• 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!

**BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

Anthony60 said:
Again, what does that have to do with anything? Why should taxpayers subsidize that Fluck woman's sex life? I can't see why she needs BC, one look at her should be enough!
Click to expand...

You brought it up....dont like being confronted with the realities of it? The taxpayers are subsidizing her sex life and at least one man's.
 
Lursa said:
You brought it up....dont like being confronted with the realities of it? The taxpayers are subsidizing her sex life and at least one man's.
Click to expand...

I just don't know why you responded to my post, you haven't tried to even make a point. I just mentioned that it is another possible distraction by the left, once they are through with SSM. But I think some type of benefits for illegals is more likely. Whatever gets them the most votes from the low information crowd is what it will be.
 
Anthony60 said:
I just don't know why you responded to my post, you haven't tried to even make a point. I just mentioned that it is another possible distraction by the left, once they are through with SSM. But I think some type of benefits for illegals is more likely. Whatever gets them the most votes from the low information crowd is what it will be.
Click to expand...

They manage to get lots of benefits now...legally.

And I am 100% against it. Including their kids in our schools. So again, the attempts at blanket generalizations for liberals and gays are way off-base.
 
clownboy said:
Even one of the homosexual bastion states (California) voted for a state constitutional ban.
Click to expand...

The Marriage Equality votes on the ballot in 2012 weren't supporting same-sex Civil Marriage?

WTF?

clownboy said:
Even one of the homosexual bastion states (California) voted for a state constitutional ban.
Click to expand...

That was 2008, today is 2014.

Maine voted to ban same-sex Civil Marriages in 2009, they were one of the States that voted to allow it in 2012 - only 3 years later. Care to have another vote now for California?


>>>>
 
Lursa said:
Or perhaps there is just shame in the past...100 yrs for Jim Crow to finally be dismissed (but still lingers), and how many years for women's suffragacy? And that's just 'since that movement,'....the fact that it had to occur at all? :(
Click to expand...

It's our history.
 
roguenuke said:
Only if we also say "there was no right to interracial marriage until the Loving decision". In reality, this is not really true. The SCOTUS merely recognized that the right did exist and by doing so struck down the laws against it as unconstitutional.

Adding descriptive information in front of something doesn't make it something else, at least not for something like this. The marriages according to the law are still the same. They still work the same way whether they are opposite sex marriages or same sex marriages, interracial marriage or intraracial marriages, interfaith marriage or same faith marriages or even no faith marriages.
Click to expand...

Yes. With whom are you arguing?
 
roguenuke said:
Reread what that was responding to. In post 487 (I believe), you claimed that it was "proposed" in the last 20 years. That simply isn't true. It was proposed longer ago than that.

I never said anything about being established, at least not in this country.
Click to expand...

OK. Fair enough.
 
roguenuke said:
So what? The most likely reason for this is our rapid advancements in technology in the last two decades that have allowed for the exponential flow and exchange of information, particularly among young people, which leads to better understanding and thus greater acceptance of things that are different or have been considered "deviant" or "wrong" in the past. It isn't that hard to figure out why the change has happened at the rate it has, technology.
Click to expand...

Technology is only part of the answer.
 
Jack Hays said:
Technology is only part of the answer.
Click to expand...

It's the largest part of it. Exposure is the leading cause for such a dramatic change of views in such a short period of time.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
It's the largest part of it. Exposure is the leading cause for such a dramatic change of views in such a short period of time.
Click to expand...

There has, as well, been a sea change in attitudes going back to before the tech revolution. I think the critical element was the realization that being gay is not a choice.
 
Anthony60 said:
Again, what does that have to do with anything? Why should taxpayers subsidize that Fluck woman's sex life? I can't see why she needs BC, one look at her should be enough!
Click to expand...

Birth control pills aren't just used for contraception. And the health plan in question was a student health plan. Students fund that health plan, not taxpayers.

But way to attack a woman based on what she looks like, not what she said. Real classy.
 
Jack Hays said:
There has, as well, been a sea change in attitudes going back to before the tech revolution. I think the critical element was the realization that being gay is not a choice.
Click to expand...

It's also harder to make an enemy out of someone you don't know. Back in the 90's when the DOTA movement started, just who was the voice of the homosexuals speaking out? There wasn't really, but now, thanks in no small part to the explosion of media, there are plenty of people out there championing that cause. Or maybe not even saying anything, just living their lives as normal as they can.

But that's true of ideas in general today. Look at the Tea Party movement, or Occupy Wall Street here in the US. It's been many years since we've seen anything of that sort of movement in the US, and even then, it was usually due to some huge public figure leading the charge. In the cases of the two political movements, the famous people only started jumping on board after the movements had already gained traction. These sorts of things I don't believe would of occurred without social media and the internet today.
 
Deuce said:
Birth control pills aren't just used for contraception. And the health plan in question was a student health plan. Students fund that health plan, not taxpayers.

But way to attack a woman based on what she looks like, not what she said. Real classy.
Click to expand...

Oh, this is not solely based on her looks, though she is an ugly beast. This woman is trying to bring down my country. She is my enemy. An enemy of the Constitution. I draw no quarter for such a beast. She is human debris, that which seeks to destroy us. A hound from hell. She is a pitiful, disgusting human being. And I use that term loosely.
 
Anthony60 said:
Oh, this is not solely based on her looks, though she is an ugly beast. This woman is trying to bring down my country. She is my enemy. An enemy of the Constitution. I draw no quarter for such a beast. She is human debris, that which seeks to destroy us. A hound from hell. She is a pitiful, disgusting human being. And I use that term loosely.
Click to expand...

Well, apparently not only gays can be drama queens!

ROFLMAO

:lamo :lamo :lamo
 
clownboy said:
It really is not. It is our founding and organizing document that can be changed by the will of the People, but the link to the People was broken when we allowed the SCOTUS to reinterpret it to suit. Now, it is the will of the nine robed.

State constitutions could be considered the will of the People.
Click to expand...

Supremacy clause. The document literally starts "We the people of the United States..." It is the will of the people regardless of your opinion. Our soldiers do not swear to protect any state constitution. They swear to protect the US Constitution.
 
Anthony60 said:
Nope, doesn't work. Doesn't give the Federal government any authority to act on SSM.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a law last I checked. Gay and lesbian Americans are citizens. So yeah it does.
 
clownboy said:
And yet, not supporting homosexual marriage. Interesting. Even one of the homosexual bastion states (California) voted for a state constitutional ban.
Click to expand...

lol back in 2008 and thanks to a great deal of lies from the mormons about churches being forced to marry gay couples and civil unions being identical already. Not to excuse stupidity, laziness, and gullibility by voters, but that is entirely different from your kind of opposition
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom