• 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!

Federal government recognizes same-sex marriages in six more states [W:70,126]

Cardinal said:
[record scratch]

Did someone say that?
Click to expand...

I never heard that one but its just as logical as all the other dishonesty people try to push
 
Mr.Nick said:
1.)The government shouldn't be recognizing or endorsing any marriage.
2.)Just to play along tho, Bill Clinton and DOMA is precedent - at least it's enough precedent to contradict your claims in progressiveland....
Click to expand...

1.) they have to its a contract, government protects contracts <shrug>
2.) as usual this makes no sense to anything said
 
Mr.Nick said:
As a libertarian I don't see gay, straight, black or white - I see liberty and our Bill of Rights...
Click to expand...

unless they are people you dont like then you dont care about thier rights or liberty, see the quote in my sig.
 
Mr.Nick said:
1.)I'm not opposed to same sex marriage politically
2.)- I'm opposed to government recognizing marriage straight or gay.
3.)Also, who I **** is none of your business unless I make it your business so if I were you I would stop spreading rumors on general principal......
4.)My sex life or morals have NOTHING TO DO with the Bill of Rights.
5.) Unlike most people my morals/ethics are not my frame of reference.
Click to expand...

1.) your post history proves otherwise
2.) its a contract government has to protect it
3.) correct just like it is for others, this is why you views need to stay out of thier business and freedoms
4.) correct, your personal morals are meaningless to rights so see #3 again
5.) see #1
 
AGENT J said:
1.) your post history proves otherwise
2.) its a contract government has to protect it
3.) correct just like it is for others, this is why you views need to stay out of thier business and freedoms
4.) correct, your personal morals are meaningless to rights so see #3 again
5.) see #1
Click to expand...

What universe you in?

How about your concept is **** and I never want to hear it again..
 
AGENT J said:
1.) your post history proves otherwise
2.) its a contract government has to protect it
3.) correct just like it is for others, this is why you views need to stay out of thier business and freedoms
4.) correct, your personal morals are meaningless to rights so see #3 again
5.) see #1
Click to expand...

What universe you in?

How about your concept is **** and I never want to hear it again..
 
Mr.Nick said:
My answer is - and always will be - that the government has no right to acknowledge marriage legally.

Do you understand that?
Click to expand...

so who will protect the LEGAL contract then? lol

you NEVER answer this question
 
Mr.Nick said:
How old are you 12-teen?

How about the federal government doesn't acknowledge marriage?

Have another drink while you ponder that insane concept.
Click to expand...

again, so who will protect the LEGAL contract then?
 
Peter King said:
I did, hence my response to that exact post. That post only spoke about there not being "gay marriage" in there, I wrote that there was not even the mention of the word marriage at all.
Click to expand...

remind us all again why the word has to be in there?
(hint: it doesnt)
 
AGENT J said:
remind us all again why the word has to be in there?
(hint: it doesnt)
Click to expand...

Where does the world "have to be?"

Is it Jupiter or Mars or both?
 
Mr.Nick said:
1.)What universe you in?

How about your concept is **** and I never want to hear it again..
Click to expand...

translation: you cant defend you failed claims
I haven't presented any concept to you only stated reality and facts

let us know when you have any that support you, thanks
 
Mr.Nick said:
Maybe you and your tooth-hole will?
Click to expand...

LMAO
thats what I thought, you have no answer because the government has to protect legal contracts.

I ask again who will protect the contract then?

GOvernment will NEVER be out of marriage nor is that even possible. People could fight to not have marriage contracts but that wont change anything it will simply make it harder for our rights to be protected, involve MORE government in MORE contracts that are needed to replace the already existing marriage contract.

Its a very inane solution that is counter protective, involves MORE government and cost more money.
 
AGENT J said:
translation: you cant defend you failed claims
I haven't presented any concept to you only stated reality and facts

let us know when you have any that support you, thanks
Click to expand...

Yeah...

Now which one is it Mars or Jupitercock sucker,
 
Mr.Nick said:
Where does the world "have to be?"

Is it Jupiter or Mars or both?
Click to expand...

like the post you have made this makes no sense.

but please feel free to answer the question and not dodge it.

remind us why the word marriage has to be in the constitution like some claim? thanks
 
Mr.Nick said:
What universe you in?

How about your concept is **** and I never want to hear it again..
Click to expand...

Can I ask what other types of social contract you don't think the government should be enforcing? For example, do you think the government has no business enforcing adoption documents? What about custody of children? Should the government also get out of enforcing those contracts? What about say... business partnerships. Should the government not deal with those either? Just which social contracts should the government be involved in enforcing/protecting/dealing with?
 
AGENT J said:
LMAO
thats what I thought, you have no answer because the government has to protect legal contracts.

I ask again who will protect the contract then?

GOvernment will NEVER be out of marriage nor is that even possible. People could fight to not have marriage contracts but that wont change anything it will simply make it harder for our rights to be protected, involve MORE government in MORE contracts that are needed to replace the already existing marriage contract.

Its a very inane solution that is counter protective, involves MORE government and cost more money.
Click to expand...

I think the word NO speaks volumes.

It's, a nasty word, it's a nice word and it is a beautiful word...

NO...
 
Mr.Nick said:
Yeah...

Now which one is it Mars or Jupitercock sucker,
Click to expand...

LMAO!!!!
so you still can't answer?

well when you can tell us please do, the question is who will protect the contract if not the government.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I think the word NO speaks volumes.

It's, a nasty word, it's a nice word and it is a beautiful word...

NO...
Click to expand...

finally, thank you for admitting it, NO you have no answer because your solution as been proven to be a failure by muiltiple posters. Thank you
 
Hatuey said:
Can I ask what other types of social contract you don't think the government should be enforcing? For example, do you think the government has no business enforcing adoption documents? What about custody of children? Should the government also get out of enforcing those contracts? What about say... business partnerships. Should the government not deal with those either? Just which social contracts should the government be involved in enforcing/protecting/dealing with?
Click to expand...


I wouldn't do business with labor unions...............
 
AGENT J said:
finally, thank you for admitting it, NO you have no answer because your solution as been proven to be a failure by muiltiple posters. Thank you
Click to expand...

You're not worthy of my answer -- You ask the wrong questions.
 
Mr.Nick said:
You're not worthy of my answer -- You ask the wrong questions.
Click to expand...

you already answered you said NO you have no answer, thanks!
We already knew that

When you do have a solution that is better than equal rights let us know, thank you
 
Hatuey said:
Can I ask what other types of social contract you don't think the government should be enforcing? For example, do you think the government has no business enforcing adoption documents? What about custody of children? Should the government also get out of enforcing those contracts? What about say... business partnerships. Should the government not deal with those either? Just which social contracts should the government be involved in enforcing/protecting/dealing with?
Click to expand...

At least a try,,
 
Hatuey said:
Can I ask what other types of social contract you don't think the government should be enforcing? For example, do you think the government has no business enforcing adoption documents? What about custody of children? Should the government also get out of enforcing those contracts? What about say... business partnerships. Should the government not deal with those either? Just which social contracts should the government be involved in enforcing/protecting/dealing with?
Click to expand...

this question will be dodged it always is and has been dodged for years.
 
AGENT J said:
you already answered you said NO you have no answer, thanks!
We already knew that

When you do have a solution? when that is better than civil liberties let us know, thank you
Click to expand...


In what universe do you believe I should even acknowledge your stupid ****?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom