• 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!

Appeals court upholds decision overturning Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban

Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Deuce said:
Better question: why is any of this relevant to marriage?

It isn't. Who makes what kind of sexual advances towards whom is completely irrelevant to government sanction of a marriage contract
Click to expand...

Not really, not when one of the more prominent arguments about "normalizing homosexuality through SSM acceptance" is that men fear being approached by other men, but as noted don't seem to think that's too much of a burden for women (otherwise so many men wouldn't attempt to approach women).
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Deuce said:
No. There is no moral equivalency here.

The pro-equality argument is morally superior. The anti-equality crowd is fighting against the rights of a minority group based solely on their personal disapproval of the minority's actions. This is antithetical to individual liberty.
Click to expand...
Whatever, dude.

Gays what their relationships to be viewed with the same moral standing as straight relationships and if I was gay, I'd probably want that too. When you break it down to it's root, that's what it is all about.

Deal with it.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

JasperL said:
Don't you think the bigger problem with "marriage" in the U.S. is lack of it, and/or divorce, among straight and normal heterosexuals? It's always puzzled me a bit - there is this gigantic log in the eye of the straight community regarding single motherhood and divorce, but the time and effort is expended keeping gays FROM marrying. Weird...
Click to expand...
Papa bull said:
Divorce is a problem but not the same kind of problem the deconstruction of it is. It's foolish to argue that one problem is justification for adding more problems.
Click to expand...
People disgustingly and rightfully talk about that Liz Taylor, those gays are just one step behind her, making a mockery of marriage. Do you advocate what Liz Taylor has done!? This country's laws are based on age old traditions and morality, and if those gays openly and continuously disregard those laws, what is the common man supposed to think about the sanctity of marriage!

...

I used Liz Taylor, because you know, since Papa Bull's morality comes from the 1960s ...

Papa bull said:
I think you don't know what you're talking about. In both Rome and Greece, homosexuality was rampant. Of course the Bible talks of Sodom and Gomorrah which were so vile that even angels were molested but I don't suppose you'd be wanting to hear about that or believing it. I'll just tell you for a fact that homosexuals do recruit as much as possible. My brother is a homosexual and I've lived in homosexual communities for years during different periods of my life both in New Orleans and Atlanta's Midtown. I know what I'm talking about and recruitment is one of the biggest, if not THE biggest dirty little secret of the homosexual community.
Click to expand...
Or 1690s ...

:lamo
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Jack Fabulous said:
Whatever, dude.

Gays what their relationships to be viewed with the same moral standing as straight relationships and if I was gay, I'd probably want that too. When you break it down to it's root, that's what it is all about.

Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Are you saying "gays want to be accepted" is a reason for the government of the United States to impose a gender-based distinction in a contract between two private individuals?

is that all it takes to justify a restriction on individual freedom?
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Summerwind said:
Well you acknowledge that women have to suffer it and yet demand the men are too fragile to have deal with it. I guess you're right, you aren't being negative about women, you're calling men ******s, all of 'em.
Click to expand...

That's what you're saying, not what I said. You should be the one admitting you're a sexist.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Deuce said:
Are you saying "gays want to be accepted" is a reason for the government of the United States to impose a gender-based distinction in a contract between two private individuals?

is that all it takes to justify a restriction on individual freedom?
Click to expand...

You're reducing it so you can avoid the point.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Jack Fabulous said:
Whatever, dude.

Gays what their relationships to be viewed with the same moral standing as straight relationships and if I was gay, I'd probably want that too. When you break it down to it's root, that's what it is all about.

Deal with it.
Click to expand...

I don't know why it's so hard to admit. You're dead right.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Papa bull said:
That's what you're saying, not what I said. You should be the one admitting you're a sexist.
Click to expand...

Nope, just paying attention to your poutrage about the poor wittle men who might be approached by a homosexual man, WAH! Bunch of babies if they can't handle it, which is apparently what you think. Since I'm all for the normalization of homosexuality, I must think men will be able to handle it.

Nice try at "I'm rubber", but a huge fail.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Summerwind said:
Nope, just paying attention to your poutrage about the poor wittle men who might be approached by a homosexual man, WAH! Bunch of babies if they can't handle it, which is apparently what you think. Since I'm all for the normalization of homosexuality, I must think men will be able to handle it.

Nice try at "I'm rubber", but a huge fail.
Click to expand...

You're not paying attention. You're engaging in strawman argumentation.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Deuce said:
Do either of you really care what strangers think of your relationship?
Click to expand...

The question is irrelevant to this discussion. What I care about my relationship has no bearing whatsoever on whether society must be forced to sanction the oxymoron of homosexual marriage.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Papa bull said:
You're not paying attention. You're engaging in strawman argumentation.
Click to expand...

No I read your posts quite clearly.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...falls-courts-deny-ban-ssm.html#post1063579067

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...falls-courts-deny-ban-ssm.html#post1063579129

Clearly your concern is that normalizing homosexuality will put men at further risk of being approached by other men. I am not worried at all about that, and expect it's perfectly fine for men to have to be a further risk of being approached by other men. I have no doubt they can handle it. You seem to doubt that they can or that they should have to.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Summerwind said:
No I read your posts quite clearly.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...falls-courts-deny-ban-ssm.html#post1063579067

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...falls-courts-deny-ban-ssm.html#post1063579129

Clearly your concern is that normalizing homosexuality will put men at further risk of being approached by other men. I am not worried at all about that, and expect it's perfectly fine for men to have to be a further risk of being approached by other men. I have no doubt they can handle it. You seem to doubt that they can or that they should have to.
Click to expand...

Another strawman. My argument is that this isn't about rights. It's about a desire by homosexuals to normalize homosexuality in order to facilitate recruitment. My point is that the "rights" is really just the angle the legal and moral battle seems to be taking even though it's not really the primary motivation.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Papa bull said:
Another strawman. My argument is that this isn't about rights. It's about a desire by homosexuals to normalize homosexuality in order to facilitate recruitment. My point is that the "rights" is really just the angle the legal and moral battle seems to be taking even though it's not really the primary motivation.
Click to expand...

The idea that anyone can be recruited into homosexuality is the strawman. Bless your heart.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Summerwind said:
The idea that anyone can be recruited into homosexuality is the strawman. Bless your heart.
Click to expand...

That's called a difference of opinion. It's not mangling someone else's argument into something ridiculous enough to beat up with poor reasoning and intelect like you've been doing. That's a strawman.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Deuce said:
Are you saying "gays want to be accepted" is a reason for the government of the United States to impose a gender-based distinction in a contract between two private individuals?

is that all it takes to justify a restriction on individual freedom?
Click to expand...
If it wasn't about acceptance then gays would have been satisfied with civil unions. They were not. Civil unions offered every protection and benefit as marriage but, to them, it was not acceptable. Why is that?

I don't even know what you're trying to argue here. Are you somehow not comfortable with admitting that seeking moral equivalence is the goal here?
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Papa bull said:
I've laughed at a few homosexuals for their fixation on getting straight men for that very reason, but that doesn't stop them from trying like hell and the normalization of homosexuality does seem to aid them in this endeavor.
Click to expand...

Really? Have you also observed straight men going after/in their fixations with women? Are you saying gay guys are more extreme? LOL I beg to differ!
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Papa bull said:
Why do lesbians need to be taken into consideration. It's homosexuality. I've known some lesbians but having a homosexual brother has made the male homosexual a lot easier to get to understand.
Click to expand...

Because they are affected by SSM as well. Lesbians are 'same sex couples.'

Everything you are attempting to use as a reason to prevent SSM is focused on men. Hardly a balanced argument.

Unless you believe that lesbians should be allowed to marry each other?

(I cant believe I just had to spell this out.)
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

clownboy said:
Supported by who? The entire reason for the challenge was because the people of those states didn't support homosexual marriage. The only support these challenges have received are from courts, relying on suspect precedence.

Put the hate back in your pocket. I answered your post with the same tone it was made of. Namecalling and silly rhetoric seem to suit you well.
Click to expand...


Perhaps I should have specified that it was upheld OR overturned by the courts in every single state where challenged.

And I used your own words that you wrote...I didnt introduce them. So own it. I have no hate, is pointing out a racist hateful or factual? I was just pointing out what your words revealed. If you meant them sarcastically or as a bad joke, please let me know.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Lursa said:
Really? Have you also observed straight men going after/in their fixations with women? Are you saying gay guys are more extreme? LOL I beg to differ!
Click to expand...

Guess you weren't paying attention. I agree that if they can get them, they're not straight, so what they wanted wasn't they got. It's an interesting conundrum for them and you, apparently, had no idea what anyone was talking about when you made the non-sequitur above.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Lursa said:
Because they are affected by SSM as well. Lesbians are 'same sex couples.'

Everything you are attempting to use as a reason to prevent SSM is focused on men. Hardly a balanced argument.

Unless you believe that lesbians should be allowed to marry each other?

(I cant believe I just had to spell this out.)
Click to expand...

My argument is that society needn't be forced to endorse homosexuality. Period. women on women, men on men... neither is something society should be forced to endorse against their will.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Papa bull said:
Why do you think I consider rude sexual advances appropriate for anyone? Merely explaining the motivation for homosexual marriage activism isn't approval of anything.
Click to expand...

What kind of activism is it when men harrass and chase women? Er...none. They just want to get laid.

Common thread here: men just want to get laid. Who they chase depends on their sexual orientation.

No activism, lol. That's just an excuse and shows how people wear blinders in the face of what they consider offensive.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Deuce said:
The 14th amendment says they can't. Because no important state interest exists in defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Nobody was ever barred from marriage based on their own race either. But a race-based distinction in marriage contracts failed to meet th test of (strict) constitutional scrutiny. (Intermediate scrutiny applies for distinctions of gender)
Click to expand...

This is key and yet none of them have been able to show any harm.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Papa bull said:
Guess you weren't paying attention. I agree that if they can get them, they're not straight, so what they wanted wasn't they got. It's an interesting conundrum for them and you, apparently, had no idea what anyone was talking about when you made the non-sequitur above.
Click to expand...

LOL

I'm just getting this from your self-righteous indignation about those advances being *gay activism.* You even wrote that. And yet dont see men hitting on women as any kind of activism...right?

Hypocrisy...I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.
 
Re: Virginia falls! Courts deny ban on SSM

Papa bull said:
My argument is that society needn't be forced to endorse homosexuality. Period. women on women, men on men... neither is something society should be forced to endorse against their will.
Click to expand...

Who is asking you personally to endorse anything? Nobody asked me what I thought about straight marriage (which I'm personally against the govt being involved in). And a lot of society is more than happy to endorse it. What's your break-over point?

It's none of your business, if that is your argument, anymore than anyone else's marriage. Unfortunately interracial couples also had to resort to the federal govt because apparently 'some people' didnt want to endorse their unions. Oh well. There was no legitimate reason to deny them and I have yet to see a legitimate reason to deny gays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom