• 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

yeah thanks, i figured he wasn't worth my time to put together a more detailed argument. We both could link to dozens of articles and police reports on soldiers discharged under DADT, assaults, school expulsion etc etc, but he won't even bother to read and will just hold fingers to ears, so screw it.

Yes, the omission is the admission.
 
Day 4 and still not a peep from DP's resident homophobe. I'm shocked...I tell ya....shocked. Could it be that he has finally come to the realization that he and his ilk have been defeated?

think it's more likely he can't gloat and gay bash in this thread. I'd bet good $ on him making the first thread if/when the circuit 6 court upholds the ban, then once again remaining silent when scotus overturns that.
 
Show me the right to marry for same sex couples, also show me the results of those elections where states voted to ban ssm and we will talk about 1 elected official subverting the will of the people

Show me the right for two people of different IQs to marry or two people of different heights, weights, economic statuses, races.

The will of the simple majority at a single instance in time (when a vote was taken) is not the main governing interest of the US. Freedom is. We are not a direct democracy. Government, including laws voted on directly by the people (a bad idea anyway), are still limited by the US Constitution, and that means freedoms and rights win over when the people cannot show a legitimate state interest furthered by a law or restriction.
 
There is now. The context was the relationship between older court cases and the current stream. The abbreviation SSM is useful in that context to keep the discussion clear.

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.
 
Proposed is not established.

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.
 
The institution of heterosexual marriage is thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of years old. That's the difference.

And so is same sex marriage, even if it is not nearly as prevalent as opposite sex marriage.
 
That is an incomprehensible assertion. The evolution of attitudes on same sex marriage, from dismissal to acceptance in a generation, is the most far reaching and rapid shift in history.

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.
 
Wow, that's funny. I heard the show too, and he explained things in great detail.

I only heard it from about 330 to 400. He said smeting about the a violation of the 10th amendment, but I didn't hear him go into any detail: what'd he say about it all?

Thanks
 
Please tell me of one woman who uses birth control without a man? There are some that are prescribed The Pill for medical purposes but otherwise, ALL bc is used equally by men and women...but women are stuck with purchasing most of it. Men benefit equally from bc.

What does that have to do with anything? I remember that Sandra Fluck whining before Congress about how badly she need fre contraception while attending Georgetown Law school.
 
There is no national majority against same sex couples getting married and everyday more and more people either come to support it or simply don't care enough about it.
Lets take a vote and see, and no one can see who voted how. You will lose.
 
Show me the right for two people of different IQs to marry or two people of different heights, weights, economic statuses, races.

The will of the simple majority at a single instance in time (when a vote was taken) is not the main governing interest of the US. Freedom is. We are not a direct democracy. Government, including laws voted on directly by the people (a bad idea anyway), are still limited by the US Constitution, and that means freedoms and rights win over when the people cannot show a legitimate state interest furthered by a law or restriction.

so by your own admission people can marry anyone or anything they want, as many as they want right, because that is what it sounds like. So incest marriage is ok, and marrying animals is ok, and I can have as many as I want, what about pedophiles, and children can they get married if the child consents.
 
What does that have to do with anything? I remember that Sandra Fluck whining before Congress about how badly she need fre contraception while attending Georgetown Law school.

And didnt bother to think past it to the fact that it enables men to have sex just as much as women. That she would use it equally as much as a man...or wouldnt need it at all.

Men and women use bc equally, but women are the ones that have to pay for most of it. So the whining about women is hypocritical and if men arent careful...not in their own best interests.
 
Lets take a vote and see, and no one can see who voted how. You will lose.


The last for votes during General Election ballots were actually won by those supporting equal treatment of same-sex couples.



>>>>
 
The last for votes during General Election ballots were actually won by those supporting equal treatment of same-sex couples.



>>>>

And yet, not supporting homosexual marriage. Interesting. Even one of the homosexual bastion states (California) voted for a state constitutional ban.
 
Why? I thought the "equal protection" clause applied to just about everything. You're saying it doesn't apply to me?

There are specific mechanics to the equal protection clause. you can pretend otherwise all you want.
 
so by your own admission people can marry anyone or anything they want, as many as they want right, because that is what it sounds like. So incest marriage is ok, and marrying animals is ok, and I can have as many as I want, what about pedophiles, and children can they get married if the child consents.

No, nobody said that, why would you lie like that?

Animals, furniture, and children cannot sign legal contracts. The first two aren't people, so I'm not sure why you think they have rights. Why do you think furniture has rights?
 
Guess what? Your opinion doesn't matter either. Well, that's cleared up now.

Nope it doesn't, but then I'm not the one bitching about SSM like you are.
 
And didnt bother to think past it to the fact that it enables men to have sex just as much as women. That she would use it equally as much as a man...or wouldnt need it at all.

Men and women use bc equally, but women are the ones that have to pay for most of it. So the whining about women is hypocritical and if men arent careful...not in their own best interests.

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!
 
There are specific mechanics to the equal protection clause. you can pretend otherwise all you want.

Well, gee it's limited now, is it? Hmm... wonder what it was intended for, SSM? Don't think so. In fact, we don't have to wonder, because we know exactly what it was for.
 
Back
Top Bottom