• 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]

clownboy said:
Hah! More hilarity.

And bottom line: We The People lost, and it has ****-all to do with homosexual marriage. We lost because our highest court finally came out with the operating truth - we are NOT a constitutional system. We didn't lose because of this one decision, it just became public knowledge with this decision.

That you fail to recognize that loss, because you got something out of it you so desired, speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

Same sex marriage supporters are part of "we the people", and we did not lose at all.
 
roguenuke said:
Not at all. Legal marriage in the US involves a legal contract, as well as forms a legal kinship. You cannot sign a contract with an inanimate object or with an animal, or even with a minor.
Click to expand...
Why not? Inanimate objects have rights just like you and I. If they don't it would simply take a quick court case to attribute rights to say... a telephone pole.

roguenuke said:
You cannot form a legal kinship of any kind with an inanimate object or an animal.
Click to expand...
Apparenlty many people as I have already shown two, have done just that. How do you explain Eija's marriage to the Berlin wall then?

roguenuke said:
None of those things can be claimed, ever on your taxes as a dependent, many legal relatives can, especially your closest legal relative, your spouse.
Click to expand...
Perhaps tax dependency isn't a requirement or benefit for these people.
 
Ockham said:
Why not? Inanimate objects have rights just like you and I. If they don't it would simply take a quick court case to attribute rights to say... a telephone pole.

Apparenlty many people as I have already shown two, have done just that. How do you explain Eija's marriage to the Berlin wall then?

Perhaps tax dependency isn't a requirement or benefit for these people.
Click to expand...

No, inanimate objects do not have rights. If you disagree, please show me a TV with a right, or a door knob. Hell, just show me a cat with the same rights a human has.

Those are not legally recognized marriages. They are nothing more than personal marriages. Are you unaware of the difference? This concept isn't that hard. If you disagree, show me her legal marriage certificate to the Berlin Wall.
 
roguenuke said:
No, inanimate objects do not have rights. If you disagree, please show me a TV with a right, or a door knob. Hell, just show me a cat with the same rights a human has.

Those are not legally recognized marriages. They are nothing more than personal marriages. Are you unaware of the difference? This concept isn't that hard. If you disagree, show me her legal marriage certificate to the Berlin Wall.
Click to expand...

I am not married to the Berlin wall so there would be no reasonable expectation I would have access to a marriage certificate from 1979. That's quite an absurd demand. I have no idea if these are legally recognized or not but it's still a marriage is it not? My entire point is not to support the marriage of people to inanimate objects... my point in this discussion is to use an otherwise ludicrous premise to ridicule what is surely to be the next step in human social evolution which is - not just support for gay marriage but for marriage - to anything or to anyone, be that one other person or object (monogamy) or to many (polygamy). Because social constructs when expanded do not stop expanding. I don't expect this to happen overnight but given time...
 
Ockham said:
I am not married to the Berlin wall so there would be no reasonable expectation I would have access to a marriage certificate from 1979. That's quite an absurd demand. I have no idea if these are legally recognized or not but it's still a marriage is it not? My entire point is not to support the marriage of people to inanimate objects... my point in this discussion is to use an otherwise ludicrous premise to ridicule what is surely to be the next step in human social evolution which is - not just support for gay marriage but for marriage - to anything or to anyone, be that one other person or object (monogamy) or to many (polygamy). Because social constructs when expanded do not stop expanding. I don't expect this to happen overnight but given time...
Click to expand...

They are not legally recognized, anywhere. There is no question about that. There are no laws that cover these marriages. In fact, if that marriage was legally recognized, she could sue for the destruction of the Berlin Wall. Afterall, spouses are able to receive justice (damages/compensation) when someone harms or kills their spouse.
 
disneydude said:
If the GOP had a viable candidate you might have a point....the problem is...they are falling over each other seeing who can out wacko the next. This election isn't even going to be close....and once Hillary is in and Julian Castro serves the next 8 years after her....perhaps the GOP will recover enough to find a decent candidate to put up.
Click to expand...

I think you may be partially right. Obama only got elected because the Republicans put up two weak candidates, McCain and Romney. Bush wasn't that great either. Reagan was the last real conservative, and he won in two landslides.

But what about the dems? They all seem a bit shy, only a few to choose from, and not so great ones at that. But, you think it won't even be close? Expecting a Reagan like landslide for Hillary? Or is it Sanders?
 
roguenuke said:
Same sex marriage supporters are part of "we the people", and we did not lose at all.
Click to expand...

Yes, you won in the immediate on the issue but lost like the rest of us, long term, on the method. It matters as much how you get there as where you get to.
 
Anthony60 said:
I think you may be partially right. Obama only got elected because the Republicans put up two weak candidates, McCain and Romney. Bush wasn't that great either. Reagan was the last real conservative, and he won in two landslides.

But what about the dems? They all seem a bit shy, only a few to choose from, and not so great ones at that. But, you think it won't even be close? Expecting a Reagan like landslide for Hillary? Or is it Sanders?
Click to expand...

It will be a Reagan/Mondale or Clinton/Dole type landslide for Hillary, barring any huge development. There just isn't a strong dynamic candidate on the GOP side that is likely to garner much excitement. That being said.....you never know what types of development might occur between nowand election day.

I disagree with you however on McCain.....I don't think anyone was going to beat Obama the first time around...the second time around, Obama was ripe for the picking just like GWB was in his second term......The problem with the Republicans though wasn't so much Romney....it was that all the strong contenders at the time stayed out of the race
 
disneydude said:
It will be a Reagan/Mondale or Clinton/Dole type landslide for Hillary, barring any huge development. There just isn't a strong dynamic candidate on the GOP side that is likely to garner much excitement. That being said.....you never know what types of development might occur between nowand election day.

I disagree with you however on McCain.....I don't think anyone was going to beat Obama the first time around...the second time around, Obama was ripe for the picking just like GWB was in his second term......The problem with the Republicans though wasn't so much Romney....it was that all the strong contenders at the time stayed out of the race
Click to expand...

I disagree with you on the first part. There is absolutely no way to tell that until a clear republican candidate emerges to go up against the damaged heir apparent democrat candidate.

The second part I very much agree with. McCain was a very weak candidate even from the republican point of view, and Obama a very strong, almost messianic candidate. Romney wasn't even really a serious candidate, more a placeholder.
 
disneydude said:
It will be a Reagan/Mondale or Clinton/Dole type landslide for Hillary, barring any huge development. There just isn't a strong dynamic candidate on the GOP side that is likely to garner much excitement. That being said.....you never know what types of development might occur between nowand election day.

I disagree with you however on McCain.....I don't think anyone was going to beat Obama the first time around...the second time around, Obama was ripe for the picking just like GWB was in his second term......The problem with the Republicans though wasn't so much Romney....it was that all the strong contenders at the time stayed out of the race
Click to expand...

No, that's not happening. You would need to get a lot of crossover votes, and that won't happen. Obama got votes from people that would have vote GOP just because he is black. Nothing like that seems to be happening now. Unless you think droves of Republicans can't wait to vote for Hillary.

If anything, democrats are more prone to crossover due to what Obama has done. There are plenty that are not hardcore leftists and are not so happy with his handling of things.
 
Redress said:
Don't worry, your mom is correct. It first started being brought up in the 70s, though most mainstream people would not have heard of it. It took off in the 80s, which would end up with DOMA being passed in 1996 in response to the growing discussion of the issue.
Click to expand...

I never remember gay marriage being discussed in the 1970s. Who started talking about it, and when, and in what context? Who were famous symbols of gay marriage? There was a gay rights movement that began in the 1970s (remember the Stonewall Riots?), but not a marriage movement. That really didn't come around until the late 80s and early 90s.
 
Anthony60 said:
I think you may be partially right. Obama only got elected because the Republicans put up two weak candidates, McCain and Romney. Bush wasn't that great either. Reagan was the last real conservative, and he won in two landslides.
Click to expand...

It wasn't just that, Obama had the novelty of voting for a black man in the White House and there were tons of people, especially in 2008, who came out and registered to vote for that reason and that reason alone. He really only won because he wasn't a white guy. We also can't forget that Obama is indirectly to blame for things like Prop 8 passing in California, most of the people who had never voted before, the poor blacks and Hispanics, were also very religious and voted for a lot of things that otherwise would never have had a chance. Thanks Obama. :)

Reagan was the last sort of real conservative but he spent too much time catering to the newly formed religious right which had joined up following Nixon's Southern Strategy. That set the GOP down the wrong road, a wrong road that they're still on today.

But what about the dems? They all seem a bit shy, only a few to choose from, and not so great ones at that. But, you think it won't even be close? Expecting a Reagan like landslide for Hillary? Or is it Sanders?
Click to expand...

I don't think there's going to be a landslide for anyone, whoever wins will win by a very small margin because neither party is putting up anyone worth voting for.
 
tres borrachos said:
I never remember gay marriage being discussed in the 1970s. Who started talking about it, and when, and in what context? Who were famous symbols of gay marriage? There was a gay rights movement that began in the 1970s (remember the Stonewall Riots?), but not a marriage movement. That really didn't come around until the late 80s and early 90s.
Click to expand...

Reading is Fundamental! Notice I said most mainstream people would not have heard about it in the 70s? So you not remembering it is hardly surprising. It was at the time mostly discussed by gay people. Just because you do not remember something happening does not mean it did not happen. Just one example was in 1984 when Berkeley became the fist city to offer benefits to domestic partners. By 1991 the first court case was filed in Hawaii.
 
Redress said:
Reading is Fundamental! Notice I said most mainstream people would not have heard about it in the 70s? So you not remembering it is hardly surprising. It was at the time mostly discussed by gay people. Just because you do not remember something happening does not mean it did not happen. Just one example was in 1984 when Berkeley became the fist city to offer benefits to domestic partners. By 1991 the first court case was filed in Hawaii.
Click to expand...

I read what you wrote. Calm down. I asked you where it was being discussed in the 1970s. You didn't answer.

Who started talking about it? When? In what context?
 
Cephus said:
It wasn't just that, Obama had the novelty of voting for a black man in the White House and there were tons of people, especially in 2008, who came out and registered to vote for that reason and that reason alone. He really only won because he wasn't a white guy. We also can't forget that Obama is indirectly to blame for things like Prop 8 passing in California, most of the people who had never voted before, the poor blacks and Hispanics, were also very religious and voted for a lot of things that otherwise would never have had a chance. Thanks Obama. :)

Reagan was the last sort of real conservative but he spent too much time catering to the newly formed religious right which had joined up following Nixon's Southern Strategy. That set the GOP down the wrong road, a wrong road that they're still on today.



I don't think there's going to be a landslide for anyone, whoever wins will win by a very small margin because neither party is putting up anyone worth voting for.
Click to expand...

Obama's race cost him tons of votes in the south. He actually did worse than kerry there, and i think it's obvious why. Obama was seen as a savior for the rest of the entire country in '08, especially after the global financial meltdown. You're seriously underestimating his appeal to white voters outside the racist deep south (which always votes repub anyway). If you read this, it's clear that he would've won anyway, and the black votes just made it a landslide:

Exit polls: How Obama won - David Paul Kuhn - POLITICO.com

Obama also won more white votes than kerry nationwide

Obama's race may have helped him in certain regards, just like his race would've been made his election 100% impossible in the 230 years leading to that.

Or maybe, just maybe his platform and outspokenness about wealth inequality resonated with a certain voter subset that was disproportionately impoverished, and they just happened to share the same race. This is how bill clinton, "the first black president," got a huge # of black votes. Also kind of like how obama got 70% of the gay vote - not because he's gay or publicly supported SSM, but because he was the first candidate to even voluntarily broach the subject in a non hostile way.

When one party treats people like total inferiors and the other at least can tolerate them, guess who's gonna reap the rewards. The repubs will still be dealing with this, even against white hillary
 
Last edited:
Anthony60 said:
No, that's not happening. You would need to get a lot of crossover votes, and that won't happen. Obama got votes from people that would have vote GOP just because he is black. Nothing like that seems to be happening now. Unless you think droves of Republicans can't wait to vote for Hillary.

If anything, democrats are more prone to crossover due to what Obama has done. There are plenty that are not hardcore leftists and are not so happy with his handling of things.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the "popular vote"....I'm talking about electoral vote. I don't see the Republican candidate winning any states other than the traditional red states, which would be an electoral beat-down. If Jeb or Rubio get the nomination...they might carry Florida, but it would be close.
 
Anthony60 said:
No, that's not happening. You would need to get a lot of crossover votes, and that won't happen. Obama got votes from people that would have vote GOP just because he is black. Nothing like that seems to be happening now. Unless you think droves of Republicans can't wait to vote for Hillary.

If anything, democrats are more prone to crossover due to what Obama has done. There are plenty that are not hardcore leftists and are not so happy with his handling of things.
Click to expand...

Additionally.....I don't see any hardcore leftists crossing over to vote for the Republican candidate.....they might not be happy with Obama, but seriously......there is no shot that they would support even a moderate Republican candidate.

Also...I don't think that Obama got many votes simply because he was black.....especially from people who traditionally vote Republican. I don't know where you are coming up with that, but I find the scenario pretty implausible.
 
Breaking: SCOTUS Rules Constitution Irrelevant! Liberals rejoice!
 
Peter Grimm said:
You give so many ****s you responded to a post that wasn't even addressed to you. You can be a flaming faggot all you want, you'll never be accepted. You'll always be an outcast, no matter what the court says. I hate you.
Click to expand...

:lol:

Seriously... some people really freak out, right?
 
disneydude said:
Also...I don't think that Obama got many votes simply because he was black.....especially from people who traditionally vote Republican. I don't know where you are coming up with that, but I find the scenario pretty implausible.
Click to expand...

Obama got millions of votes simply because he was black....especially from people who otherwise dont vote.
 
WSUwarrior said:
Breaking: SCOTUS Rules Constitution Irrelevant! Liberals rejoice!
Click to expand...

What in the Constitution enables government to make gay marriage illegal?
 
WSUwarrior said:
Breaking: SCOTUS Rules Constitution Irrelevant! Liberals rejoice!
Click to expand...

Breaking: SCOTUS Rules that due process under the 14th Amendment prohibits government from discriminating. Bigots lose their ****!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom