• 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!

Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

CRUE CAB said:
Wow, I am crushed you feel that way.
Click to expand...

as crushed as the whole country was when we lost are dignity to gay marriage im guising
 
CRUE CAB said:
How so? To show how "tolerant" we are of sick mindsets and lifestyles?
Click to expand...

treating people fairly under the law is a good thing that's why its a victory for every one

protects us form people who want to mistreat us just cause they don't approve of what we do or who we are

**** those guys am i right
 
CRUE CAB said:
That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense. Tell us how gay marriage would affect you and what you intend to do if its legalized across the U.S.
 
Jerry said:
All 3 people have the same right: to marry someone of the opposit sex. All 3 people have the same burdon: can't marry the oppoait sex.

That it would be good and proper for us to create a new right to marry the same sex does not mean such a right exists now, or ever did.

What you highlight here is yhat yhis is truly about sexual preferences, not gender, but you lie and argue gender because a few years ago SCOTUS declined to hear a key case because preference isnt a protected class.
Click to expand...

Sexual orientation is a protected class in some states.

And the example I gave had to do with entering into contracts. It's gender discrimination because one gender is excluded from the (marriage) contract. This extends beyond being joined to another person, it has to do with being excluded from all the other things attached to that contract, such as hospital visitation rights, inheritance, and all the other legal protections of that contract.
 
How come the OP AGENTJ hasn't put another thread up for the Kentucky decision handed down today? He must be slipping. ;)

Tim-
 
CRUE CAB said:
How so? To show how "tolerant" we are of sick mindsets and lifestyles?
Click to expand...

Care to explain how the gay 'lifestyle' is different in anyway to the straight 'lifestyle'? Good Lord I feel ridiculous just writing that.

But please...aside from being the same gender, name some things that are different? It's not sex, cuz straight couples do all that stuff to, so please, tell us.
 
Deuce said:
The "problem" of expanding individual liberty. Shaking in my boots.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because of course it doesn't matter what you destroy in order to get what you want, right? Just as long as you get what you want when you want it.
 
roguenuke said:
And yet not only do we, the people, allow them to make these decisions, most of us agree that in making such decisions that they generally tend to protect our rights more than they take them away. Very few people actually believe that the states should have unlimited right to decide who should be allowed to marry.
Click to expand...

That statement shows ignorance of the court and it's history. And that last is just false.
 
clownboy said:
Yeah, because of course it doesn't matter what you destroy in order to get what you want, right? Just as long as you get what you want when you want it.
Click to expand...

What's being destroyed?
 
clownboy said:
That statement shows ignorance of the court and it's history. And that last is just false.
Click to expand...

Not according to our laws. State marriage limitations/restrictions have been struck down at least 3 times in the past and many currently feel that a restriction on marriage based on sex is unconstitutional. The vast majority of people would definitely not say that it would be okay for the state to decide that two people of different religions or races could not get married. Since that would be the states deciding who should be allowed to marry, I'd say my last statement is completely true. The only question is where people would draw that line.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Don't act stupid.
Click to expand...

So for at least 2 pages you have been unable to answer this, regarding 'agenda' and 'lifestyle' but *I'm* acting stupid?

Why not just admit you just pulled the cliches out of your ass and be done with it? Cliches you cant even support.
 
clownboy said:
Asked and answered, in this thread.
Click to expand...

It's not the rights of the people to vote on the issue, since we already know...and the decisions are based on....discrimination. And we already know that the states cannot vote to restrict rights guaranteed in the Constitution, such as being discriminated on based on gender.

Anything else?
 
Lursa said:
So for at least 2 pages you have been unable to answer this, regarding 'agenda' and 'lifestyle' but *I'm* acting stupid?

Why not just admit you just pulled the cliches out of your ass and be done with it? Cliches you cant even support.
Click to expand...
Support what? The sissification of America, gay days at Disney, forcing gay marriage, forcing gay adoption, forcing the military to accept gays, screaming intolerance to anyone that don't agree with you. You mean THAT agenda?
 
CRUE CAB said:
Support what? The sissification of America, gay days at Disney, forcing gay marriage, forcing gay adoption, forcing the military to accept gays, screaming intolerance to anyone that don't agree with you. You mean THAT agenda?
Click to expand...

"sissification" is amusing and not remotely realistic. But we can pass it on to all the gay firemen, cops, professional athletes, doctors, mechanics, etc etc etc.

So much for your grasp of reality.

As for 'forcing' gay adoption? WHo is forcing anyone to do anything? Not only that, who is harmed? No one. Kids are benefitted.

Gays in the military? They've been there all along (you know, those sissies!, lol) Defending the country, dying for our country. Why should they hide? Why should they lie? To make homophobes more 'comfortable' pretending they're not there?

You can go around treating blacks like **** too....or women. But there are consequences for that intolerance....not necessarily legal but social and personal. Or you can act like an adult and recognize the personal liberty afforded to all Americans.

You have shown ZERO harm that the gay 'agenda' can or has done.

And I havent seen that breakdown on their 'lifestyles' yet either. You know....all the 'differences?' Got that one ready for us yet?
 
clownboy said:
Yeah, because of course it doesn't matter what you destroy in order to get what you want, right? Just as long as you get what you want when you want it.
Click to expand...

What got destroyed? You're going to fail to specify any specific harm caused to anyone again, aren't you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom