• 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 City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

texmaster said:
His quote:



I'll accept your apology now.
Click to expand...

I love it when you misrepresent my position. So, since you are so good at research :)lol:), please give us evidence that this is precisely what the organs were designed for. A link to the designer's website would be helpful. If you cannot, than I guess you have no proof...but then again, you should be used to that. :lol:
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
You're the one who has it wrong. I said government sanctioned marriage. Understand what that entails and how it violates the 14th Amendment.

Hatuey's point exactly addresses this issue.
Click to expand...
government sanctioned marriage = public marriage
 
Taylor said:
I did. Not my problem if you don't agree and keep throwing your hands up saying the same thing...inaccurate as it is.
Click to expand...

Awww...isn't that cute. She's having a temper tantrum. It must be tough getting destroyed in this debate from so many sides, Taylor. It's OK...have yourself a good cry and come back later. We'll all still be here. Perhaps then you'll have some evidence to back up your position...whatever it will be at THAT moment.
 
jallman said:
You won't be getting an apology because what you said he said was inaccurate.

He never said what you tried to portray him as saying. Learn to ****ing read.
Click to expand...

Redress said:
Ummm...he challenged you to prove your claim, he did not make a claim himself. One of these days you should take some one up on their challenge to provide proof, or even evidence that one of your claims is accurate. You have yet to ever do that that I have seen.
Click to expand...

You guys are kidding. textmaster doesn't understand the debate we are having, nor does he know how to debate it. How could he apologize?
 
misterman said:
Huh?

Is marriage open to all or not?
Click to expand...
In terms of "government sactioned" (i.e. public marriage) - No
In terms of a private marriage (with no government involvement) - Yes
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You guys are kidding. textmaster doesn't understand the debate we are having, nor does he know how to debate it. How could he apologize?
Click to expand...

I don't want him to apologize, I just want him to support his position. You don't like Taylor, but at least (s)he takes a stand and will answer questions for me.
 
Redress said:
Then why did you not quote that. What you quoted was him asking you to prove your claim, which you still have not done.
Click to expand...

He didn't quote it because I never said it. Either he is being dishonest to protect his fallacious position, or being dishonest for other reasons. Who knows?
 
Taylor said:
In terms of "government sactioned" (i.e. public marriage) - No
In terms of a private marriage (with no government involvement) - Yes
Click to expand...

And private marriage is worth what exactly? What are the differences practically?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
He didn't quote it because I never said it. Either he is being dishonest to protect his fallacious position, or being dishonest for other reasons. Who knows?
Click to expand...

It's a pattern in his case.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Awww...isn't that cute. She's having a temper tantrum. It must be tough getting destroyed in this debate from so many sides, Taylor. It's OK...have yourself a good cry and come back later. We'll all still be here. Perhaps then you'll have some evidence to back up your position...whatever it will be at THAT moment.
Click to expand...
From what you've just written, it seems that you're the one who has his feelings hurt. You probably just read where we were making fun of your position with respect to "The Designer." :lol:
 
Back to work, guys. I'll post the information that demonstrates the fallacy in both Charles' and Taylor's positions on how gay parents rear children as well as straight parents, later.
 
Taylor said:
From what you've just written, it seems that you're the one who has his feelings hurt. You probably just read where we were making fun of your position with respect to "The Designer." :lol:
Click to expand...

Not in the least. Copying my post demonstrates that you've got nothing...but then that's all you've had from the beginning of the debate. Btw, I'm still waiting for some evidence of the design of things. Will that be coming soon? :lol:
 
Taylor said:
government sanctioned marriage = public marriage
Click to expand...

government sanctioned marriage = tax subsidized marriage = discriminatory marriage

Why do straight couples deserve extra rights, benefits, and privileges at the expense of the taxpayer? and why are same sex couples denied these things?
 
Redress said:
And private marriage is worth what exactly? What are the differences practically?
Click to expand...
That's a great question for CR since he's the one that wants government to get out of marriage. I believe he'd say it would make everything "equal" but I don't know that he's thought it through above and beyond that.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Why do straight couples deserve extra rights, benefits, and privileges at the expense of the taxpayer? and why are same sex couples denied these things?
Click to expand...
That's what we're trying to debate.
 
Taylor said:
That's what we're trying to debate.
Click to expand...

There's nothing to debate. Current marriage laws violate the 14th Amendment.

Either eliminate government sanctioned marriage or extend it to same sex couples. Which option do you favor?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Not in the least. Copying my post demonstrates that you've got nothing...but then that's all you've had from the beginning of the debate. Btw, I'm still waiting for some evidence of the design of things. Will that be coming soon? :lol:
Click to expand...
When you post something of substance I'll be happy to respond. I'm altogether bored with your pompous "I'm right because I say I'm right and I've been saying I'm right for two years and if you disagree it's not my problem because I'm right" bloviations.
 
Last edited:
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
There's nothing to debate. Current marriage laws violate the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...
What do you think the probability is that the Supreme Court would agree? If there's "nothing to debate" do you think it would be unanimous?
 
Taylor said:
That's a great question for CR since he's the one that wants government to get out of marriage. I believe he'd say it would make everything "equal" but I don't know that he's thought it through above and beyond that.
Click to expand...

So called private marriage is only equal AFTER government sanctioned marriage is abolished. Until then, it's worthless in that it lacks tax subsidized benefits.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
So called private marriage is only equal AFTER government sanctioned marriage is abolished. Until then, it's worthless in that it lacks tax subsidized benefits.
Click to expand...
How would it have tax subsidized benefits if it weren't "government sanctioned?"
 
Taylor said:
What do you think the probability is that the Supreme Court would agree? If there's "nothing to debate" do you think it would be unanimous?
Click to expand...

Oh, it'll happen and we're inching toward that day. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court takes its sweet time about these things. Look how long it took them to strike down laws that prohibited interracial marriage.

As to unanimous, I'm not sure. But it was unanimous (9-0) in Loving v Virginia (1967) when they struck down marriage laws that discriminated on the basis of race.

So, which of the two options do you favor - elimination of government sanctioned marriage or extending it to same sex couples?
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
So, which of the two options do you favor - elimination of government sanctioned marriage or extending it to same sex couples?
Click to expand...
If I were forced to pick one or the other, I'd choose the latter. I see no benefits to eliminating the government role.
 
Taylor said:
How would it have tax subsidized benefits if it weren't "government sanctioned?"
Click to expand...

It wouldn't and that's the point. As long as both systems co-exist, then "private marriage" is worthless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom