• 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!

Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

]Lots of rambling

This is a wall of text that can be summed up in one sentence. "Everyone has the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex." Instead of trying to make yourself look like an intellectual by using as many words as possible, maybe try using an argument that hasn't been debated over and over and over again?
 
Marriage doesn't force anyone to do anything... PERIOD.

Sure it does, or perhaps let me put it a different way for you if you wish.

Women are prohibited from choosing any sex other than male, Men are prohibited from choosing any sex other than female. Compare this to Blacks being prohibited to choosing any race other than white, or Whites choosing any races but blacks.

Gender is a protected group, for EITHER gender. The constitution does not protect from discriminating against females but not against males.

My argument has nothing to do with "escaping" from gender. Once again you're using a strawman to attempt to derail the argument to something other than what's being talked about.

I don't rightly care about sexual orientation. I'm not arguing about sexual orientation. I'm arguing about the fact of gender discrimination.

And yes, Gender is a protected group... if one happens to be female.

But gender is something that one can not readily escape. One can't claim to be a woman on ladies night and then claim to be a man the following Tuesday when such is advantageous to do so.

Sexual orientation however is a distinct issue... There is no 'homosexual gene'... One can be a homo and change into a hetero without notice, as far as the law is concerned. Thus where the law provides for subsidies or other consideration specific to homosexuals, there no means to determine if the claimant is a homosexual or not; and this without regard to one's snappy style instincts and the number of show tunes one can belt out on any given day...

Homosexuality is a farce... in its most severe cases, it is a distinct minority who suffer abnormal sexual cravings. Which is hardly a premise on which to tilt the culture on it's head and revise the nucleus element of that culture as a form of appeasement.[/QUOTE]
 
THE LOWLY HOMOSEXUAL
And we're prepared to go to whatever lengths you people require us to go, to stop ya. You're the aggressor, so you set the rules... But rest assured, we'll be there for ya, which ever way you decide to go.

We've accepted you as human beings... we don't give a damn what two men do in the privacy of their home with a midget, two goats, a quart of Quaker State and a unicyle. But we're not ABOUT to go any further with it.

Moderator's Warning:
Let me be clear. Debating this issue is one thing. Degrading, debasing, and/or ridiculing will not be tolerated.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Just found this forum. And picked out a thread at random.
Djeezes, djeezes, djeezes.
Everyone with an ounce of common sense regards homosexuality and same sex marriage as OK as 2 + 2 makes 4. Problem? What problem?
It's intellectuals like PubliusInfinitu that spend their entire life reaching multiple orgasms by justifying the unjustifiable that make my day.


Though I'm not French, I live in France. Help, I must be doomed.

Time for a Stella.

Sock puppet, go away.
 
There is not ONE STATE within the fifty United States that precludes homosexuals, declared or otherwise from marriage... NOT ONE~

This reminds of a situation that has come up here in Texas where a man got a sex change and then married her female lover.
 
I did not make any argument against polygamy. This has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread.

I certainly can pick what should be equal and what should not. A brick is not equally as heavy as a feather. I don't have to support the concept both are equal. Under the law, convicted felons are less equal than those who are not. I do not have to argue otherwise.

You mean "who" should be equal.

As I said, you can do as you like, but you don't retain credibility when you choose to cherry pick.
 
You mean "who" should be equal.

As I said, you can do as you like, but you don't retain credibility when you choose to cherry pick.

So you think convicted felons are equal to every one else? Or do you pick?
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Well kids it was a good run…

I got the crap kicked out of me, as I proved that I know nothing about the topic…

It was realized that I was completely inept, and putting a stop to that ineptitude was key before I hurt myself.

I should report that in the several days that I participated in this thread, I was handed down several ‘infractions’ for completely appropriate reasons, as not only am I am idiot, but I have no clue how to debate intelligently.

Deceit and Fraud kids…… it’s all I've got.

Love and Kisses,

Publius Infinitum
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

The above post was edited to reflect reality.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

And a classic in the self-ownage department.

EVERYTHING he posted was self-pwnage. Never made a salient point.
 
So you think convicted felons are equal to every one else? Or do you pick?

I would argue they are equal to everyone else, after they have paid their debt to society.
 
So you think convicted felons are equal to every one else? Or do you pick?

Of course they are equal, which is why Due Process had to be used against them.

Polygamists, not so much. Laws against polygamy are as bigoted as anti-sodomy laws.
 
Of course they are equal, which is why Due Process had to be used against them.

Polygamists, not so much. Laws against polygamy are as bigoted as anti-sodomy laws.

Where have I advocated anti-polygamy laws?
 
In your apathy.

ad·vo·cate   [v. ad-vuh-keyt; n. ad-vuh-kit, -keyt]
–verb (used with object)
1. to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly: He advocated higher salaries for teachers.

–noun
2. a person who speaks or writes in support or defense of a person, cause, etc. (usually fol. by of ): an advocate of peace.
3. a person who pleads for or in behalf of another; intercessor.
4. a person who pleads the cause of another in a court of law.

Advocate | Define Advocate at Dictionary.com

By its very definition it is impossible to advocate through apathy, as it requires action to actually act in favor of the thing, not simply inaction in not supporting it.
 
it seems the judge utilized the 10th Amendment in his ruling. if so, then this has the potential to get very interesting.
 
ad·vo·cate   [v. ad-vuh-keyt; n. ad-vuh-kit, -keyt]
–verb (used with object)
1. to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly: He advocated higher salaries for teachers.

–noun
2. a person who speaks or writes in support or defense of a person, cause, etc. (usually fol. by of ): an advocate of peace.
3. a person who pleads for or in behalf of another; intercessor.
4. a person who pleads the cause of another in a court of law.

Advocate | Define Advocate at Dictionary.com

By its very definition it is impossible to advocate through apathy, as it requires action to actually act in favor of the thing, not simply inaction in not supporting it.

Oh?

There are reasons to include marriage of gays but not polygamy.

Again I ask: What are these reasons, what it that argument?
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Yet in 15 years of debating this... of the THOUSANDS of advocates of normalizing abnormality... NOT ONE has ever come CLOSE to accepting the simple fact that every whim of the homosexual lobbies stated goals could be met by simply incorporating.

Or, even simpler, the bigots can be informed that someone else's marriage is, by definition, someone else's business, not theirs, and that the bigots can butt out.

See how easy that is?
 
Redress isn't subverting anything. Liberals are not subverting a SINGLE THING.

Outside of the Constitution, you mean. Liberals and socialists are having a blast ripping that essential framework to shreds.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Or, even simpler, the bigots can be informed that someone else's marriage is, by definition, someone else's business, not theirs, and that the bigots can butt out.

See how easy that is?

If it's non of the bigot's business, why ask the bigot for his vote; why even discuss the issue with the bigot?
 
Of course they are equal, which is why Due Process had to be used against them.

Polygamists, not so much. Laws against polygamy are as bigoted as anti-sodomy laws.


No, in some regards laws against polygamy reflect the inadequacy of current law to deal with the complexity of multiple concurrent marriages.

How's a polygamous divorce work? What if three people want a fourth to go, but three others want her to stay? Would DNA tests be required to identify a child's father in custody battles? How is community property defined and how is it split up in the event of a divorce? What about inheritance laws, for example, when the principle wage earner dies, and his six spouses start squabbling over who's share is too big, before they each divorce each other?

There's religious bigotry associated with anti-polygamy laws, but US law can't answer the questions right now.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

If it's non of the bigot's business, why ask the bigot for his vote; why even discuss the issue with the bigot?

Because this is a representative democratic republic still mired in assorted anachronistic customs and the forms must be followed because that's how the law works.

That still doesn't make what contracts two consenting adults enter into anyone else's business.

I don't even know why anyone not involved in the wedding would care. Doesn't their own lives hold enough trouble to keep them busy?
 
Back
Top Bottom