• 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!

Arkansas, Mississippi overturn gay marriage bans

I can't wait for the polygamy rulings to start. Wonder if the Mormon church will go back to their old ways.
 
So sick of hearing about this. It isn't even news anymore. I wish every state would just overturn it, stop acting like their state is somehow going to be different and keep their SSM ban, and move this crap along.

well i disagree about the news part, on an issue like equal rights every little step is news to me and I love hearing about it

but

i agree 100% with you about every state just doing it already. You would think in 2014 the states would just respect equal rights, the 14 and not overstep thier power only to be corrected by the fed.
 
I can't wait for the polygamy rulings to start. Wonder if the Mormon church will go back to their old ways.

while id support polygamy as long as it follows the rules of consensual adults thats a totally different issue, theres zero precedence solely from equal rights for gays that loans itself to polygamy.
 
while id support polygamy as long as it follows the rules of consensual adults thats a totally different issue, theres zero precedence solely from equal rights for gays that loans itself to polygamy.

How is it a 'different issue'. The State can't govern who you marry.....right?
 
How is it a 'different issue'. The State can't govern who you marry.....right?

false, if you knew anythign about this issue its a rights issue and if you read any of the rullings you would know that the state cant violate individual rights HUGE difference

that state has many powers where it can govern marriage but those powers end at the infringement of individual rights
 
false, if you knew anythign about this issue its a rights issue and if you read any of the rullings you would know that the state cant violate individual rights HUGE difference

that state has many powers where it can govern marriage but those powers end at the infringement of individual rights

An 'individual' wanting to have ten wives is an 'individual'.......no difference......and we will start getting positive polygamy rulings as soon as the SCOTUS finally rules on this issue.
 
An 'individual' wanting to have ten wives is an 'individual'.......no difference......and we will start getting positive polygamy rulings as soon as the SCOTUS finally rules on this issue.

im not sure what country you are from but thats not what idividual rights mean in the US on any level what so eve, its 100% different lol

some individual want to rape, murder, be millionaires also that doesnt mean the have the right

thank you for proving you are severely uneducated about this issue and dont understand it.
if you disagree of course simply tell me the precedence that belongs solely to gay rights that will lone itself to polygamy, id love to read it
Let me know when you educated yourself on this issue so you can avoid these mistakes in the future, thanks!
 
How is it a 'different issue'. The State can't govern who you marry.....right?

The state can, since it attaches benefits to marriage. It just can't discriminate. Polygamy has a number of legal complications, such as divorce and custody, that might exclude it under "compelling interest." In any case, i hardly care to embrace mormons latching onto this movement, after they mostly worked against SSM.
 
im not sure what country you are from but thats not what idividual rights mean in the US on any level what so eve, its 100% different lol

some individual want to rape, murder, be millionaires also that doesnt mean the have the right

thank you for proving you are severely uneducated about this issue and dont understand it.
if you disagree of course simply tell me the precedence that belongs solely to gay rights that will lone itself to polygamy, id love to read it
Let me know when you educated yourself on this issue so you can avoid these mistakes in the future, thanks!

Dude, I'm on your side. Individual rights is individual rights. If someone wants to marry a donkey, who am I and the State to stand in their way. You need to be more tolerant and put down the hate.
 
1.)Dude, I'm on your side.
2.) Individual rights is individual rights.
3.) If someone wants to marry a donkey, who am I and the State to stand in their way. You need to be more tolerant and put down the hate.

1.) whether you are on the side or equal rights doesnt matter to the fact that you dont know what they are and how the law works
2.) yes if we are really discussing rights, which you have already proven not to know or understand.
3.) thank you for again proving how severely uneducated you are on this issue because what you just mentions is factually not a right lol

we are still waiting for you to provide the precedence that belongs solely to gay rights that will lone itself to polygamy, i bet you dodge it again
 
The state can, since it attaches benefits to marriage. It just can't discriminate. Polygamy has a number of legal complications, such as divorce and custody, that might exclude it under "compelling interest." In any case, i hardly care to embrace mormons latching onto this movement, after they mostly worked against SSM.

How is telling a man who wants to have ten wives not 'discrimination'? Are you saying that SSM doesn't have 'legal complications such as divorce and custody"?
 
How is telling a man who wants to have ten wives not 'discrimination'? Are you saying that SSM doesn't have 'legal complications such as divorce and custody"?

Because he can have 1 wife like everyone else...

And no, i don't see what complications would be comparable. It's 2 parents, 2 adults whether same or opposite sex
 
Weird, can you point out where it refers to blacks in the 14th?

and can you explain why it has be referenced in 1000s of cases that doesnt have to do with blacks?

sorry your statement is factually wrong

So.

It has been incorrectly used in 1,000s of cases.
 
We have had gay marriage in my state for a month now.

God hasn't smited anyone, the earth hasn't opened up and swallowed anyone, and dogs and cats still don't live in peace.
 
So.

It has been incorrectly used in 1,000s of cases.

Yeah "equal protection" and "due process" are not at all principles we should strive for /s
 
So.

It has been incorrectly used in 1,000s of cases.

yes we know you "claim" that lol but you havent been able to back that nonsense up with anything. please do so in your next post, i bet you dodge it again.
 
We have had gay marriage in my state for a month now.

God hasn't smited anyone, the earth hasn't opened up and swallowed anyone, and dogs and cats still don't live in peace.

Gods timeline isn't ours.

He waited 40 years before punishing Israel for their mistreatment of a neighboring nation (and a king later). See Chronicles regarding this.
 
The ONLY purpose of the 14th amendment was to ensure that black Americans would have the same rights across the former Confederate states as they had in the rest of the nation.

Which was why the 14th was passed in conjunction with the 13th & 15th amendments.

Would it surprise you to learn that the word "race" doesn't appear in the 14th amendment?
 
Gods timeline isn't ours.

He waited 40 years before punishing Israel for their mistreatment of a neighboring nation (and a king later). See Chronicles regarding this.

That just makes God a giant dick, I don't see why anyone thinks this strengthens their argument! 40 years? So two entire generations were born who had no clue what they were being punished for because they weren't alive when it happened? This is the God whose demands I should adhere to?
 
Would it surprise you to learn that the word "race" doesn't appear in the 14th amendment?

Doesn't matter.

Are you denying it was passed due to the events of the Civil War and the freeing of black Americans from slavery?

Do you really think it was written and passed because

"We might want to apply it to a presidential election some day or give homosexuals the right to marry"?
 
Doesn't matter.

Are you denying it was passed due to the events of the Civil War and the freeing of black Americans from slavery?

Do you really think it was written and passed because

"We might want to apply it to a presidential election some day or give homosexuals the right to marry"?

Do you really think the constitution only applies to what the people writing it happened to think at that particular moment?

Presidential election? What are you referring to?
 
Last edited:
It won't be over until it's taken to SCOTUS and they're finally forced to rule on this. It'll be nice to finally see SCOTUS put this nonstop argument away. It'll be great to hear that religion doesn't have a monopoly on the word marriage.

It really won't be over until ssm is legal everywhere in the US because in the unlikely but still possible event that the SCOTUS rules that marriage bans do not violate the Constitution, there would almost certainly be more challenges in the future to those bans, just further down the line. However the opposite is not going to be true because a ruling that struck down the bans would lead to having no one with standing to challenge them since they would not exist.
 
You are right that it is certainly a gay old mob that wants to act as though gay matrimony were the same as matrimony of two sexes. But the gout de jour is irrational and so we will act as though they were the same.

Considering most of those fighting for same sex couples to get married are heterosexuals, this is an ignorant statement. Plus we aren't talking about matrimony here, which is part of personal marriages, but recognition of a relationship, legal kinship, which is absolutely legally the same as when it involves two people of the opposite sex because spouses are not treated by the law differently in their relation to their gender.
 
To prove what? That boys banging boys don't get kids? I think you will find that to be true all around. But Girls and boys, that is another story. That is why matrimony worked so well as a social tool. If you set it up, so that they slept in one bed, there was reproduction. If they had to stay together, that gave the kids security of upbringing. As easy as that.

Of course, technology has progressed, so that the social instrument no longer works as well as it did. So it would probably be a good idea to drop it altogether. Dis-involving the state in this would seem a good idea. That would put a now mostly useless public good into the private sector, where it belongs.

PS: That you do not know how legislation works in business was interesting.

Kids are not nor have they ever been in the US a legal requirement of marriage, and the ability to procreate is more likely to prevent at least some opposite sex couples from getting legally married than the inability to procreate.
 
Classic misapplication of the 14th Amendment which in no way was related to gay marriage.

Maybe we should pass an amendment overturning the 14th.

And such an effort would fail hard.
 
Back
Top Bottom