• 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!

State to Eliminate “Bride” & “Groom” on Marriage Certificates [W:303]

sawyerloggingon said:
Lots of people are calling me a gay basher but the hilarious part is I am actually going to a gay wedding in a few months. Friends of my wife but still I'm going! :lol:
Click to expand...

Oh, the "I have a (fill in minority here) friend". How completely unpredictable and unique.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
LMAO, you have never actually read a single book on the Roman Empire have you. Why do I bother with this fool?
Click to expand...

And that...why I didn't bother writing out an argument for you.
 
Objective-J said:
wow you just LIED again you said they used to be indistinguishable from the gay rights movement!

heres your qoute


so I misunderstood nothing just pointed out how silly and inaccurate your statment was. They were never the SAME movement (because they had different goals) and they were always distinguishable because they are clearly different, sorry.

You posted NOTHING to support that they were indistinguishable, nothing.
Click to expand...

That quote says what I just said!!!

and I quote:" 1970's during the sexual revolution they were a part of the same movement, and they were back then at that time indistinguishable in a way because they were an organization recognized as a gay rights movement organization they were a part of the same entity trying to make their way into mainstream society, "

I'm pretty sure with the amount of time that I mentioned the 1970's it should have been clear that I was talking about that one small time frame.

Both of my posts are saying the same thing and they both are saying what is factual and historical which I supported with a glbt site and wikipedia (heavily sourced wikipedia) . I'm not a liar, I'm going to ask you to be civil, if you want to respond to my posts than go for it but enough with the personal attacks okay?

Either way I don't think there's anything more to be said here, I made my claim I supported it with sources. I can't do much more than that.
 
Monserrat said:
That quote says what I just said!!!

and I quote:" 1970's during the sexual revolution they were a part of the same movement, and they were back then at that time indistinguishable in a way because they were an organization recognized as a gay rights movement organization they were a part of the same entity trying to make their way into mainstream society, "

I'm pretty sure with the amount of time that I mentioned the 1970's it should have been clear that I was talking about that one small time frame.

Both of my posts are saying the same thing and they both are saying what is factual and historical which I supported with a glbt site and wikipedia (heavily sourced wikipedia) . I'm not a liar, I'm going to ask you to be civil, if you want to respond to my posts than go for it but enough with the personal attacks okay?

Either way I don't think there's anything more to be said here, I made my claim I supported it with sources. I can't do much more than that.
Click to expand...

seems you have trouble reading your own quote, understanding what words mean and understanding reality, thanks you again for posting that after i posted your quote because it supports me and the fact they were not indistinguishable as you claimed lo also you gave me two links which i read i didn see this verbiage in there, weird, but im still glad you posted it and proved yourself wrong and that you lied.

i never personally attacked you LMAO


you haven supported nothing with any facts and logic and makes your statement a fact, that hasnt changed
 
Last edited:
American said:
State to Eliminate


I wonder if the spokesman for the health department with be changing his name.
Click to expand...

We're going down the road where eventually priests will be convicted of hate crimes for refusing to marry gay couples.
 
phattonez said:
We're going down the road where eventually priests will be convicted of hate crimes for refusing to marry gay couples.
Click to expand...

LOL no we are no where on that road to crazy town near on the corner of insane lane and retarded boulevard because its imaginary. The constitution would have to change and the FACT is that churches already refuse STRAIGHT couple now so if someone illogically thinks we are on that road we have already been on for a century
 
Objective-J said:
LOL no we are no where on that road to crazy town near on the corner of insane lane and retarded boulevard because its imaginary. The constitution would have to change and the FACT is that churches already refuse STRAIGHT couple now so if someone illogically thinks we are on that road we have already been on for a century
Click to expand...

But refusing gay couples is discriminatory, and discrimination is illegal, is it not? So how are we not on this road other than your "trust me" argument?
 
phattonez said:
But refusing gay couples is discriminatory, and discrimination is illegal, is it not? So how are we not on this road other than your "trust me" argument?
Click to expand...

It is discriminatory yes but not illegal. Churches have the right to refuse to marry any couple for any reason they want. The government does not.
 
Omgitsme said:
It is discriminatory yes but not illegal. Churches have the right to refuse to marry any couple for any reason they want. The government does not.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just stating the law. For instance, would a priest be arrested for refusing to marry an interracial couple? Then how long until he'll be arrested for refusing to marry a gay couple?
 
phattonez said:
But refusing gay couples is discriminatory, and discrimination is illegal, is it not? So how are we not on this road other than your "trust me" argument?
Click to expand...

so is refusing straight couple, its discriminatory too but the FACTS are churches are allowed to discriminate based on their religion they are legally allowed to do so, they have constitutional protection.

so my argument isnt trust me its FACTS while yours is fantasy and churches already are and have been discriminating for YEARS.

so my statement stands as it has logical support and facts to back it up while your claim has ZERO.
 
phattonez said:
I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just stating the law. For instance, would a priest be arrested for refusing to marry an interracial couple? Then how long until he'll be arrested for refusing to marry a gay couple?
Click to expand...

no a "priest" wouldnt, how ole are you and are you from this country?

priest refuse to marry white couples, young couples, old couples black couples, gay couples, straight couples NOW and have been for years and years its not illegal because the constitution says so.
 
Objective-J said:
no a "priest" wouldnt, how ole are you and are you from this country?

priest refuse to marry white couples, young couples, old couples black couples, gay couples, straight couples NOW and have been for years and years its not illegal because the constitution says so.
Click to expand...

But they don't refuse to marry them because of those things, except for gay couples. They refuse them on other grounds that have to do with Church law. Refusing a marriage simply because they are gay, will that be an identity deserving of protection? It seems we're going moving toward that.
 
phattonez said:
I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just stating the law. For instance, would a priest be arrested for refusing to marry an interracial couple? Then how long until he'll be arrested for refusing to marry a gay couple?
Click to expand...

No. There have been churches that refuse to marry black couples or interracial couples before and no one got in any sort of legal trouble.
 
Omgitsme said:
No. There have been churches that refuse to marry black couples or interracial couples before and no one got in any sort of legal trouble.
Click to expand...

What denomination would allow that? However, banning gays from getting married is virtually universal among the Christian denominations.
 
phattonez said:
But they don't refuse to marry them because of those things, except for gay couples. They refuse them on other grounds that have to do with Church law. Refusing a marriage simply because they are gay, will that be an identity deserving of protection? It seems we're going moving toward that.
Click to expand...

100% wrong
we arnt moving towards anything like you said because the constitution allows them to discriminate. AGain are you even from america?
gays, blacks, whites, straights etc are ALREADY protected from discrimination but the church can still refuse them because they are legally allowed.

there is NOTHING that seems we are moving that way and facts prove that.
 
Objective-J said:
100% wrong
we arnt moving towards anything like you said because the constitution allows them to discriminate. AGain are you even from america?
gays, blacks, whites, straights etc are ALREADY protected from discrimination but the church can still refuse them because they are legally allowed.

there is NOTHING that seems we are moving that way and facts prove that.
Click to expand...

But they don't do that, so where's the test that says that they can do that?
 
phattonez said:
But they don't do that, so where's the test that says that they can do that?
Click to expand...

LMAO

yes they do you must be young and or from another country churches refuse people all the time hell they refuse STRAIGHT, HETEROSEXUAL WHITE COUPLES for religious reasons.

SOrry you are simply wrong and theres nothing logically or factual to support your staetment
 
Monserrat said:
It's not ridiculous to be resistant to change, its just human. Small things like changing the words on a marriage license may seem like nothing to you but in actuality its just a small piece of the larger picture, the slipping away of a tradition these people have always known and relied upon on.
Click to expand...

You mean like how they used to not say anything more than indicate male and female for signing purposes? That sort of change in tradition? I can easily find examples from the 1950s, the 1970s, and other times where the Washington marriage license didn't have anything on it at all about what people are complaining about. No mention of either bride or groom, wife or husband. Only blocks labelled "male" and "female" for where to sign the form.
 
phattonez said:
We're going down the road where eventually priests will be convicted of hate crimes for refusing to marry gay couples.
Click to expand...

Like those who are convicted of such for refusing to marry interracial couples or even black couples or white couples? This is a stupid argument. No preacher is ever going to be required to perform a wedding for any couple they don't want to perform one for, whether black, white, Asian, interracial, Catholic, Jewish, atheists, same sex or opposite sex, as long as the 1st Amendment protection of Freedom of religion is in place. Interracial marriage has been legal for decades now and not a single religious clergymen has so much as been sued for refusing to perform a wedding for an interracial couple because everyone knows it won't fly. We even have JOPs who have refused to perform such weddings and still didn't get sued.
 
phattonez said:
But they don't refuse to marry them because of those things, except for gay couples. They refuse them on other grounds that have to do with Church law. Refusing a marriage simply because they are gay, will that be an identity deserving of protection? It seems we're going moving toward that.
Click to expand...

You're wrong. Many churches have refused to marry interracial couples because they are interracial, or black couples because they are black (one just this past year), or Jewish couples because they are Jewish. The main people fighting to keep interracial marriage bans in place were religious organizations in the 1960s. Many claimed, including the first judge in the Loving case, that God intended for the races to remain separate and religious reasons was a main part of why interracial couples should not be allowed to marry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom