• 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!

Rand Paul All Right With 'Neutral' Federal Gay Marriage Law

Rocketman said:
God is on my side opinionated one. Homsexuality is nothing more than sexual preference and has nothing to do with bigotry.
Click to expand...

:lamo But calling them "chemically imbalanced" certainly is.
Keep on oppressing peoples rights, real "libertarian" of you, and keep on having "God" on your side
 
Perotista said:
I was married in Thailand at a Buddhist Wat, but I had my marriage certificate translated at JUSMAGTHAI SJA and the military recognized it as I went through the proper military channels to get their approval to marry. It wouldn’t have bothered me if my home state of Georgia recognized it or not. I love my wife.
Click to expand...
Big problem here tho is every state you go to recognizes your marriage.

You seem more interest in benefits than love.
Click to expand...
Im interested in equality.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Big problem here tho is every state you go to recognizes your marriage.


Im interested in equality.
Click to expand...

So, you would have no problem with multiple spouses. Another question comes to mind. If we are nothing but the product of evolutionary accidents then we are on par with all mammals sexually. Therefore, it would seen reasonable that the 'age of consent' would be at puberty. After all, the primary purpose of sex is procreation.
 
hfd said:
So, you would have no problem with multiple spouses.
Click to expand...
How did you get that out of my comment?

If we are nothing but the product of evolutionary accidents then we are on par with all mammals sexually. Therefore, it would seen reasonable that the 'age of consent' would be at puberty. After all, the primary purpose of sex is procreation.
Click to expand...

Why are we talking about this with marriage?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Big problem here tho is every state you go to recognizes your marriage.


Im interested in equality.
Click to expand...

You conveniently left my oldest daughter out of this. I have no problem with marriage being decided or defined by the states. Marriage is not something to regulated by the federal government.
 
Perotista said:
You conveniently left my oldest daughter out of this. I have no problem with marriage being decided or defined by the states. Marriage is not something to regulated by the federal government.
Click to expand...

Even if the states discriminate against them because they are homosexuals? Even if the states pass laws that discriminate on them? Even if we are no equal? I have a huge problem with that.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
How did you get that out of my comment?



Why are we talking about this with marriage?
Click to expand...

Both issues in my response deals with a form of marraige. You stated you are for equality.
 
hfd said:
Both issues in my response deals with a form of marraige. You stated you are for equality.
Click to expand...

No they do not. They had to deal with age of consent, evolution, and religious arguments.
 
iguanaman said:
Taboo because that behavior causes harm and/or violates the rights of others. Anything else is discrimination.
Click to expand...

what harm do thoughts cause?

we are talking about humans and what they perceive as attractive, not human actions.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
No they do not. They had to deal with age of consent, evolution, and religious arguments.
Click to expand...

And marraige. Evidently forms of marriage you don't support. If so, why not? Is SSM not a religious argument at least on one side of the issue?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Even if the states discriminate against them because they are homosexuals? Even if the states pass laws that discriminate on them? Even if we are no equal? I have a huge problem with that.
Click to expand...

So in the name of equality you want the federal government telling who can and who can't be married? We might as well go back to the father choosing whom his off spring will marry. No love, just benefits.
 
Perotista said:
So in the name of equality you want the federal government telling who can and who can't be married?
Click to expand...
Im in favor of the federal government protecting the rights of the LGBT community, and ending this oppression.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Im in favor of the federal government protecting the rights of the LGBT community, and ending this oppression.
Click to expand...

And the rights of those who desire multiple spouses?
 
TheNextEra said:
LOL you complain that gay marriage took the stage over economics, jobs, etc. Gay Marriage did that because the RIGHT continues to rail against it. Maybe if the right just accepted that gay marriage is going to happen and legalize it, other important issues (as you claim) can be solved.

So if you hate gay marriage being at the for front, blame the right for not agreeing to legalize it.
Click to expand...

I don't care what the right does, I'm not a republican.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:lamo

Do you not remember basic American history? Jim Crow laws!? Segregation!?

2mrce91.jpg


6ynkfq.jpg


2qve4vd.jpg


efif4w.jpg
Click to expand...

The gay "plight" is nowhere near comparable to the grueling struggle of the black rights movement. It's downright insulting to equate the two.
 
Surtr said:
The gay "plight" is nowhere near comparable to the grueling struggle of the black rights movement. It's downright insulting to equate the two.
Click to expand...

Im not saying its equal i was simply showing him that we cannot leave everything up to the states. Sometimes the "states rights" route is not the best way to go.
 
Surtr said:
The gay "plight" is nowhere near comparable to the grueling struggle of the black rights movement. It's downright insulting to equate the two.
Click to expand...

Clearly the history hasn't been as bloody for both groups, but they are still equal in concept. Whether born gay, straight, black, white, tall, or short, you were born that way. No one should ever be discriminated against for something they were born with.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Im in favor of the federal government protecting the rights of the LGBT community, and ending this oppression.
Click to expand...

I see no oppression. Oppression means to bully or exploit, cruelly, overbearing, tyrannical. Slavery was oppression of those who were slaves. Gays can be legally married in nine states and soon I believe there will be more. Gays are not being oppressed by 41 one states saying they do not believe in or allow gay marriages. In fact marriages might be defined as being oppressive in many ways and these states may be stopping that oppression from happening.

Gays can be married, nothing is stopping them. Benefits may or may not be coming depending on which state they live in. But if one loves another, benefits shouldn't enter the equation. You make it sound as benefits are the only thing important to a relationship or marriage. I don't think so.

I think you can call 41 states not allowing gay marriage many things, oppression is not one of them.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:lamo But calling them "chemically imbalanced" certainly is.
Keep on oppressing peoples rights, real "libertarian" of you, and keep on having "God" on your side
Click to expand...

No one is oppressing anyone here. It is a chemical imbalance and has been proven through various studies, look it up.
 
Rocketman said:
then explain why states right are only ok for their beliefs?
Click to expand...

Projection, anyone?

Now, which political pursuasion makes the "states rights" argument. Think hard now.
 
Rocketman said:
No one is oppressing anyone here. It is a chemical imbalance and has been proven through various studies, look it up.
Click to expand...

And so we see the conservative code at work again.
 
Are you saying homosexuality is caused by a chemical imbalance? Then you said look it up? No you didnt.
Rocketman said:
No one is oppressing anyone here. It is a chemical imbalance and has been proven through various studies, look it up.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom