• 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!

DC approves same-sex marriage law

American said:
Sounds like you're getting jealous.
Click to expand...

Nah you have no fear from me, I don't swing that way, but if you and your boyfriend decide to hitch the knot I am supportive of it fully just so you know :)
 
Hatuey said:
And if we had depended on backwards rednecks to decide slavery, whether blacks and whites should marry, integration and women's rights. I'd be working a cotton field and you'd be getting lynched. Tyranny of the masses isn't always that great of an idea.
Click to expand...

But it is democracy.

BTW many of those "backwards rednecks" died to free slaves.

ADK_Forever said:
I'd have to think that by the end of Obama's first (of two) term, more than half of our states will have legalized gay marriage. By the end of his 2nd term.. who knows? :cool:
Click to expand...

What does Obama have to do with this? He's against gay marriage.
 
Last edited:
StandUpChuck said:
But it is democracy.
Click to expand...

Democracy is the worst form of government... except for all the others that have been tried.
(Churchill if I'm not mistaken.)
 
StandUpChuck said:
But it is democracy.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is a democratic Republic. Big diff. The majority doesn't get to make the rules... most of the time.

What does Obama have to do with this? He's against gay marriage.
Click to expand...

I didn't say he has anything to do with it. With all the new Dems getting elected and the infusion of younger blood this country is starting to turn acutely away from bigotry, hatred and embrace fairness for all.

Obama may say he's not for it but, I didn't hear him say he is against it. Even if he did, this movement will be bigger than him. Just like AG Holder's pursuit of the criminals from BushCo. Obama may be our leader but, he is not the final say.
 
Gay marriage, I don't care either way, I just think it's a whole lot of emotion over a non-issue.

But hey, it shows how much you are "tolerant" of others. From the comments on here about those that dislike Gay Marriage, we see the real face of Tolerance here.
 
StandUpChuck said:
What does Obama have to do with this? He's against gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Well, he understands the demographics of his base. He also understands that the majority of blacks get more than a little hot under the collar when the gay rights movement is compared to the civil rights movement for blacks.

It's an interesting balancing act.

And it's a perfect example of how politics do make for strange bedfellows.

:2wave:
 
MrVicchio said:
Gay marriage, I don't care either way, I just think it's a whole lot of emotion over a non-issue.

But hey, it shows how much you are "tolerant" of others. From the comments on here about those that dislike Gay Marriage, we see the real face of Tolerance here.
Click to expand...

it was the Republicans that used gay marriage as a wedge. For example the FMA.
 
MrVicchio said:
Gay marriage, I don't care either way, I just think it's a whole lot of emotion over a non-issue.
Click to expand...

So, then you will back gay marriage, right? I mean, if you don't care and to show how much you care about your fellow man... and woman.
 
Kandahar said:
Actually I think the Supreme Court will resolve this issue before Congress or the White House does. I wouldn't be surprised to see a SCOTUS decision legalizing gay marriage nationwide sometime in the next decade...possibly a 8-1 or 7-2 decision.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I doubt seriously it will be 8-1 or even 7-2. It likely will be a 5-4 or 6-3 decision.
Scalia, Thomas and Alito will never vote to find prohibitions on gay marriage violate equal protection. Roberts is a possibility but still likely to side with the 3 ultra-right activists.
 
disneydude said:
I agree, but I doubt seriously it will be 8-1 or even 7-2. It likely will be a 5-4 or 6-3 decision.
Scalia, Thomas and Alito will never vote to find prohibitions on gay marriage violate equal protection. Roberts is a possibility but still likely to side with the 3 ultra-right activists.
Click to expand...

I think Scalia is the only current member of the court who is a definite "no" vote.
 
Hatuey said:
And if we had depended on backwards rednecks to decide slavery, whether blacks and whites should marry, integration and women's rights. I'd be working a cotton field and you'd be getting lynched. Tyranny of the masses isn't always that great of an idea.
Click to expand...
You are talking about tyranny of the minority. Last time I checked, Lincoln was elected by somewhat of a majority. So, really, according to results, the majority was right in that decision.

Guess what the majority wants now? :roll:
 
TheNextEra said:
I don't know, me personally I would like to see the SCOTUS grow a pair and actually decide for gay marriage, but I don't see it happening. Not at least for a few more decades. They seem to be avoiding this decision like the plague.
Click to expand...

Actually if SCOTUS had a pair and if the "Conservative" judges were actually consistent, they'd bully up to the bar and rule rightly that there is no right to a government contract marriage.

As previous discussions have noted, unless the COTUS directly and explicitly states, there is no right or power to create such an institution. Obviously, there is no statement in COTUS. Therefore, SCOTUS should invalidate government marriage. Return marriage to its proper state: outside of the government's jurisdiction.
 
ADK_Forever said:
So, then you will back gay marriage, right? I mean, if you don't care and to show how much you care about your fellow man... and woman.
Click to expand...

Actually, if Mr. V is conservative as he says he is, he'd be for getting govenrment entirely out of marriage. There is no basis for marriage in COTUS. Not to mention that getting government out would reduce the size of government having to deal with the logistics. And it would return it to a state's rights issue.
 
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't marriage a state institution already?
 
winston53660 said:
it was the Republicans that used gay marriage as a wedge. For example the FMA.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's why the uber liberal state of Oregon voted down Gay Marriage right? Because it's those damn dirty Republicans.

That's why Californians keep rejecting it right?
 
ADK_Forever said:
So, then you will back gay marriage, right? I mean, if you don't care and to show how much you care about your fellow man... and woman.
Click to expand...

The real issue here isn't "Marriage" it's legal rights bestowed upon the person you with to consider your "spouse". The whole crux of the matter is the word and definition of MARRIAGE.


The gay lobby activist KNOW they could get Civil Unions passed but no... can't have that! Have to shove their definition of "MARRIAGE" in everyone's faces and then cry victim because most folks just reject that premise out right.

One side demands the other side unconditionally surrender it's values in favor of a minority WITHIN a minority.

The wedge is the hammering "Gay is normal" and playing victim when folks go "yeah, look we really don't care if you're gay, but quit trying to say it's normal and teach my 5 year old that two daddy's is fine and kissing boys is okay". My own son, he's ten now, he asked my why two men were holding hands at the mall last time he was here. I explained that some guys like guys instead of girls. It's not normal, but it's their life they are free to be gay if they wish. It's really none of our business either which way. And I left it at that.


Personally I say the Gay Movement and those that support it's current agenda are some of the most bigoted, intolerant, anti-freedom folks around, and to hell with all of you.
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
The real issue here isn't "Marriage" it's legal rights bestowed upon the person you with to consider your "spouse". The whole crux of the matter is the word and definition of MARRIAGE.

The gay lobby activist KNOW they could get Civil Unions passed but no... can't have that! Have to shove their definition of "MARRIAGE" in everyone's faces and then cry victim because most folks just reject that premise out right.

One side demands the other side unconditionally surrender it's values in favor of a minority WITHIN a minority.

The wedge is the hammering "Gay is normal" and playing victim when folks go "yeah, look we really don't care if you're gay, but quit trying to say it's normal and teach my 5 year old that two daddy's is fine and kissing boys is okay". My own son, he's ten now, he asked my why two men were holding hands at the mall last time he was here. I explained that some guys like guys instead of girls. It's not normal, but it's their life they are free to be gay if they wish. It's really none of our business either which way. And I left it at that.


Personally I say the Gay Movement and those that support it's current agenda are some of the most bigoted, intolerant, anti-freedom folks around, and to hell with all of you.
Click to expand...

I thought you didn't care? A tad disingenuous, I would say. :roll:
 
ADK_Forever said:
I thought you didn't care? A tad disingenuous, I would say. :roll:
Click to expand...

Yes, because that's obviously what I was saying there.

I do not care if someone is gay.

No where did I contradict that.
 
MrVicchio said:
Personally I say the Gay Movement and those that support it's current agenda are some of the most bigoted, intolerant, anti-freedom folks around, and to hell with all of you.
Click to expand...

Really so how about showing some proof that I support our current Fascism? Or how about the fact I have six military veterans (with four being alive) in my family all of a sudden makes me a communist according to certain members on this forum. I have all ready put up the challenge on why there is no argument against since NO ONE can prove that if effects me economically, personally or constitutionally but NOOOOOO is much easier to play the red card or the ax card. Why dont you step up to the plate.
 
chevydriver1123 said:
Really so how about showing some proof that I support our current Fascism? Or how about the fact I have six military veterans (with four being alive) in my family all of a sudden makes me a communist according to certain members on this forum. I have all ready put up the challenge on why there is no argument against since NO ONE can prove that if effects me economically, personally or constitutionally but NOOOOOO is much easier to play the red card or the ax card. Why dont you step up to the plate.
Click to expand...

WTF are you on about?

Gay Marriage, it's a divisive issue. Civil Unions gives the legal protections they seek without pissing off even liberal states.

Issue solved.

Instead, we get this long drawn out fight over changing the definition of a word because one side, deems it has a right to force the rest of society to change. THAT'S my problem with issue.

Where you came up with me calling anyone a facist is beyond me. I'm looking for COMPROMISE and you are off on a tangent.
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
WTF are you on about?

Gay Marriage, it's a divisive issue. Civil Unions gives the legal protections they seek without pissing off even liberal states.

Issue solved.
Click to expand...

Brown vs Board of Education.

Instead, we get this long drawn out fight over changing the definition of a word because one side, deems it has a right to force the rest of society to change. THAT'S my problem with issue.
Click to expand...

Marriage's definition has never been solidly one way or the other. Stop pretending that it has always been that way. Furthermore, the better alternative would be to get government out of marriage. Or do you think that more government in our lives is better?
 
I laugh at the argument that gay activists are hurting their own cause by protesting vehemently.

Gay marriage has to be an issue before it's a non-issue, just like all the issues that came before, therefore it's going to be politicized so I suggest you get used to that fact. There are going to be radicals in any protest, and if you choose to focus on them alone then you are obfuscating the matter for yourself and no one else.

Meanwhile, if these activists never spoke up, then what would be the likelihood of them being able to register for marriage licenses? Nil.

So they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom