• 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!

South Carolina Supreme Court Halts Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

blarg said:
except the state is not treating its citizens equally since men can marry women their but women cant marry women their and the reverse

its as legal as banning interracial couples
Click to expand...

Yes, I will be needing you to explain how the government works for all people unless I happen to be one of those people.
 
it's just me said:
That is not how we do things in America. If the Feds have the votes, let them pass a law and let the president sign it. The opinion of an unelected judge as law is not democracy, it is oligharchy, and THAT is what is not Constitutional.

I say put it to a nationwide vote and we will see just who is in the majority.
Click to expand...

um that's exactly how we do things in America

and its seems to be constitutional

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
 
it's just me said:
The minority does not have veto power over the will of the people, that is not Constitutional.

Make a law and pass it, if you think you are so much in the right.
Click to expand...

unless the will of the people violates some ones rights

we cant all vote to chop your head off if we feel like it for example
 
blarg said:
um that's exactly how we do things in America

and its seems to be constitutional

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Click to expand...

I missed the part where they can create law.

They can send the law back to the state, tell them to write another law, they can't make the law themselves. That's what legislatures do.
 
Lursa said:
God NEVER says you can hate other people. Ever. Or do them harm. As in denying them and their children the same things as other people.

Only HE can judge. And deny or not.

Living in America, we DO NOT discriminate. If your beliefs oppose that, too bad. But hey, no one is preventing you from living your own beliefs...are they?
Click to expand...

Rejecting sin is not discrimination or prejudice.

I don't see pervasive homosexual fornicators on the character-neutral attributes list.
 
WCH said:
Because that broad brush doesn't apply to me.

And as I repeat...interracial marriage is not in the Bible.
Click to expand...

yet you both use the same kind of faith based prejudice your a lot like religious racists deal with it
 
blarg said:
unless the will of the people violates some ones rights

we cant all vote to chop your head off if we feel like it for example
Click to expand...

The will of the people will ALWAYS violate someone's rights, according to you. You violate MY rights, who do I see about that?

You're about to find out.
 
it's just me said:
Yes, I will be needing you to explain how the government works for all people unless I happen to be one of those people.
Click to expand...

no one should be able to stop your from marriage some one of another race or another guy got your back buddy wish you would be so kind to others
 
it's just me said:
I missed the part where they can create law.

They can send the law back to the state, tell them to write another law, they can't make the law themselves. That's what legislatures do.
Click to expand...

where did the courts create law?
 
Lursa said:
Not overlooked. Accepted or rejected....as any American has the right to do.
Click to expand...

If we reject the knowledge of God's word, continue to do perverse things to our bodies and refuse to repent, he will reject us. Bottom line.
 
WCH said:
Rejecting sin is not discrimination or prejudice.

I don't see pervasive homosexual fornicators on the character-neutral attributes list.
Click to expand...

sure can be since sin is your opinion/faith

discrimination- the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people


prejudice



[ ˈprejədəs ]


noun

noun: prejudice · plural noun: prejudices
1.
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience:
 
it's just me said:
The will of the people will ALWAYS violate someone's rights, according to you. You violate MY rights, who do I see about that?

You're about to find out.
Click to expand...

um how according to me will the will of the people always violate some ones rights?
 
WCH said:
If we reject the knowledge of God's word, continue to do perverse things to our bodies and refuse to repent, he will reject us. Bottom line.
Click to expand...

you have not demonstrated you have any Knowledge of a god

or why the god would be right in this case
 
blarg said:
hears a good 1

o and as a bonus

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


hears the rest of it if you care to point out the part that says the amendment must mention specific laws in order for itself to be applied

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]
Click to expand...

So we make up special laws for the Homosexual community because....?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, this IS the same thing as racism. If a kid at school starts calling a black kid some racist name, he'll probably get picked on. Same thing happens if someone picks on someone for being gay. No problem with either.
Click to expand...

I was speaking of indoctrination, not comparing people of different races with homosexuals.

When our children are scolded for not accepting sinful acts as normal, there's something pretty messed up going on.
 
WCH said:
So we make up special laws for the Homosexual community because....?
Click to expand...

nothing special about ssm it treats every one equally under the law and your free to use it to

banding people who you can marry by gender that special tremtnet and not equal protection

just like it was with bans on interracial marriage
 
WCH said:
I was speaking of indoctrination, not comparing people of different races with homosexuals.

When our children are scolded for not accepting sinful acts as normal, there's something pretty messed up going on.
Click to expand...

anything can be considered a sin you treat people badly based on faith were not going to take it

now while clean rooms are a fine thing

 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
Then take them out of school and teach them yourself.



Your belief is irrelevant to facts, but if you don't want your children educated to reality, teach them yourself and keep them ignorant.



No, we want to ignore misinterpretations of scripture both with accurate translations and with facts and research. That trumps your opinions any day.
Click to expand...

No ones opinion is any less important than another here and, YOU as a Mod, should adhere to that notion.
 
Kobie said:
That's nonsense. The notion that your marriage, your lifelong commitment to another human being, is somehow "cheapened" by gay marriage means that said relationship was never particularly strong to begin with.
Click to expand...

Not if one considers SSM a sinful 'commitment'
That's what you fail to grasp.
 
WCH said:
Not if one considers SSM a sinful 'commitment'
That's what you fail to grasp.
Click to expand...

Even if you do, how does it affect YOU or YOUR commitment in any way?

Premarital sex is "sinful." Does its existence make your sex life (ew) less fulfilling?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom