• 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!

Indiana won't recognize same-sex marriages

If you don't care
I care about accuracy and honesty. You asked where you generalized liberals, so I showed you. You could do the honest thing and simply acknowledge what we both know to be true, which is you made a blanket statement about a group of people. And I wouldn't even care about THAT if the statement you made about liberals was simply an honest evaluation of a group of people, but we both know your statement was incendiary, as others pointed out.
 
Most people will never agree that SSM is the same as traditional marriage. what liberal activist justices have mandated can and will be reversed.
 
SSM is about stuffing the Liberal agenda down our throats.

SSM has nothing to with thrusting the turgid "liberal agenda" down your unwilling throats. It has everything to do with giving gay couples the same rights as straight couples.
 
SSM has nothing to with thrusting the turgid "liberal agenda" down your unwilling throats. It has everything to do with giving gay couples the same rights as straight couples.

they have the same rights I have......they want special rights.........if they want to hook up call it anything else but not marriage.
 
I care about accuracy and honesty. You asked where you generalized liberals, so I showed you. You could do the honest thing and simply acknowledge what we both know to be true, which is you made a blanket statement about a group of people. And I wouldn't even care about THAT if the statement you made about liberals was simply an honest evaluation of a group of people, but we both know your statement was incendiary, as others pointed out.

Nice try, but your sense of superiority and your selective outrage don't impress me much. Find someone else to preach to.
 
they have the same rights I have......they want special rights.........if they want to hook up call it anything else but not marriage.

Do gay people have the right to join in matrimony with whom they choose in Indiana, as per this thread? No? Then they don't have the same rights as you.

Call it marriage, because it is.
 
SSM is about stuffing the Liberal agenda down our throats.

If you would indulge me, Navy Pride ... what exactly is the "Liberal agenda"? You tell me. Preferably in your own words.
 
Do gay people have the right to join in matrimony with whom they choose in Indiana, as per this thread? No? Then they don't have the same rights as you.

Call it marriage, because it is.

Its not marriage.......marriage is between a man and a woman and they can procreate...Gays can't do that period.
 
If you would indulge me, Navy Pride ... what exactly is the "Liberal agenda"? You tell me. Preferably in your own words.

Its stuffing so called Gay Rights down our throats.
 
come election time liberals always use the stale old playbook..........conservatives are either anti woman, anti Gays, or anti poor. The silent majority is wising up and it won't be like this in November 2014
 
come election time liberals always use the stale old playbook..........conservatives are either anti woman, anti Gays, or anti poor. The silent majority is wising up and it won't be like this in November 2014

that's because a lot more people have REAL problems at present, not these made up first-world problems like this one.
 
Most people will never agree that SSM is the same as traditional marriage. what liberal activist justices have mandated can and will be reversed.

LOL...NP obviously hasn't picked up a newspaper in the last decade. The clear majority in this country now are in favor of marriage equality. DOH!
 
That is why you leffties are so clueless......Because someone does not want the definition of marriage changed in your narrow mind they are a bigot...........sad.

What Navy Pride never answers is why he was ok with the definition of marriage changing to allow for his marriage....but has issues with the definition of marriage "changing" for anyone else. The height of hypocrisy.
 
Nice try, but your sense of superiority and your selective outrage don't impress me much.
Selective outrage indicates outrage. I'm not outraged, Shania. I just pointed out how you made a blanket generalization about liberals. I'm sorry if it's inconvenient to be held to your own words, but you did.
Find someone else to preach to.
Not preaching at all. You asked where you made a general statement about liberals and I showed you. You tried to deny it, I simply posted your exact words. I'm sorry if you don't like your own inflammatory rhetoric, but it doesn't change the fact you DID post it.
 
Its stuffing so called Gay Rights down our throats.

While I know it makes you uncomfortable to have the throbbing, sweaty Gay Rights forcibly crammed inch by inch down the throats of Real Americans, but ... that's it? That's seriously your answer to my question? "So called" gay rights?

Do you feel that gays are entitled to the same legal protections as heterosexuals? Yes or no.
 
Its not marriage.......marriage is between a man and a woman and they can procreate...Gays can't do that period.

By that rationale, a marriage between a sterile man and sterile woman is not a "marriage." Try again.
 
that's because a lot more people have REAL problems at present, not these made up first-world problems like this one.

You'd think the party constantly bleating about individual freedom would think a restriction on individual freedom was a "real problem." But I guess freedom is only for things conservatives accept.
 
By that rationale, a marriage between a sterile man and sterile woman is not a "marriage." Try again.

That is the rare exception and not the rule..........99% of all straights to get married procreate.
 
Selective outrage indicates outrage. I'm not outraged, Shania. I just pointed out how you made a blanket generalization about liberals. I'm sorry if it's inconvenient to be held to your own words, but you did.
Not preaching at all. You asked where you made a general statement about liberals and I showed you. You tried to deny it, I simply posted your exact words. I'm sorry if you don't like your own inflammatory rhetoric, but it doesn't change the fact you DID post it.

And I'm sorry you don't have the intellectual acuity to differentiate between a general statement about liberal ideology and the policy positions that evolve from that ideology and a general statement about liberals, in general. If I was going to pompously stick my nose into a discussion between two other people, I'd certainly want to have some idea what I was talking about - you, it appears, are not so constrained.
 
Not quite - I simply provided my assessment, based on experience and observation, of how conservatives and liberals approach government policy. That in no way generalizes who liberals are, as individuals - it simply speaks to the form their groupspeak takes on any given issue.

You're free to dispute any of the points I made, if you can.

"Conservatives don't care about the population at all. All they care about is lining their own pockets with bribes and kickbacks from big business so big business can steal from the general population, ruin the environment, and increase their wealth while destroying everyone else. Conservatives are the tool of religious extremists, wanting to interfere in as much of our daily lives as possible, and wanting to create laws that dictate their morality and beliefs while trampling on anything or anyone who disagrees with them."

Tell me, CJ... did I just make a blanket statement about conservatives... considering that's my assessment, based on experience, of how conservatives approach government?
 
"Conservatives don't care about the population at all. All they care about is lining their own pockets with bribes and kickbacks from big business so big business can steal from the general population, ruin the environment, and increase their wealth while destroying everyone else. Conservatives are the tool of religious extremists, wanting to interfere in as much of our daily lives as possible, and wanting to create laws that dictate their morality and beliefs while trampling on anything or anyone who disagrees with them."

Tell me, CJ... did I just make a blanket statement about conservatives... considering that's my assessment, based on experience, of how conservatives approach government?

If you believe conservatives espouse those policy positions in government, then no you didn't. An identifiable group's policy platforms are not in and of themselves a blanket description of those who identify with that group. There are many conservatives who are pro-choice as there are many liberals who are pro-life - neither of which is reflected in their party's platform, as an example.

Now, if you'd followed the discussion that Deuce and I were having and discovered that my comments were in response to our discussion about how government supports individual lives, you may have gotten that distinction. Deuce made similar comments to yours with respect to perceptions of conservatives in response. I don't challenge your perceptions, but I've never claimed all individuals of any persuasion hold the same views of the majority in that group. I only claimed that their approach to government follows a particular form which neither you nor anyone else has belied.
 
That is the rare exception and not the rule..........99% of all straights to get married procreate.

The percentage of married women ages 40 to 44 who had no biological children and no other kids in the household, such as adopted children or stepkids, reached 6% in the period from 2006 to 2010. That's a small but statistically significant jump since 1988, when only 4.5% of married women had no kids.

More married women in U.S. aren't having children - Los Angeles Times
 
Back
Top Bottom