• 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!

As gay marriages begin in Florida, Supreme Court is set to meet on issue

1.)We? We is the vast majority of persons in this nation.
2.) Feel free to hide behind your own brand of hate and name calling.
3.) LOL, ya'll really crack me up.

1.) again that doesnt answer anything
who is we?

news flash
im straight
im chrisitian
and the majority of the country support equal rights for gays

so try again, who is we

2.) what hate?
3.) what name calling
4.) ok but nobody honest, educated and objective fall for your deflections and strawmen. maybe in your next post you will address the facts and answer the questions lol

dont forget why do you hate?
 
That's interesting. I had no idea people who thought that states had rights or powers were hate-filled bigots. What an interesting sentiment from a "libertarian". :)

whats does this have to do with states rights?
 
This is untrue. Others have rights as well.



Have you ever looked up why Goldwater voted against the CRA?

Let me guess. Because he wanted to protect the "rights" of bigots and racists? Rights are never protected by stepping on others rights.
 
I'm simply stating a fact, the days of intolerance of minorities are over. Some just don't know it yet and time will take care of them. Like Steve Jobs said "Death is natures greatest invention...it makes way for the new."

in this case I doubt it. the fact is you are intolerant of other people suggests it will never go away. so your comment applies to you as well. time will take care of people just like you as well. becareful about how you try to define hatred it can back fire on you.

gay people are pretty much going to do that on their own unless they have surrogates or in the case of lesbians insemination.

as Nietzsche said when you look into the abyss the abyss looks back.
 
translation: you have no quote of me saying that but you made it up in your head based on your subjective opinion and assumption.
thanks for proving me right and proving you made a false statement

facts win again

Because it is accurate, you cannot get government into the mix without control. Just fact.
 
1.) again that doesnt answer anything
who is we?

news flash
im straight
im chrisitian
and the majority of the country support equal rights for gays

so try again, who is we

2.) what hate?
3.) what name calling
4.) ok but nobody honest, educated and objective fall for your deflections and strawmen. maybe in your next post you will address the facts and answer the questions lol

dont forget why do you hate?
So why wont the gay "rights" supporters put the issue to a national vote? If your contention of the nation being behind the idea is true. When it is put on a ballot, it fails.
 
in this case I doubt it. the fact is you are intolerant of other people suggests it will never go away. so your comment applies to you as well. time will take care of people just like you as well. becareful about how you try to define hatred it can back fire on you.

gay people are pretty much going to do that on their own unless they have surrogates or in the case of lesbians insemination.

as Nietzsche said when you look into the abyss the abyss looks back.

How is gay marriage intolerant of other people? It has nothing to do with you unless you are gay. You need to look at yourself for a minute.
 
Everyone dies, I'm simply stating a fact, the days of intolerance of minorities are over. Some just don't know it yet and time will take care of them. Like Steve Jobs said "Death is natures greatest invention...it makes way for the new." In a generation people will be shocked that we ever banned gay marriage.
No they wont be. Two men as a couple has been railed against since Christ times. Don't get your hopes up of total acceptance.
And no, this is not akin to the civil rights movement. Nothing even close to the same.
 
So why wont the gay "rights" supporters put the issue to a national vote? If your contention of the nation being behind the idea is true. When it is put on a ballot, it fails.

Since when do we let the majority repress the minority in this country. Let's have a national vote on gun control then.
 
How is gay marriage intolerant of other people? It has nothing to do with you unless you are gay. You need to look at yourself for a minute.

way to not read my post. your intolerance of other peoples views is the same thing you are railing about. guess what people like you will die out as well.
you rail against intolerance but ignore your own. hence why I said. when you look into the abyss the abyss looks back.

actually it is you that needs to examine yourself before railing on other people about intolerance.
 
Because it is accurate, you cannot get government into the mix without control. Just fact.

again that has nothing to do with your failed straw man lol
if you disagree simply qoute me saying " marriage is all about finances and outside controls" ill wait lol
your post completely fails and facts win again
 
So why wont the gay "rights" supporters put the issue to a national vote? If your contention of the nation being behind the idea is true. When it is put on a ballot, it fails.

they sort of did. it happened in multiple states across the nation and many people supported and defined marriage as between 1 man and 1 women.

what is going to be interesting to see is how many of these pro-gay supports become pro-polygamist supporters when polygamists start pushing for the same rights.
since marriage now has no definition. they can very easily win the same lawsuits with the same arguments.

we will see who is intolerant then.
 
way to not read my post. your intolerance of other peoples views is the same thing you are railing about. guess what people like you will die out as well.
you rail against intolerance but ignore your own. hence why I said. when you look into the abyss the abyss looks back.

actually it is you that needs to examine yourself before railing on other people about intolerance.

You can have any view you want but forcing them on others is intolerant by definition. What views am I forcing on you?
 
they sort of did. it happened in multiple states across the nation and many people supported and defined marriage as between 1 man and 1 women.

what is going to be interesting to see is how many of these pro-gay supports become pro-polygamist supporters when polygamists start pushing for the same rights.
since marriage now has no definition. they can very easily win the same lawsuits with the same arguments.

we will see who is intolerant then.

Marriage certainly does have a definition. It is a union between 2 people that love one another. Oh the horror.
 
Then what is government involvement in marriage about?

Lots of things. But to just throw your hands up and call all "contracts, laws, protections" a means of "control" is just absurd.
 
1.)So why wont the gay "rights" supporters put the issue to a national vote?
2.) If your contention of the nation being behind the idea is true.
3.) When it is put on a ballot, it fails.

1.) LOL why would anybody who values the constitution do that, thats not done because it violates the constitution.
2.) thats not "my" contention thats just a fact the majority support it
3.) Actually it has won 3 times but again that doesnt matter, but that just shows what you know about this topic
90+% of the country was against interracial marriage but that didnt mean it didn't violate rights to stop it, same with womans rights etc etc
 
No they wont be. Two men as a couple has been railed against since Christ times. Don't get your hopes up of total acceptance.
2.)And no, this is not akin to the civil rights movement. Nothing even close to the same.

1.) "acceptance" is necessary, equal rights will be just fine and equal rights is winning
2.) actually it is, many of the court cases even refer to civil rights and civil rights cases
 
So why wont the gay "rights" supporters put the issue to a national vote? If your contention of the nation being behind the idea is true.

Please provide the Constitutional reference and/or United States Code reference where anything is "put to a national vote" beyond the election of the President and Vice-President (and even then the votes are conducted at the state level).

When it is put on a ballot, it fails.


Actually the last four times the issued appeared on the General Election ballot (November 2012) the pro-Marriage Equality side won. (IIRC - Washington, Maryland, Maine, and Minnesota).


>>>>
 
So why wont the gay "rights" supporters put the issue to a national vote? If your contention of the nation being behind the idea is true. When it is put on a ballot, it fails.

LOL....it would easily win on a national ballot. That aside, civil rights should never be put to a "popular vote"....this is one of the main reasons we have a Constitution.
 
Not necessarily, the whole purpose of "contract, laws, protections, etc. (government)" is about control. To ensure an outcome that I contend the government has no Constitutional authority to enforce upon the populace. It has nothing to do with free to not have a legal marriage or not, it has to do with an unequal determination that also the government has no Constitutional authority to make. I have not missed anything, nor engaging in a Strawman (you may want to look up what that means.) By definition government interference into what is "legal marriage" for the purpose of protecting something is control.

I'll be honest that I used to think this pretty much.

But I do think that it's in society's best interests to have some contract that does cover all that marriage does for the protection of children, assets, inheritance, and many of the other things included in the marriage contract. With that said, it does not necessarily follow that the govt (state or fed) must offer benefits and tax options based on that contract.

People in the US are free to live together in any combinations they choose. If they want the legal benefits and privileges that come with marriage then they can (and should be allowed to) marry.

However I wouldnt care if people 'married' without a marriage license. That is a personal thing for every single couple. Perhaps all should just have to get the legal recognition thru the govt if that is what they desire? I dont care what you call it. Half of the objections to gay marriage is the use of the word 'marriage.' Stupid IMO.
 
Lots of things. But to just throw your hands up and call all "contracts, laws, protections" a means of "control" is just absurd.

Ok, show me where government involvement in marriage is not about control.
 
LOL....it would easily win on a national ballot. That aside, civil rights should never be put to a "popular vote"....this is one of the main reasons we have a Constitution.
Please tell me how this is a "civil right". Just because you wanna, don't make it a right.
 
I'll be honest that I used to think this pretty much.

But I do think that it's in society's best interests to have some contract that does cover all that marriage does for the protection of children, assets, inheritance, and many of the other things included in the marriage contract. With that said, it does not necessarily follow that the govt (state or fed) must offer benefits and tax options based on that contract.

People in the US are free to live together in any combinations they choose. If they want the legal benefits and privileges that come with marriage then they can (and should be allowed to) marry.

However I wouldnt care if people 'married' without a marriage license. That is a personal thing for every single couple. Perhaps all should just have to get the legal recognition thru the govt if that is what they desire? I dont care what you call it. Half of the objections to gay marriage is the use of the word 'marriage.' Stupid IMO.

Just not sure I can go along with that under existing conditions where government gets to define and license marriage in a manner they want. That is how we got into this mess of marriage equality by government saying what does and does not qualify. Now I have little choice but to support marriage equality, but I'd rather just see government out of the mix entirely. It comes with too much control.
 
Please tell me how this is a "civil right". Just because you wanna, don't make it a right.

it is in fact a civil rights issue, the many court cases with judges rulings point that out :shrug: oh wait i know its a conspiracy, a conspiracy with over like 40 judges now
 
, but I'd rather just see government out of the mix entirely.

and how would you do that? what system would you put in place to do all the things a marriage contract does and do it without involving government?
 
Back
Top Bottom