• 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!

California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8

Oh and now we're headed down the 'purpose-of-marriage' road...well, have fun new people, I hope you learn a thing or two regardless of which side of the issue you're on :2wave:

And Welcome to DP for those I haven't met yet :)

Feel free to leave the discussion, but keep in mind that I'm not the one who brought up the "trying to re-define marriage" talking point crap.
 
But do hetrosexual woman have the same right as heterosexual men to marry a woman?

Oh wait never mind it is a gender based issue and we. All know the sexes are not equal.

I would just to point out, again, that under existing CA law, gays already have all such rights. Women with women, men with men, it already exists. The whole thing, without any exception at all.

Therefore this is not about rights in any respect.
 
You mean until they get it THIER way? It's hardly a "right" or "wrong" issue but more one of interpretation.

The idea of marriage has never really been an issue until GAY activists decided they wanted to re-define it and force their views on the majority.

Who is trying to force their views on who?

No one on the pro-gay marriage side is saying YOU have to have a gay marriage or that you don't have a right to your own personal views.
The same cannot be said for the anti-gay marriage crowd.
 
Stupid question but wouldn't this whole issue be alot simpler if Gays got the right to marry under 'civil unions' with laws introduced to give them equal rights as those married e.g. tax breaks, inheritance etc.

Its basically marriage but shuts up the traditionalists.
 
Who is trying to force their views on who?

No one on the pro-gay marriage side is saying YOU have to have a gay marriage or that you don't have a right to your own personal views.
The same cannot be said for the anti-gay marriage crowd.

Exactly. If you don't agree with gay marriage, then don't marry a gay. It's that simple.
 
Yea because all gay people are left leaning. :roll:

There are a few exceptions just as there are in the Jewish community; but the VAST majority is indeed composed of Liberal Democrats and support a Liberal agenda.

Suggesting they aren't is about as hysterical as suggesting that marriage is a Constitutional right.
 
Stupid question but wouldn't this whole issue be alot simpler if Gays got the right to marry under 'civil unions' with laws introduced to give them equal rights as those married e.g. tax breaks, inheritance etc.

I would accept that.
 
I would accept that.

See, everyone is happy.
I think the main issue is that Gays who are living together and are 'married' are not protected the same way as hetro's married are.
 
Stupid question but wouldn't this whole issue be alot simpler if Gays got the right to marry under 'civil unions' with laws introduced to give them equal rights as those married e.g. tax breaks, inheritance etc.

Its basically marriage but shuts up the traditionalists.

It would end a lot of the fight and to be honest I'd be quite happy with that. However, there would be people who would continue to argue that it still doesn't make it "equal".
 
I would accept that.

I wouldn't. Separate but equal is never either.

I would be fine with government getting out of the marriage field altogether and civil unions for everyone.
 
and its only a matter of time before churches start spreading their lies and deceit in order to scare the brainless that gay marriage will lead to the complete collapse of heterosexual life.

I am hardly surprise to see you purposely misquote the argument; it is about the further breakdown of families. But alas, why should you give a crap about family or family values and the importance for them to have a MOM and a DAD right? :roll:
 
I wouldn't. Separate but equal is never either.

I would be fine with government getting out of the marriage field altogether and civil unions for everyone.

Well, I for one don't think that the government should be able to dictate religious matters just as religions shouldn't be able to dictate government matters. If a church doesn't want to perform a gay marriage because it goes against their dogma they shouldn't be forced to.
 
Well good news and bad news.

Good News-California Supreme Court did not overtrun the will of the people.

Bad News-I personally disagree with the will of the people in California.

But to finish with good news, when it gets passed in the future, it looks like there is now precedent for the California Supreme Court to uphold the results of the vote.
 
I agree with all that however I think the unconstitutionality comes in when one group is treated with a different standard than another. That goes against equal protection and equal rights.

Basically the government is handing goodies to one group of people while simultaneously devaluing another.

What "goodies" are married couples getting fromt he Government?
 
I am hardly surprise to see you purposely misquote the argument; it is about the further breakdown of families. But alas, why should you give a crap about family or family values and the importance for them to have a MOM and a DAD right? :roll:

Riiiight....because there are no gays that can provide a family environment...and every heterosexual home is a loving and nuturing one. :roll:
 
I am hardly surprise to see you purposely misquote the argument; it is about the further breakdown of families. But alas, why should you give a crap about family or family values and the importance for them to have a MOM and a DAD right? :roll:

So a family with two DADS or two MOMS is somehow incapable of providing the same love and care that a family including a MOM and DAD would? Is that what you are implying?
 
Well, I for one don't think that the government should be able to dictate religious matters just as religions shouldn't be able to dictate government matters. If a church doesn't want to perform a gay marriage because it goes against their dogma they shouldn't be forced to.

agreed. That was one of the biggest lies that the Mormon's perpetrated on the uneducated public.
 
I wonder what actuaries at insurance companies would do with the term?

That would be my only real issue with civil unions. It would have to be treated EXACTLY the same as marriage. I mean, take the marriage contract and strike out the word marriage and replace it with "civil union" but leave every other word intact.
 
It would end a lot of the fight and to be honest I'd be quite happy with that. However, there would be people who would continue to argue that it still doesn't make it "equal".


Ofc it would, There is no difference between civil unions and marriage. Except the name ofc but they'd still be 'married' in the proper sense of the word.
 
Until the proponents for gay marriage win..........That is the way it is on any issue........

Oh come on Navy. It isn't just limited to gay marriage. Why are you trying to demonize them? People continued to fight for civil rights too and didn't stop until they got what they wanted. How is this any different?
 
Back
Top Bottom