy.

Not really. Many people propose a separate category for SSM. "Give them the same benefits and privileges but not the name, it's not marriage!'

So that would be BIGGER govt. And it's not coming from the Left.
 
I'd have no problem with allowing polygamy. Incest however, no thanks. For the simple fact that genetics don't like it and its too easy for the dominate sibling to "persuade" the non-dominate sibling into such things.

Agreed but no on is going to come out and say they want to marry a close relative. There wont be any 'movement' for that.

And nothing will stop any such relationships, whatever the law. So most concerns are moot.
 
Back
Top Bottom