• 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!

SE Cupp pulls out of CPAC until groups representing gay Republicans are embraced

Why won't it work? Marriage, whether gay, straight, inanimate or agricultural wouldn't be an issue at all anywhere unless the locals chose to make it that way and although some communities might not choose to accept the practice others certainly would.

There would no longer be "married" federal tax returns and the rest of the stuff would be a local issue.

Because if one moved to several cities, those rules would be different.

I thought this was quite obvious.
 
Because if one moved to several cities, those rules would be different.

I thought this was quite obvious.

Why should marriage bestow any benefits or penalties on a couple? If we get rid of this mentality, there would be no issues...
 
Traditional Marriage should be defended and upheld

You can relax. Traditional marriage isn't going anywhere. Nobody is trying to take away a man's right to marry a woman or a woman's right to marry a man.
 
You can relax. Traditional marriage isn't going anywhere. Nobody is trying to take away a man's right to marry a woman or a woman's right to marry a man.

shhhhhhh dont ruin the fantasy that its in danger and needs protection
 
How is expanding rights tyranny? How is allowing SSM harming straight people? That argument is so ridiculous I can't even believe people actually use it. Anti-SSM laws are tyranny, and it matters not whether they are brought on by the state, or the federal government, they are wrong either way, and should be brought down.

You're still focused on the idea that the state can and should be the arbiter of rights. I'm suggesting that just like the right to self defense and free enjoyment of the fruits of ones labor these rights preexist the Constitution and that the state has no business being on one side of the issue or the other.

Maybe what is confusing people is when I refer to "state". State with a capital "S" indicates one of the 50 territories in the US defined as States. State with a small "s" indicates a governing authority superior to the State.
 
Why should marriage bestow any benefits or penalties on a couple? If we get rid of this mentality, there would be no issues...

Oh great, the first little bit of sanity in the last 40 posts has to come from a liberal....just my luck:lamo
 
Why should marriage bestow any benefits or penalties on a couple? If we get rid of this mentality, there would be no issues...

Because the theocractic military state that arose after the ascension of Christianity to the throne of Rome, which became the model for all Western states since, needed a massive breeding population in order to provide the troops it needed to insure it could perpetuate it's disease.............Oh, the humanity................................
 
You're still focused on the idea that the state can and should be the arbiter of rights. I'm suggesting that just like the right to self defense and free enjoyment of the fruits of ones labor these rights preexist the Constitution and that the state has no business being on one side of the issue or the other.

Maybe what is confusing people is when I refer to "state". State with a capital "S" indicates one of the 50 territories in the US defined as States. State with a small "s" indicates a governing authority superior to the State.

That is a naive way of looking at things. The state can govern away anything, and we must always be on guard to protect our freedoms from tyranny, and yes that includes SSM.

And I understand the difference between States, and state, made an A in Advanced Government.
 
That is a naive way of looking at things. The state can govern away anything, and we must always be on guard to protect our freedoms from tyranny, and yes that includes SSM.

And I understand the difference between States, and state, made an A in Advanced Government.

I didn't have you in mind with the State v state thing but congratulations on the "A" anyway.

The state can only govern away the things we delegate to it so if we never delegate that authority or, in a case like this, take that responsibility back onto ourselves the problem is solved.
 
I didn't have you in mind with the State v state thing but congratulations on the "A" anyway.

The state can only govern away the things we delegate to it so if we never delegate that authority or, in a case like this, take that responsibility back onto ourselves the problem is solved.

But government at a state, and local level is still government, and tyranny, in this case denying SSM is still tyranny. You can't escape the fact that denying SSM rights is inherently wrong.
 
But government at a state, and local level is still government, and tyranny, in this case denying SSM is still tyranny. You can't escape the fact that denying SSM rights is inherently wrong.

True. We need government at some level but if we keep the stuff that directly impacts us at the level that we have the most access to we will always be more capable of
holding that government accountable.

One of the biggest reasons that our federal government is so horribly out of control right now is that we no longer hold properly them accountable (aside from a few well placed internet rants now and again). I mean, seriously, how much opportunity do you have to address your congressman much less get in there and really bend his or her ear on a particular matter? If you are like most of us that opportunity is little more than a pipe dream yet we still seem to vote for them based on stuff which can and does have a serious impact on our every day lives. Wouldn't it be easier if we could address those issues by heading downtown and attending a city council meeting or, if need be, having a little gathering on the street in front of the councilman's house?
 
True. We need government at some level but if we keep the stuff that directly impacts us at the level that we have the most access to we will always be more capable of
holding that government accountable.

One of the biggest reasons that our federal government is so horribly out of control right now is that we no longer hold properly them accountable (aside from a few well placed internet rants now and again). I mean, seriously, how much opportunity do you have to address your congressman much less get in there and really bend his or her ear on a particular matter? If you are like most of us that opportunity is little more than a pipe dream yet we still seem to vote for them based on stuff which can and does have a serious impact on our every day lives. Wouldn't it be easier if we could address those issues by heading downtown and attending a city council meeting or, if need be, having a little gathering on the street in front of the councilman's house?

How can we even begin to guess at what form of "government" is suitable, when most of our people are still living deep in the Dark Ages ?..........just wondering................
 
How can we even begin to guess at what form of "government" is suitable, when most of our people are still living deep in the Dark Ages ?..........just wondering................

How, then, do you define the "Dark Ages"? Those who disagree with your opinion?
 
You can relax. Traditional marriage isn't going anywhere. Nobody is trying to take away a man's right to marry a woman or a woman's right to marry a man.

This POV may constitute a strawman. I am not aware of anybody expressing a concern that someone is trying to take away a man's right to marry a woman or vice versa.
 
How, then, do you define the "Dark Ages"? Those who disagree with your opinion?

No. I define the Dark Ages as that time when Christianity finally succeeded in completely eradicating any knowledge available from the pagans........ie: post 600 AD......................
 
How can we even begin to guess at what form of "government" is suitable, when most of our people are still living deep in the Dark Ages ?..........just wondering................

Because way back in the "dark ages" the founding fathers of this nation laid the plan out in a document called the Constitution. Since then there has been no small amount of effort (even from some of the founders) to turn that document on its ear but, as luck would have it, there have also always been a bunch of folks who have fought tooth and nail to preserve it. Some days we come up a little short in our efforts but we will always be there and we will always do whatever we can to defend our charge.
 
Because way back in the "dark ages" the founding fathers of this nation laid the plan out in a document called the Constitution. Since then there has been no small amount of effort (even from some of the founders) to turn that document on its ear but, as luck would have it, there have also always been a bunch of folks who have fought tooth and nail to preserve it. Some days we come up a little short in our efforts but we will always be there and we will always do whatever we can to defend our charge.


Perhaps you could point out where the Constitution says anything about gay marriage. Or straight marriage for that matter.
 
Perhaps you could point out where the Constitution says anything about gay marriage. Or straight marriage for that matter.

What is wrong with the people here ?...........
 
Perhaps you could point out where the Constitution says anything about gay marriage. Or straight marriage for that matter.

It doesn't. That's pretty much the whole point of my position.
 
This POV may constitute a strawman. I am not aware of anybody expressing a concern that someone is trying to take away a man's right to marry a woman or vice versa.

nope, no strawman there at all, he was simply pointing out the dishonesty of some who think "traditional" marriage is "under attack" and needs "protection"

it was sarcasm pointing out that traditional marriage is not under attack nor does it need protection from people who support equal rights LMAO

Please keep up with the thread if you plan on judging a post without having a clue about its context
 
Glad to see her doing this.

"I don't care if you're black. I don't care if you're gay. As long as you're a Republican, you're alright."

Get On The Bus was a hell of a movie.
 
I cant beleive this is an issue again. Just when we're finally getting back to talking about important things like taxes, spending, and debt, here comes the media to steer us back to social issues. And no doubt liberals will hammer it to try and make republicans look bad again.
 
Back
Top Bottom