• 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!

Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

The fact that you can marry means I will not be asking my girlfriend to marry me...I don't want to share the same institution as you.

You may have won a court case, and the left-leaning folks on this site may support you, but you will NEVER be socially accepted by mainstream America.

I never had a problem with gays before today, but this is too much. I will not be your friend.


:lol:

explosion2.jpg
 
I could start my own wine company with the collective amount of sour grapes being expressed over this decision...

That would be some bitter wine I bet!
 
Been there, done that, don't agree with it. Nor do I believe that you have any right to decide how others read or interpret the Bible for their religion. What you are proposing is not freedom of religion, but rather "they should see it my way, the way I see it or they aren't really a religion".

blah blah blah. if you read the bible then you will see that there are 0 verses that support gay marriage.
 
I probably wouldn't WANT to fight it if I thought this would be the end of it and the gay groups would now just go live their lives and stop calling me names. but it won't happen. a year from now we will STILL be arguing about how unfair the rest of the country is toward gay people for one reason or another. you watch. it will NEVER end.

Yep, better to just continue being unfair to them and save us the trouble of having to deal with the inequalities... right? :lol:
 
R.e. Sodom and Gomorrah...

Also we're not raping angels for SSM, we'll get back to you if we go down that road.

For there to have been so many - i.e. "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old" (Genesis 19:4) homosexuality must have been a common sin. And it was judged with the rest of their sins.
 
Meh...names. :lamo come on. Who cares? Dont accept the labels.

it's not just this issue
if you don't agree with the liberal agenda you are not only wrong, you are evil. that is their mindset. it also happens to be the mindset of a small child. and we have to deal with these people and these situations. its.......not fun
 
Well, perhaps you see it that way, but then logic dictates that homosexuals have been hurt since, well forever. The winds were shifting and rightfully so, but these Justices saw that it wasn't shifting fast enough, and that was wrong to try and justify by clever manipulation of the language, and interpretation of centuries old legal precedent in profoundly peculiar ways.


Tim-

All the justices are equally qualified in their position. You have every right to agree with justices whom hold beliefs that you share. But Scalia, Roberts, whoever's dissent is not the be all end all of constitutional interpretations. 5 other equally as qualified justices disagree with those 4 and their dissents.

I'm pretty sure this is not the only case in Supreme court history with a final decision so split down the middle and I'm sure there were dissents from both sides claiming the decision had nothing to do with the constitution and what it decrees.

It boils down to a fundamental disagreement on the interpratiation but one of the interpretations had to be decided on. It didn't work out in those four justices favor.
 
I'm in agreement with God that gay marriage is bad. ISIS is apparently in agreement with Muhammad / Allah, who isn't God.

Got it?

Muslims believe in the same God as the Old Testament and believe that Jesus existed as his prophet, they just follow Muhammad as God's profit instead. You are really not that different from them. You both share an intolerant God who will smite those that defy his "rules".
 
it's not just this issue
if you don't agree with the liberal agenda you are not only wrong, you are evil. that is their mindset. it also happens to be the mindset of a small child. and we have to deal with these people and these situations. its.......not fun

So in your mind being wrong is not a bad thing even when it hurts others?
 
Equal protection under the 'law'. They changed the 'law' of 14 states.

Because those 14 states were applying the law unequally.
 
Yep, better to just continue being unfair to them and save us the trouble of having to deal with the inequalities... right? :lol:

shouldn't we put that up to vote? isn't this a democracy? or do you only give a crap about that when it's NOT in your favor?
 
shouldn't we put that up to vote? isn't this a democracy? or do you only give a crap about that when it's NOT in your favor?

The Supreme Court interpreted the constitution. This was already in the constitution. No vote required, unless you want to vote to amend the constitution. Good luck!
 
I'm in agreement with God that gay marriage is bad. ISIS is apparently in agreement with Muhammad / Allah, who isn't God.

Got it?

So what you're saying is that God supports Allah? Or that Allah supports God?
 
When a tornado whips through the bible belt...it is just as much god's vengeance as your fantasy Hitman god vengeance that you crave.

Which is to say: none...because it doesn't exist.

Nonsense.
 
shouldn't we put that up to vote? isn't this a democracy? or do you only give a crap about that when it's NOT in your favor?

To avoid tyranny of the majority we don't vote on the personal rights of the individual. This is not the first time either. Think slavery, interracial marriage, etc.
 
All the justices are equally qualified in their position. You have every right to agree with justices whom hold beliefs that you share. But Scalia, Roberts, whoever's dissent is not the be all end all of constitutional interpretations. 5 other equally as qualified justices disagree with those 4 and their dissents.

I'm pretty sure this is not the only case in Supreme court history with a final decision so split down the middle and I'm sure there were dissents from both sides claiming the decision had nothing to do with the constitution and what it decrees.

It boils down to a fundamental disagreement on the interpratiation but one of the interpretations had to be decided on. It didn't work out in those four justices favor.

I understand that, but I'm here not so much in disagreement about SSM as I as much as I hate to say it, also see the writing on the wall. My issue is with the interpretations of the majority and how they got there, and civil debate on these points is exactly the kind of stuff DP was created for.

Tim-
 
blah blah blah. if you read the bible then you will see that there are 0 verses that support gay marriage.

There is also nothing about airplanes, rocket ships or zippers. Does that mean they are not to be allowed?
 
I don't care. Many do.

Your magic book has no authority over the United States or any of it's citizens. It shouldn't therefore be used to enact laws.
 
shouldn't we put that up to vote? isn't this a democracy? or do you only give a crap about that when it's NOT in your favor?

We should... put... the rights and benefits... of people... to a vote? No. We really shouldn't.
 
Back
Top Bottom