• 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]

I am up for the government staying out of marriage and doing away with all public accommodation laws. But I am not up for people who claim those are their position when they really just oppose homosexuality.

Were talking about marriage here - not civil rights....
 
I took Latin for four years (no, I'm actually not bragging about that, that's a lot more like a confession). "Ad" is "to" so an ad hominem is "to the man" Which your insult was because you mentioned the derogatory comment ("12-teen") and then addressed it ("you"). Ergo (that's another Latin word, it means "therefore") you made an ad hom. I've been completely respectful of your sexuality in this thread, and feel I haven't merited your ill treatment toward me.

Yeah, I was a paralegal for 2 years, and I know Latin - it kinda came up an often lot...

You just don't know the reference.

Besides the root cause of "ad" results in adjective - which I didn't use so go "learn off"...
 
So what would be the difference?

Exactly it should start with the issues that many ended marriages deal with way too late. The difference would be a proper contract in the beginning, before the vows are taken.
 
It's only a matter of time before gays hit the 50% divorce rate. :lol:
 
Yeah, I was a paralegal for 2 years, and I know Latin - it kinda came up an often lot...

You just don't know the reference.

Besides the root cause of "ad" results in adjective - which I didn't use so go "learn off"...

I'll take that to mean that you used the terms, but were never required to translate them while I had to translate them every day. They weren't just sounds like "Sony" or "Mitsubishi" or whatever. We actually had to know what they meant. Therefore ad hominem, to the man, is specifically addressed to a person. Unless you didn't actually use the word "you" in your insult to me? Maybe you meant someone else?

Anyway, this is off topic. My question to you is, now that gay marriage is legal, how is that anything but a plus for you?
 
Privileges aren't rights, where is gay marriage in the constitution, yadda yadda yadda.

Just thought I'd be the first one to hijack this topic for a change.

Also, something about tyranny and overriding the will of people because ballot initiatives. Oh, and activist judges.
 
I'll take that to mean that you used the terms, but were never required to translate them while I had to translate them every day. They weren't just sounds like "Sony" or "Mitsubishi" or whatever. We actually had to know what they meant. Therefore ad hominem, to the man, is specifically addressed to a person. Unless you didn't actually use the word "you" in your insult to me? Maybe you meant someone else?

Anyway, this is off topic. My question to you is, now that gay marriage is legal, how is that anything but a plus for you?

I can either speak or understand : Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German, French, French Canadian, Mexican Spanish, Russian, Finnish, Italian and CZK.
 
The United States first ten amendments and the other seventeen if they don't contradict the first ten?

And who gets to decide whether same-sex marriage falls under the protections of those amendments?
 
I can either speak or understand : Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German, French, French Canadian, Mexican Spanish, Russian, Finnish, Italian and CZK.

In addition to ad homs, please refrain from threadjacking the discussion. The topic is same sex marriage, not linguistics. My question to you is, now that gay marriage is legal, how is that anything but a plus for you?
 
And who gets to decide whether same-sex marriage falls under the protections of those amendments?

Well, I suppose congress if there was a law - but there isn't a law..

I cannot change that - nor would I - even if I had the power to do so despite the fact I'm against homosexual marriage morally....

You don't get it do you?
 
In addition to ad homs, please refrain from threadjacking the discussion. The topic is same sex marriage, not linguistics. My question to you is, now that gay marriage is legal, how is that anything but a plus for you?

Oh blow it out of your ass.... I'm on topic... You just need to stop asking stupid questions that will derail the topic..
 
Please note the dbaj rule (don't be a jerk).

4. Don't Be A Jerk (DBAJ) - This simply means what it sounds like.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/forum-rules/28594-forum-rules.html

I'm completely on topic and haven't addressed you with anything but the utmost respect.

I love it..

Latin was always fun.... If you actually know Latin you would know that the majority of those legal "ideas" (to make it simple) are ridiculous in nature (no pun) ...


Dude WTF.... All my Latin is flooding back to me... "the horse sat on the indigent man" ...... It's amazing how such stupid ideas are used today in the courts.... Sometimes I don't even think law students even understand or even veteran attorneys..

Our judicial system sounds can sound like bathroom jokes...

The best part is 90% of lawyers are not fluent in Latin... They associate phrases with ideas - even judges (which are lawyers) they're just as stupid.
 
Well, I suppose congress if there was a law - but there isn't a law..

I cannot change that - nor would I - even if I had the power to do so despite the fact I'm against homosexual marriage morally....

You don't get it do you?

If you morally disapprove of same-sex marriage then it really does not matter whether or not you believe the constitution protects it. Moral judgements are the end of any debate. All other reasoning is just to justify the moral belief. Even how you would interpret the Constitution.

So then the real question is what is the basis for your moral disapproval of same-sex relationships. Because it is icky? Because you believe God said so? Because you believe you see no inherent purpose to same-sex relationships which falls within a grand design of the world? Because you were not hugged enough as a child?
 
If we did away with government recognized marriage and/or public accomodation laws, however, until we do, I will fight for equal coverage under the law for the LGBT community.
 
I love it..

Latin was always fun.... If you actually know Latin you would know that the majority of those legal "ideas" (to make it simple) are ridiculous in nature (no pun) ...


Dude WTF.... All my Latin is flooding back to me... "the horse sat on the indigent man" ...... It's amazing how such stupid ideas are used today in the courts.... Sometimes I don't even think law students even understand or even veteran attorneys..

Our judicial system sounds can sound like bathroom jokes...

The best part is 90% of lawyers are not fluent in Latin... They associate phrases with ideas - even judges (which are lawyers) they're just as stupid.

Whether or not lawyers understand Latin is not the discussion. Please try to stay on topic. Do you not understand that with legalized ssm you can now marry someone of either gender now? That's more rights than you had under the previous system.
 
Last edited:
If you morally disapprove of same-sex marriage then it really does not matter whether or not you believe the constitution protects it. Moral judgements are the end of any debate. All other reasoning is just to justify the moral belief. Even how you would interpret the Constitution.

So then the real question is what is the basis for your moral disapproval of same-sex relationships. Because it is icky? Because you believe God said so? Because you believe you see no inherent purpose to same-sex relationships which falls within a grand design of the world? Because you were not hugged enough as a child?

Sometimes my morals contradict the Bill of Rights, however I know the difference between Illegal and not and the progressives really don't.... I think FDR proved that to us all with him taking us off the gold standard and throwing the Japanese into camps...
 
Moderator's Warning:
Next personal comment either gets a thread ban, an infraction, or both.
 
Sometimes my morals contradict the Bill of Rights, however I know the difference between Illegal and not and the progressives really don't.... I think FDR proved that to us all with him taking us off the gold standard and throwing the Japanese into camps...

You should probably go back further back in history before you judge too much. Lets remember that before the 1890's(I think) the country was using gold and silver as legal tender. Banks were pushing the end of using gold and silver and change more to the federal reserve system we have today at the time, but in the end after failing repeatedly to move towards their goals settled with just the gold standard.
 
You should probably go back further back in history before you judge too much. Lets remember that before the 1890's(I think) the country was using gold and silver as legal tender. Banks were pushing the end of using gold and silver and change more to the federal reserve system we have today at the time, but in the end after failing repeatedly to move towards their goals settled with just the gold standard.

The gold standard is useless.....

You think that I want gold?? what the **** am I going to do with gold? forage a gold hammer to build a house? gold nails -a ****ing gun with gold bullets to shoot your ass?

How dense is gold?

Fundamental super-problem..

You think if society collapsed these elitist retards would be thinking about "crowns" and "tiaras" and ****? Of course they would they would probably eat the ****....
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom