• 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]

beefheart said:
They were legal in AZ a few months ago, and the sky didn't fall, and God didn't do anything other than give us 115 degree days, like we always get.
Click to expand...

LOL...Yeah, I believe it was legal in 37 states before the SCOTUS ruling and the earth kept spinning on it's axis as it always had.
 
great argument. "we are inventing rights but hey...the sky didn't fall so everything is ok."

I wish we could bring Cicero back to poke about a THOUSAND holes in that pathetic argument
 
roguenuke said:
No, it isn't. Public accommodation refers specifically to established businesses, not recognized kinships, legal relationships.
Click to expand...
Buisness will now have to honor gay marriages, so it's public accommodation; like installing a wheelchair ramp. Diferent letters, same spirit, and the right thing to do.
 
Jerry said:
Buisness will now have to honor gay marriages, so it's public accommodation; like installing a wheelchair ramp. Diferent letters, same spirit, and the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

No. The businesses are public accommodations, not marriage itself. And churches are not businesses, not when conducting a religious rite, ceremony, which is what a wedding is.
 
Henrin said:
That isn't very likely. The god in the old testament had a completely different personality and approach to life than Jesus.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. Christians believe that Jesus is God. It's just a pill they have to swallow that God is a progressive, and didn't start out perfect.
 
JoeTrumps said:
great argument. "we are inventing rights but hey...the sky didn't fall so everything is ok."

I wish we could bring Cicero back to poke about a THOUSAND holes in that pathetic argument
Click to expand...

Equal protection under the law was not just invented.
 
Amadeus said:
It doesn't matter. Christians believe that Jesus is God. It's just a pill they have to swallow that God is a progressive, and didn't start out perfect.
Click to expand...

Sigh.
 
GunFora said:
This is a bad week for America and Americans. The moral fabric of the USA is coming apart at the seams. The SCOTUS has just redefined "marriage". The Red Diaper Doper babies are succeeding in taking down America from the inside without even firing a shot. Just as Krustev promised a half century ago.
Click to expand...

Where's a good drama llama jpeg when you need one? This decision won't even be talked about in 6 months.
 
roguenuke said:
No. The businesses are public accommodations, not marriage itself. And churches are not businesses, not when conducting a religious rite, ceremony, which is what a wedding is.
Click to expand...
I don't care about churches one way or the other as I'm not christian.

Legalizing gay marriage is don in the same spirit as public accommodation. I never said they were the same thing legaly, read what I actually write.

A free market requires that we allow everything which isn't otherwise harmfull; a buisness serving the public should accommodate everything unles it can demonstrate a need to disallow something. No such need can be demonstrated for refusing gays.
 
Jerry said:
I don't care about churches one way or the other as I'm not christian.

Legalizing gay marriage is don in the same spirit as public accommodation. I never said they were the same thing legaly, read what I actually write.

A free market requires that we allow everything which isn't otherwise harmfull; a buisness serving the public should accommodate everything unles it can demonstrate a need to disallow something. No such need can be demonstrated for refusing gays.
Click to expand...

None of this is true or it would have applied long before this. Marriage is not a commercial entity, commercial property. The marriage license is most similar to the birth certificate, in it establishes a legal relationship between people. A wedding ceremony offered or agreed to be done by a member of the clergy is not a commercial transaction. Just as if my best friend asks my brother to get ordained online just to perform her wedding ceremony for her, that doesn't mean that he then has to provide such services to anyone who asks because he isn't offering his services to the public as a for profit business.
 
roguenuke said:
None of this is true or it would have applied long before this. Marriage is not a commercial entity, commercial property. The marriage license is most similar to the birth certificate, in it establishes a legal relationship between people. A wedding ceremony offered or agreed to be done by a member of the clergy is not a commercial transaction. Just as if my best friend asks my brother to get ordained online just to perform her wedding ceremony for her, that doesn't mean that he then has to provide such services to anyone who asks because he isn't offering his services to the public as a for profit business.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.
 
Jerry said:
I see only 14 pages.
Click to expand...
It depends how many posts per page you have your thread display settings at. But I suspect you knew that?

Best to go by # of posts - in this case, 1300+
 
The Mark said:
It depends how many posts per page you have your thread display settings at. But I suspect you knew that?

Best to go by # of posts - in this case, 1300+
Click to expand...
Right. 1317 posts, that's 14 pages.
 
The Mark said:
It depends how many posts per page you have your thread display settings at. But I suspect you knew that?

Best to go by # of posts - in this case, 1300+
Click to expand...

You can set the number of posts your page reveals? To think, I was really trying to limit ever getting to 1000 total posts, making every one be meaningful. Evenso, not yet sure what I will actually do once I get close to 1000.
 
SayMyName said:
You can set the number of posts your page reveals? To think, I was really trying to limit ever getting to 1000 total posts, making every one be meaningful. Evenso, not yet sure what I will actually do once I get close to 1000.
Click to expand...
If I had my way the entire thread would load on a single page.
 
roguenuke said:
First cousins should be allowed to marry, and I see that as being the next marriage cases to go up, (at least with a likelihood of winning to remove such restrictions).
Click to expand...

If the guarantee of equal protection applies as broadly as the proponents of the homosexual agenda have never tired of claiming, why would a state not violate it by arbitrarily drawing the line at first cousins? Consanguinity restrictions were included in marriage laws because people realized the incidence of birth defects in offspring increased the more closely the parents were related by blood. That rationale obviously disappears where the partners are the same sex.

I don't see what legitimate government purpose will be served any longer either by those restrictions or by state laws against adult incest outside marriage, where the partners are of the same sex. And if one or both were permanently sterile, why wouldn't it be an arbitrary injustice to deny a brother and sister the same right to marry each other? As Chief Justice Roberts noted, laws against plural marriage very well may not survive either.
 
Last edited:
Fenton said:
I think the left supports the decision because they're under the impression that all Conservatives oppose Gay marriage.

I don't really care one way or the other.

We have much more important issues to deal with.
Click to expand...

No, the left is over-the-moon ecstatic about it because we know it is fair, just, and long overdue.

The meltdown on the right is just icing on the gay cake someone was forced to bake.
 
disneydude said:
Well.....you are claiming that some phantom organized group of people is seeking to change the social construct/culture of America.....but it isn't the gays. I'm simply asking you, who in your mind is this phantom organized group that is seeking to change American culture...and what exactly is their agenda that you are concerned about.
Click to expand...

LOL

Really? That is your question? Phantom group? So you don't think there is a liberal/progressive agenda that transcends the topic of the OP?

That's too funny.
 
roguenuke said:
First of all, it isn't just "liberals/progressives" fighting for same sex couples to be able to marry. Second, it isn't just "liberals/progressives" who don't care about marriage as an institution. In fact, the most common complaint about marriage I hear comes from libertarians, not liberals. Most people aren't completely shunning marriage, but rather simply putting it off.
Click to expand...

Ok. How does that change anything?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom