• 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!

Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

They are not seperate. And equal does not seem to be enough.

What do you mean they are not seperate. They absolutely are.
It is not equality in the same way that providing seperate but equal schools for racial minorities was enough.
Inequality is inequality.
What if there was a law that said only white people can "marry". We'll call it "Cabbage" for blacks, and googleygoo for "Latinos".
....but we'll give them all the same privlieges. Would that be ok?
 
A man can do something that a woman can not do marry a woman. That is not equal.

That is equal. They can marry anyone they want of an opposite sex like everyone else.

Of course I am just repeating myself now.

It is my decision and I will be happy to live with it because it is right.
 
That is equal. They can marry anyone they want of an opposite sex like everyone else.

Of course I am just repeating myself now.

It is my decision and I will be happy to live with it because it is right.

And that's fine for you Blackdog. But why does everyone else have to live by what you believe is right?
 
What do you mean they are not seperate. They absolutely are.
It is not equality in the same way that providing seperate but equal schools for racial minorities was enough.

More red herrings. :roll:

Inequality is inequality.
What if there was a law that said only white people can "marry". We'll call it "Cabbage" for blacks, and googleygoo for "Latinos".
....but we'll give them all the same privlieges. Would that be ok?

Dude if you are not going to stick to the subject and continue with the "race" thing that has nothing at all to do with it, we are done here. You know my position, do you want to continue to beat a dead horse?

I receive my marching orders from God, and I really don't care one bit what you think about that.

They can marry anyone of the opposite sex they like, and that is correct and equal, period.
 
That is equal. They can marry anyone they want of an opposite sex like everyone else.

Of course I am just repeating myself now.

It is my decision and I will be happy to live with it because it is right.

It is discrimination based on gender. The genders are treated the same but not equally when one can do what the other gender can not.
 
More red herrings. :roll:



Dude if you are not going to stick to the subject and continue with the "race" thing that has nothing at all to do with it, we are done here. You know my position, do you want to continue to beat a dead horse?

I receive my marching orders from God, and I really don't care one bit what you think about that.

They can marry anyone of the opposite sex they like, and that is correct and equal, period.


Again...that's fine for you and you should absolutely follow your own conscience and beliefs. But why do you feel justified in forcing others to live by your beliefs?
 
And that's fine for you Blackdog. But why does everyone else have to live by what you believe is right?

They don't have to? That is a ridicules statement. We can all vote and have a voice in government.

Don't like it? You are always free to move someplace else where you like it better. I hear Canada is pretty cool.[/sarcasm]

So you have a choice...

Work within the system or leave.

End of story.
 
Again...that's fine for you and you should absolutely follow your own conscience and beliefs. But why do you feel justified in forcing others to live by your beliefs?

Again with the red herring. I have already pointed out why this is a ridicules statement.
 
They don't have to? That is a ridicules statement. We can all vote and have a voice in government.

Don't like it? You are always free to move someplace else where you like it better. I hear Canada is pretty cool.[/sarcasm]

So you have a choice...

Work within the system or leave.

End of story.

Sure they do. You are saying that what you believe is right and everyone else should have to live by the same beliefs that you do.

Why not live your life the way you choose and allow others to live their lives the way that they would choose?
 
Impressive three fallacies in one you have there. Appeal to tradition, authority, and ad populum, specifically.

Wow it's like you didn't even Google the quote and read the ruling in full and learn about the Lemon Test.
 
Sure they do. You are saying that what you believe is right and everyone else should have to live by the same beliefs that you do.

I am one person. That statement is again moronic.

I will not support sin as a life style. You don't have to like it or live under it.

Why not live your life the way you choose and allow others to live their lives the way that they would choose?

Why not live your life the way you choose and allow others to live their lives the way that they would choose?

It works both ways.
 
I am one person. That statement is again moronic.

I will not support sin as a life style. You don't have to like it or live under it.



Why not live your life the way you choose and allow others to live their lives the way that they would choose?

It works both ways.

Yes....Blackdog you are one person....but what you are saying is that every other person should live their lives as you see fit.

No one is saying that you have to support any lifestyle that you personally do not believe it. Live you life anyway that you see fit.

Yes...it does work both ways. That's why I fully support your right to live your life the way that you believe is appropriate for you...and support the right of others to live their lives as they believe is appropriate for them.
The difference is....it appears that you believe that only some should be allowed to do so and others should be denied the same rights and privileges because you don't believe that they should be entitled to them because you disagree with their views and morals.
 
Yes....Blackdog you are one person....but what you are saying is that every other person should live their lives as you see fit.

You don't even realize how you're trying to do that to him right now, do you? You don't even see the hypocrisy :lol:

No one is saying that you have to support any lifestyle that you personally do not believe it. Live you life anyway that you see fit.

Yeah well if it came to a public vote today I would live my life the way I see fit by casting my personal vote against. That's my right so if you don't like it you can go fly a kite.

Yes...it does work both ways. That's why I fully support your right to live your life the way that you believe is appropriate for you...and support the right of others to live their lives as they believe is appropriate for them.
The difference is....it appears that you believe that only some should be allowed to do so and others should be denied the same rights and privileges because you don't believe that they should be entitled to them because you disagree with their views and morals.

And he has the right to withhold support. That's how he chooses to live his life so who are you to interfere?
 
Yes....Blackdog you are one person....but what you are saying is that every other person should live their lives as you see fit.

No I am not. I am saying and I will repeat yet AGAIN "I will not support the gay lifestyle"

If they do like it they can try to change it or leave. If they pass a law saying it is OK I can try to change it or leave.

End of story.

No one is saying that you have to support any lifestyle that you personally do not believe it. Live you life anyway that you see fit.

Yes you are.

Yes...it does work both ways. That's why I fully support your right to live your life the way that you believe is appropriate for you...and support the right of others to live their lives as they believe is appropriate for them.

Then let me support what I want religiously AND politically. Without people like you and APS trying to guid my morals.

The difference is....it appears that you believe that only some should be allowed to do so and others should be denied the same rights and privileges because you don't believe that they should be entitled to them because you disagree with their views and morals.

#1 Marraige is not a RIGHT.

If I cannot vote my morals and values what would be the point of voting and being active in government?
 
No I am not. I am saying and I will repeat yet AGAIN "I will not support the gay lifestyle"

Maybe gays should lobby to bar state recognition of heterosexual marriage? j/k




#1 Marraige is not a RIGHT.

The SCOTUS disagrees with you, Loving vs Virginia.
 
Maybe gays should lobby to bar state recognition of heterosexual marriage? j/k

They could if they wanted to. What makes this country great.

The SCOTUS disagrees with you, Loving vs Virginia.

That had absolutly nothing to do with it being a right. It said and I quote " Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States."

As soon as sex becomes a race, you let me know.
 
They could if they wanted to. What makes this country great.

Meh I don't think any one wants that.



That had absolutly nothing to do with it being a right. It said and I quote " Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States."

As soon as sex becomes a race, you let me know.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. ”
 
Meh I don't think any one wants that.

You brought it up, and they can try to do that if they wish.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

"The Supreme Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy"

Like I said as soon as it becomes a race, you let me know.
 
They could if they wanted to. What makes this country great.



That had absolutly nothing to do with it being a right. It said and I quote " Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States."

As soon as sex becomes a race, you let me know.


Yes....loving was based on inter-racial marriage. However, the underlying principle in the case recognized that the right of consenting adults to marry the person of their choice is a right. The underlying principle was not based on race.
 
You brought it up, and they can try to do that if they wish.



"The Supreme Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy"

Like I said as soon as it becomes a race, you let me know.

It is gender discrimination.
 
They could if they wanted to. What makes this country great.



That had absolutly nothing to do with it being a right. It said and I quote " Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States."

As soon as sex becomes a race, you let me know.

As soon as sex becomes a valid reason to legislate happiness, you let me know.
 
Back
Top Bottom