• 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!

Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

Denying gay people the right to be married while granting that right to straight people in an unconstitutional restriction on gay people's rights.

You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is that marriage isn't a right. You don't have a right to have a state issue you a marriage license for any model of relationship you want to have. The state defines the relationship models that fit; not you. The state is responsible for state sanctioned marriage; not you. You can live with anyone you want and love anyone you want and have sex with anyone that can consent to having sex with you. But you can't force the state to sanction your relationship.

But like I said. You are entitled to whatever opinion you wish on the matter.
 
Homosexuals should pursue that instead of trying to mimic the heterosexual model that they detest.

This is the point at which you crossed the line into overgeneralization and prejudice.
 
You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is that marriage isn't a right. You don't have a right to have a state issue you a marriage license for any model of relationship you want to have. The state defines the relationship models that fit; not you. The state is responsible for state sanctioned marriage; not you. You can live with anyone you want and love anyone you want and have sex with anyone that can consent to having sex with you. But you can't force the state to sanction your relationship.

But like I said. You are entitled to whatever opinion you wish on the matter.

and your opinion has been factually proven wrong, marriage is a right. SO your opinion is meaningless while others have the facts
 
Note that the states aren't banning homosexual liaisons. A state's ban on gay marriage is a statement that it is not going to be coerced into normalizing homosexuality and sanctioning homosexual unions and giving tax incentives for people to enter into homosexual unions. The "benefit" is that they don't have to jump through whatever hoops homosexuals want. Unless a state sees a benefit in doing so, it shouldn't be made to do so and this state sees no benefit in sanctioning homosexual unions as "marriage" and I think my state's decision is a wise one.

You keep bouncing back and forth between saying equal rights would be fine but then insist that homosexuals not be sanctioned by equal treatment under the law. Seriously, stop pretending you ever supported civil unions.
 
Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

You're not 'we the people. You're one person and most people in the USA don't agree with your ideas. Read a few polls.

here is a poll by Pew

And if this polling were accurate then why do the end run? Why not just enact the will of the people?

This is not about what is being done, but how it's being done. It very much matters how we get there.
 
And if this polling were accurate then why do the end run? Why not just enact the will of the people?

This is not about what is being done, but how it's being done. It very much matters how we get there.

Yes, and the courts stepping in to overturn an unconstituonal impedement to individual liberty is exactly how it should work. Rights of the minority shouldn't have to wait until the majority approves.
 
This is the point at which you crossed the line into overgeneralization and prejudice.

I should have restricted that to the multitude of homosexuals who use slurs like "breeders" when referring to heterosexuals.... and those like my brother that think marriage is a farce that homosexuals are too smart to get involved in.... or at least that was his position before homosexual marriage became the politically correct cause for homosexuals like himself. It is a generalization. But it's not an "overgeneralization" nor is it a prejudice. I know there are exceptions, but most homosexuals I've known (and I've known a LOT of them) always thought marriage was a "hetero" thing until very recent years and I'm very suspicious of the motivation for this sudden embracing of homosexual marriage by a community that previously thought it was the dumbest institution man ever created.
 
But they don't have the power to do that, it's the end of our constitutional republic!

Indeed they do, plain text and historical reading of the constitution is not the same as rewriting it to mean whatever you want it to mean.
 
Yes, and the courts stepping in to overturn an unconstituonal impedement to individual liberty is exactly how it should work. Rights of the minority shouldn't have to wait until the majority approves.

However, it was his assertion, shared by others, that the majority already approves.
 
You keep bouncing back and forth between saying equal rights would be fine but then insist that homosexuals not be sanctioned by equal treatment under the law. Seriously, stop pretending you ever supported civil unions.

I'm not bouncing back and forth about whether this is pertinent to equal rights. I've never considered this to be an equal rights issue and still don't. Homosexuals already have equal rights in all 50 states.
 
I'm not bouncing back and forth about whether this is pertinent to equal rights. I've never considered this to be an equal rights issue and still don't. Homosexuals already have equal rights in all 50 states.

But homosexuals want their marriages to be treated the same as an traditional marriage.
 
1.) I've never considered this to be an equal rights issue and still don't.
2.) Homosexuals already have equal rights in all 50 states.

1.) another factually wrong consideration
2.) another factually wrong assumption

do you live in america or are you foreign?
 
It is an equal rights issue and that's why the courts will support it no matter what you say.

We disagree. The justices of the supreme court disagree with each other on this, too. Homosexuals already have equal rights. No one is barred from marriage because they are homosexual. If you don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex, you don't really want to be married. You want to be in some other sort of a relationship but you don't want MARRIAGE. And it's not a violation of your rights that you can't dictate to the state what sorts of relationships they must sanction as marriage.

So that's that. You have your opinion. I have mine. And it's a pitched battle across the country. I think eventually the homosexuals will win this one but I think it's not because people think that homosexual marriage is a good thing for this country. I think they're just ready to acquiesce and move on to more important issues. I can relate to that. I don't think this is anywhere near the most important issue facing this country, either.
 
But homosexuals want their marriages to be treated the same as an traditional marriage.

I know. That's really the crux of it. It's not about equal rights for people. It's about demanding society consider their relationships to be sanctioned just like heterosexual relationships. I just don't believe the state has to sanction them if the state doesn't want to sanction them. Heterosexual family units make perfect sense. Homosexual "family units" don't. I think it's unrealistic to expect society to consider them both to be the same.
 
I know. That's really the crux of it. It's not about equal rights for people. It's about demanding society consider their relationships to be sanctioned just like heterosexual relationships. I just don't believe the state has to sanction them if the state doesn't want to sanction them. Heterosexual family units make perfect sense. Homosexual "family units" don't. I think it's unrealistic to expect society to consider them both to be the same.

Marriage is simply the union of two entity's in matromony.
 
I know. That's really the crux of it. It's not about equal rights for people. It's about demanding society consider their relationships to be sanctioned just like heterosexual relationships. I just don't believe the state has to sanction them if the state doesn't want to sanction them. Heterosexual family units make perfect sense. Homosexual "family units" don't. I think it's unrealistic to expect society to consider them both to be the same.

translation: you dont want equal rights, we get it.

but unfortunately for you people have rights in this country and equal rights is winning
 
Oh yes, I sure you will. You obviously care more about some folks agreeing with you than you do about t
he rewriting of the constitution by a few robed folks.



The US constitution has been amended and re-interpreted since it first came into existence. I'm sure that it will continue to be changed in the future.
 
Marriage is simply the union of two entity's in matromony.

It's the union of two entities.

It has nothing to do with matrimony.

Middle English, from Anglo-French matrimoignie, from Latin matrimonium, from matr-, mater mother, matron — more at mother

Matrimony only makes sense from a heterosexual perspective. It establishes the union of a man and woman as support for having children. It derives from motherhood, which can only naturally occur through a heterosexual union.

Homsexual unions are a sort of relationship but it is perverse to think of that sort of relationship as "marriage".
 
Indeed they do, plain text and historical reading of the constitution is not the same as rewriting it to mean whatever you want it to mean.

Yeah, I say the same thing about the 2nd Amendment but you wouldn't believe how many people want to completely ignore the first half of it. :roll:
 
I know. That's really the crux of it. It's not about equal rights for people. It's about demanding society consider their relationships to be sanctioned just like heterosexual relationships. I just don't believe the state has to sanction them if the state doesn't want to sanction them. Heterosexual family units make perfect sense. Homosexual "family units" don't. I think it's unrealistic to expect society to consider them both to be the same.

And they are legally sanctioned just like heterosexual relationships. Now if you want to consider them differently from a religious perspective, that's up to you, nobody really cares, but legally, we have a guarantee of equal protection under the law, that's how it's going to be. Deal with it.
 
Your English to Strawman translator is working like a champ, as always.

if you think i posted a strawman all you have to do is factually prove so, your posts prove you do not support equal rights :shrug:
we will wait for that proof, thanks lol
 
Back
Top Bottom