• 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

Papa bull said:
The "pedophile card" isn't weak at all if the argument is that people should be allowed to marry whatever they love and want to have sex with. It might not be an argument against homosexual marriage, but it's certainly proof that there's no right to marry whatever you want to have sex with and that was the argument I was responding to.
Click to expand...

I just gave you the reason why that's not actually a slippery slope.

Papa bull said:
The quote was: "Homosexuals do not have the right to marry who they genuinely love and are sexually attracted to, unlike heterosexuals. So no, they don't have the same rights. Try again.".

And I merely pointed out that pedophiles don't get to marry who they "genuinely love and are sexually attracted to", either. So much for the "rights" issue.
Click to expand...

Yes, and because preventing this furthers a compelling state interest, unequal treatment of pedophiles passes constitutional tests.
Same sex marriage bans do not pass this test.
 
Peter King said:
Problem is that your definition of marriage is discriminatory and mine isn't. You are wanting to exclude people based on their sexual preference and I do not.
Click to expand...

I am not interested in excluding people based on their sexual preference. I am interested in marriage staying the sensible institution it has always been (for the most part), as a union of the opposite sex. Homosexual marriage makes no sense at all and is, in fact, an oxymoron.
 
Papa bull said:
Homosexuals have the same rights everyone else has.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is the EXACT excuse used against interracial marriage at the time. Saying that they had "equal" rights because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. It's amazing how some cons are ALWAYS on the wrong side of history.

And no I'm not comparing the struggles of blacks to homosexuals, but in regards to marriage, yes that excuse was used.
 
Papa bull said:
Homosexual marriage makes no sense at all and is, in fact, an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. As usual you are on the wrong side of history. It isn't an oxymoron just because you say it is and the courts and rulings also prove you wrong.
 
Papa bull said:
1.)I am not interested in excluding people based on their sexual preference. I am interested in marriage staying the sensible institution it has always been (for the most part), as a union of the opposite sex.
2.) Homosexual marriage makes no sense at all and is, in fact, an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

1.)translation: your views are against equal rights and view homosexuals and bi-sexual as lesser
2.) facts prove this wrong to, so does a basic dictionary lol
 
Papa bull said:
I did address the subject head on. Homosexuals have the same rights everyone else has. The person who didn't come at this head on was the one that said that if you don't have the right to marry whatever gives you a chubby then you don't have equal rights and I pointed out that was wrong.
Click to expand...

Everyone has more rights when same sex couples can get married. Everyone can marry someone of the same sex, not just homosexuals and bisexuals. Plus, no one is losing any rights when same sex couples can marry legally.
 
I think we're done here. It seems no one is really interested in actual discussion and all I'm doing is agitating homosexuals. It's enough that my state hasn't capitulated to the politically correct insanity on this.
 
Papa bull said:
I think we're done here. Its seems no one is really interested in actual discussion and all I'm doing is agitating homosexuals. It's enough that my state hasn't capitulated to the politically correct insanity on this.
Click to expand...

Translation: your posts and the lies in them have been destroyed and debunked by many posters and many posts.



Nice chatting with you, Please come back when you can present any arguments that can be supported and backed up with facts. Thanks!
 
Papa bull said:
The quote was: "Homosexuals do not have the right to marry who they genuinely love and are sexually attracted to, unlike heterosexuals. So no, they don't have the same rights. Try again.".

And I merely pointed out that pedophiles don't get to marry who they "genuinely love and are sexually attracted to", either. So much for the "rights" issue.
Click to expand...

Hilarious - laws against pedophilia (child rape) prove that gays have no right to marry. Is that meant to be a serious argument? Scraping the dregs off the bottom of the barrel I see. LMAO.....
 
clownboy said:
Yes, because they ARE NOT responsible for interpreting the constitution, they were never given that grant of power, they took it. I'm not familiar with Coulter's arguments, but yes, I do believe the reconstruction amendments were targeted at, you know, reconstruction of the country without slavery.
Click to expand...

Given the last 200 years, I'd say the majority of the people have given them that power since so far no one has contradicted their decisions, even when those decisions pissed off a ton of people.
 
Papa bull said:
I think we're done here. It seems no one is really interested in actual discussion and all I'm doing is agitating homosexuals. It's enough that my state hasn't capitulated to the politically correct insanity on this.
Click to expand...

What's your state?
 
Cardinal said:
Ah. What's going on in that fine state with regards to ssm?
Click to expand...

Nothing. Ohio has a sane position on the matter.

Chapter 3101: MARRIAGE


3101.01 Persons who may be joined in marriage - minor to obtain consent.
(A) Male persons of the age of eighteen years, and female persons of the age of sixteen years, not nearer of kin than second cousins, and not having a husband or wife living, may be joined in marriage. A marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman. A minor shall first obtain the consent of the minor's parents, surviving parent, parent who is designated the residential parent and legal custodian of the minor by a court of competent jurisdiction, guardian, or any one of the following who has been awarded permanent custody of the minor by a court exercising juvenile jurisdiction:

(1) An adult person;

(2) The department of job and family services or any child welfare organization certified by the department;

(3) A public children services agency.

(B) For the purposes of division (A) of this section, a minor shall not be required to obtain the consent of a parent who resides in a foreign country, has neglected or abandoned the minor for a period of one year or longer immediately preceding the minor's application for a marriage license, has been adjudged incompetent, is an inmate of a state mental or correctional institution, has been permanently deprived of parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the minor and the right to have the minor live with the parent and to be the legal custodian of the minor by a court exercising juvenile jurisdiction, or has been deprived of parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the minor and the right to have the minor live with the parent and to be the legal custodian of the minor by the appointment of a guardian of the person of the minor by the probate court or by another court of competent jurisdiction.

(C)

(1) Any marriage between persons of the same sex is against the strong public policy of this state. Any marriage between persons of the same sex shall have no legal force or effect in this state and, if attempted to be entered into in this state, is void ab initio and shall not be recognized by this state.

(2) Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state.

(3) The recognition or extension by the state of the specific statutory benefits of a legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is against the strong public policy of this state. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of this state, as defined in section 9.82 of the Revised Code, that extends the specific statutory benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is void ab initio. Nothing in division (C)(3) of this section shall be construed to do either of the following:

(a) Prohibit the extension of specific benefits otherwise enjoyed by all persons, married or unmarried, to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes, including the extension of benefits conferred by any statute that is not expressly limited to married persons, which includes but is not limited to benefits available under Chapter 4117. of the Revised Code;

(b) Affect the validity of private agreements that are otherwise valid under the laws of this state.

(4) Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state, country, or other jurisdiction outside this state that extends the specific benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state.

Effective Date: 05-07-2004

3101.02 Method of consent.
Any consent required under section 3101.01 of the Revised Code shall be personally given before the probate judge or a deputy clerk of the probate court, or certified under the hand of the person consenting, by two witnesses, one of whom shall appear before the judge and make oath that the witness saw the person whose name is annexed to the certificate subscribe it, or heard the person consenting acknowledge it.

Amended by 129th General AssemblyFile No.52, SB 124, §1, eff. 1/13/2012.
Click to expand...
 
Papa bull said:
Nothing. Ohio has a sane position on the matter.
Click to expand...

Um...that's not what I'm gathering from Wikipedia.
Henry v. Himes
District court proceedings

On February 10, 2014, in Henry v. Wymyslo, four same-sex couples legally married in other states sued in U.S District Court Southern District of Ohio seeking to force the state to list both parents on their children's birth certificates. The judge assigned to the case, Judge Timothy Black, is the same assigned to Obergefell. Three of the couples were women living in Ohio, each anticipating the birth of a child later in 2014. The fourth was a male couple living in New York with their adopted son who was born in Ohio in 2013.[17]

While this lawsuit was pending, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to ask the court to declare Ohio's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Judge Black gave the state time to prepare its appeal of his decision by announcing on April 4 that he would issue an order on April 14 requiring Ohio to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.[18][19] Following the resignation of the lead defendant, Ohio's director of health, Ted Wymyslo, for reasons unrelated to the case, Lance Himes became interim director and the case was restyled Henry v. Himes.[20] On April 14, Black ruled that Ohio must recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions,[21] and on April 16 stayed enforcement of his ruling except for the birth certificates sought by the plaintiffs.[22]
Court of Appeals proceedings

After the state attorney general filed the necessary paperwork on May 9, 2014, Henry is currently on appeal in the Sixth Circuit, which heard oral arguments on August 6.
Cowger v. United States

On February 18, 2014, two men married in Chautauqua, New York, in 2012, and fathers of an adopted daughter since 2006, filed suit against the Federal and Ohio State governments in U.S. district court. They sought family healthcare coverage under the Affordable Care Act.[23] On March 28, the plaintiff couple voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit after obtaining a family policy. Their attorney commented that the lawsuit may have helped to clear up the confusion they had encountered with the insurance marketplace.[24]
Initiative to repeal constitutional ban

FreedomOhio and Equality Ohio are seeking state officials' approval of a ballot initiative that would replace the constitutional amendment and allow same-sex marriage.[25][26] Two prominent Republicans, Senator Rob Portman and former Attorney General Jim Petro, support repealing the same-sex marriage ban.[27]
Click to expand...

I think your little haven from gay marriage is living on borrowed time.
 
Cardinal said:
Um...that's not what I'm gathering from Wikipedia.


I think your little haven from gay marriage is living on borrowed time.
Click to expand...


Maybe, but I wouldn't make plans to come here to marry your boyfriend if I were you.
 
Papa bull said:
Maybe, but I wouldn't make plans to come here to marry your boyfriend if I were you.
Click to expand...

If I did have a boyfriend, I'd put twenty dollars on being able to marry him in Ohio within a year. And that's a conservative estimate.
 
Cardinal said:
Ah. What's going on in that fine state with regards to ssm?
Click to expand...

Papa bull said:
Nothing. Ohio has a sane position on the matter.
Click to expand...

wow you dont even know your own state LMAO further exposing how severely, topically uneducated you are on this subject

well Ill tell you cardnial, and those that live there might want to pay attention lol

Two RULINGS in federal lawsuits have declared that Ohio must respect out-of-state marriages.
A separate lawsuit has been filed in state court seeking the freedom to marry.

Ohio is also under the appeal to the 6th circuit court and when that decision comes down it will be ANOTHER state with equal rights :D

Litigation in Ohio | Freedom to Marry
Marriage Litigation at the 6th Circuit | Freedom to Marry
 
Cardinal said:
If I did have a boyfriend, I'd put twenty dollars on being able to marry him in Ohio within a year. And that's a conservative estimate.
Click to expand...

I agree, Id make that same bet and then if i was gay i go to ohio to get married just cause he said not too lol
 
Papa bull said:
Maybe, but I wouldn't make plans to come here to marry your boyfriend if I were you.
Click to expand...

I hope every gay in the tristate area goes there to get married once they have equal rights lol
 
Papa bull said:
Marriage equality. That's really the right phrase because this isn't about equal rights for people.

I hope my state has the distinction of being the last to succumb to liberal social engineering.
Click to expand...
Yea, great honor in clinging on to bigotry.
 
AGENT J said:
I agree, Id make that same bet and then if i was gay i go to ohio to get married just cause he said not too lol
Click to expand...

You can come out now, it's probably safe. You'll still have to find a guy willing to marry you.
 
Papa bull said:
We the people don't want our state to endorse homosexual marriage. I imagine it's a matter of time before the deviant left wins this but for now, the will of the people still prevails in my state. Thanks for asking.
Click to expand...
You are deluding yourself. Bigotry is not a majority anywhere, just an unpleasant relic of ignorance.
 
clownboy said:
You can come out now, it's probably safe. You'll still have to find a guy willing to marry you.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised he hasn't come out yet, either. It's like he's embarrassed about it or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom