• 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

This would be the best option but people want government in marriage for some reason.

It's not the best option IMO because it creates 2 different govt agencies overseeing the same thing. more bureaucracy, bigger govt, more wasted taxpayer $.

The opposite of what most conservatives/Republicans support.
 
How so? IMO they are being treated like 2nd class citizens here....just like when blacks had to sit separately or use different bathrooms.

I guess because I think it's a long way from being barred from buying a home or getting a good job to the privilege of having a piece of paper that says "You're married". To me, being with someone I love is far more important than the paper that the state of NJ gave to me & my husband. Not even the opponents of gay marriage seem to be saying that gay people shouldn't be with those they love.
 
Except you are trying to use that "say" to violate the constitution, to suppress someone else's freedom based on nothing more than your personal disapproval of their actions. You don't believe in small government, you believe in using the government as the club to enforce your will onto others. Sorry, friend, this is America. That's not how we do things here. You want to restrict someone's freedom, you need a better basis for that restriction than thinking gay sex is icky.

Unless you are ultra-authoritarian, in which case you believe the government should be empowered to restrict choices arbitrarily.

Obama and Holder didn't need anything but an EO to stop the DOMA (which Clinton signed) so don't tell me about process. It's skewed.
 
It takes one hell of a set of blinders to make that kind of comparison.

The consequences of the destruction of the traditional Family unit are more apparent in inner city areas than any other location in America including rural trailer parks.

One is a real and perpetual tragedy that leads to poverty, dependence, drug abuse, crime, violence and a lack of education.

The other us a worn out sterotype, a dumb joke.

As someone who also once taught in the schools and parks of Manhattan, I can tell you that view is based more on population density than behavior and morals.
 
Obama and Holder didn't need anything but an EO to stop the DOMA (which Clinton signed) so don't tell me about process. It's skewed.

Clinton signed DOMA because, at the time, the support was present for a Constitutional Amendment that could limit marriage for a very long time, on a national level, to only a man and a woman. Much like Prohibition was, that would have been a very bad thing. So, DOMA was the lesser of two evils for the time it was enacted. DOMA is gone now, unconstitutional.
 
People were pushing for same sex marriage to be legal long before Obama or Holder. It has been political ever since DOMA and before. It was political from the very first time that some state decided that same sex couples could not enter into marriages the same way that opposite sex couples do.

Really? other than Gays' who was pushing for it...let's say during the Clinton administration?


And how many have pushed back?
 
You are just continuing to assume that marriage in this country has never changed. It has many times. It changed when women got equal rights. It changed when divorce was opened up to not requiring a reason beyond "we want to split up". It changed when interracial couples were allowed to marry in every state. It changed when wives could have their husbands charged with rape.

There is no real reason to waste the time and money to make the change. And you won't likely get the support for such a thing. Those like me aren't going to support it (because it is pointless and makes those pushing for it look like pouting children) and those who are hardcore against same sex marriage aren't going to support it because they don't want to "legitimize" any same sex relationships. Plus, many simply don't want to give up their use of the word "marriage".

None of those changes took away from the core principle of marriage was to support a man and woman (mother and father) to reproduce, raise/nurture children that would function and better society. Your definition alters that.

Oh I think there's support for it out there. No one has to give up their use of the word marriage, you just can no longer define it for another. Since the institution of marriage as we have known it for thousands of years no longer exists, what's the beef? Oh and please spare me the argument of cost after the hundreds of millions or more the left has spent in their quest to redefine marriage.
 
Last edited:
I guess because I think it's a long way from being barred from buying a home or getting a good job to the privilege of having a piece of paper that says "You're married". To me, being with someone I love is far more important than the paper that the state of NJ gave to me & my husband. Not even the opponents of gay marriage seem to be saying that gay people shouldn't be with those they love.

That piece of paper gives a couple a lot of things, including the right to say that this is their legal spouse, which comes in handy in a lot of legal and even personal situations. Even when it comes to just getting a home, whether buying or renting, marriage provides a benefit. When it comes to being in the military, marriage provides a massive benefit. When it comes to many other situations, marriage is a huge benefit. It might not be for everyone, but most people want marriage as an option. Just as they want adoption as an option, rather than just being granted a permanent guardianship over a child.
 
LOL !!

So you found another activist judge that supports your opinion ?

Shock !

All the wacko activist Liberal judges in the World cant redefine whats essential a age old social tennant.

A institution thats survived the ages up until a small minority of crazy activist, who use the premise of "equal rights" while they target and malign those who disagree with them decided it needed to be changed .

Again, SSM have happened lots throughout history. Even long before the Vikings came to the America's. Just because religious folks refuse to acknowledge them does not mean that they didn't exist.
 
Oh I think there's support for it out there. No one has to give up their use of the word marriage, you just can no longer define it for another. Since the institution of marriage as we have known it for thousands of years no longer exists, what's the beef? Oh and please spare me the argument of cost after the hundreds of millions or more the left has spent in their quest to redefine marriage.

Prove it. I bet you there isn't support. I bet that most people would not want to change marriage at all. They are simply going to forget about it within a few years of same sex marriage bans being struck down all over the US, at least most of those currently saying that they would support it. And even that is a small number.

We already have civil unions within our current laws. Changing "marriages" to "civil unions" means those would have to change for at least a few states, because those who enter into civil unions do so for a reason, generally one that includes not wanting to be considered legally married. So they would require something else that covers them.

And why? Because some people are whining about having to share a word.
 
What does that tell you?

Who or what are Zues?

Thanks for proving my point. ;) Zeus was the Father of the Greek Gods. There is a whole pantheon of religions and Gods that have been discarded over the thousands of years that humans have worshiped gods.
 
Again, SSM have happened lots throughout history. Even long before the Vikings came to the America's. Just because religious folks refuse to acknowledge them does not mean that they didn't exist.

I'm asking because I don't know. Where were same sex marriages legal in early centuries?
 
Inspired by God

The NT is an affermation of the old.

I've had the same Bible forever.

Inspired =/= written. David Edding's was inspired and wrote many bestselling books. Doesn't mean that what's in those books is real.
 
What you fail to grasp is you have taken an fundamental institution in this country and turned it upside down by redefining the term marriage as it has been recognized for thousands of years. So if you can redefine marriage, why can't civil unions be redefined? In doing so your "marriage" can be defined any way you like it.

Can you tell me what effect that 'redefinition' would have? What would happen?


Because right now, there are thousands of gay couples heading up families in this country. THat will not stop, no matter what it's called. It doesnt have to be recognized legally at all; they still will not go away. Gay people want kids and families just as much as straight couples...reproduction is pretty much the strongest of our instincts.

Not calling it marriage now reclassifies ALL THOSE FAMILIES as 2nd class as well. Those kids now grow up in 'different' families, just like kids from broken homes of divorce where scorned in school and treated differently...until society finally caught up to reality. They were treated like they were different.

Tell me, how are the kids, the families, of gays different from other families? When they grow up...straight...do they have to have a civil union or a marriage? If they are gay....still no marriage allowed huh? So some kids have wedding and the others have to have civil ceremonies, right in the same family....THese would be GOVT ENFORCED distinctions FORCED on families. How is that possibly a good thing? Telling some, in the same family, they are all different by 'some religious strangers' opinion. It's unconscionable and will be an embarrassment to coming generations and look back.
 
Really? other than Gays' who was pushing for it...let's say during the Clinton administration?


And how many have pushed back?

I was supporting it. Defended same sex marriage as an issue in 1997, while in 11th grade. There was a case in Hawaii that led to DOMA. It overturned state marriage law that restricted same sex couples from getting married as violating Hawaii state constitution. There was a case that got turned down by the SCOTUS in the 1970s, when homosexuals could still be institutionalized for just coming out as gay in some places.

Less people supported it then, than now. But that number has slowly risen over the last two decades. The main thing that led to the major push on same sex marriage was Lawrence v Texas. Striking down sodomy laws meant that there was no legal prohibition on same sex relationships allowable anywhere in the US.
 
I'm asking because I don't know. Where were same sex marriages legal in early centuries?

Just a couple of examples; The Indians believed in their own form of SSM. There was a Chinese emperor that married another guy. Several others through out history. Even some Christian ones, though I can't remember the names of the Christian ones. :shrug:
 

Can you tell me what effect that 'redefinition' would have? What would happen?


Because right now, there are thousands of gay couples heading up families in this country. THat will not stop, no matter what it's called. It doesnt have to be recognized legally at all; they still will not go away. Gay people want kids and families just as much as straight couples...reproduction is pretty much the strongest of our instincts.

Not calling it marriage now reclassifies ALL THOSE FAMILIES as 2nd class as well. Those kids now grow up in 'different' families, just like kids from broken homes of divorce where scorned in school and treated differently...until society finally caught up to reality. They were treated like they were different.

Tell me, how are the kids, the families, of gays different from other families? When they grow up...straight...do they have to have a civil union or a marriage? If they are gay....still no marriage allowed huh? So some kids have wedding and the others have to have civil ceremonies, right in the same family....THese would be GOVT ENFORCED distinctions FORCED on families. How is that possibly a good thing? Telling some, in the same family, they are all different by 'some religious strangers' opinion. It's unconscionable and will be an embarrassment to coming generations and look back.

That's just it, the government would no longer enforce any definition of marriage everything becomes neutral in the government's eyes. What your union is to you is your business. You just no longer have the right to define what marriage is to another.
 

Thanks. Please point out anything in this passage that cant be applied to a gay couple as well?

"The term “one flesh” means that just as our bodies are one whole entity and cannot be divided into pieces and still be a whole, so God intended it to be with the marriage relationship. There are no longer two entities (two individuals), but now there is one entity (a married couple). There are a number of aspects to this new union.

As far as emotional attachments are concerned, the new unit takes precedence over all previous and future relationships (Genesis 2:24). Some marriage partners continue to place greater weight upon ties with parents than with the new partner. This is a recipe for disaster in the marriage and is a perversion of God’s original intention of “leaving and cleaving.” A similar problem can develop when a spouse begins to draw closer to a child to meet emotional needs rather than to his or her partner.

Emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, financially, and in every other way, the couple is to become one."
 
Just a couple of examples; The Indians believed in their own form of SSM. There was a Chinese emperor that married another guy. Several others through out history. Even some Christian ones, though I can't remember the names of the Christian ones. :shrug:

Thanks. I know there have been unions at odd times during history, including Nero marrying some young effeminate boy. I was more curious about society-wide SSM.
 
That's just it, the government would no longer enforce any definition of marriage everything becomes neutral in the government's eyes. What your union is to you is your business. You just no longer have the right to define what marriage is to another.

I support labelling the coupling of two people (of consenting age) as a civil union for precisely this reason. Then the debate about "marriage" becomes irrelevant. Call your union whatever you want, and leave it at that.
 
I guess because I think it's a long way from being barred from buying a home or getting a good job to the privilege of having a piece of paper that says "You're married". To me, being with someone I love is far more important than the paper that the state of NJ gave to me & my husband. Not even the opponents of gay marriage seem to be saying that gay people shouldn't be with those they love.

When gays are 'out', they are often denied apts/condos in 'certain' buildings and they are certainly denied good jobs. It's just not as visible a difference but the prejudice is still there...this thread and the fact that so many still object to SSM is proof of that.

How about the interracial couples...why did they have to have that piece of paper? Why couldnt they just be happy being with who they loved?
 
Thanks. Please point out anything in this passage that cant be applied to a gay couple as well?

"The term “one flesh” means that just as our bodies are one whole entity and cannot be divided into pieces and still be a whole, so God intended it to be with the marriage relationship. There are no longer two entities (two individuals), but now there is one entity (a married couple). There are a number of aspects to this new union.

As far as emotional attachments are concerned, the new unit takes precedence over all previous and future relationships (Genesis 2:24). Some marriage partners continue to place greater weight upon ties with parents than with the new partner. This is a recipe for disaster in the marriage and is a perversion of God’s original intention of “leaving and cleaving.” A similar problem can develop when a spouse begins to draw closer to a child to meet emotional needs rather than to his or her partner.

Emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, financially, and in every other way, the couple is to become one."

The funny thing is, that sounds an awful lot like the idea of a soulmate. Which was a Greek concept, possibly something from earlier cultures. It wasn't introduced by Christianity, nor the Bible. It was a passed down concept, that just got included in the Bible in a different way. Adapted for the beliefs of that time.
 
Back
Top Bottom