• 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

TheDemSocialist said:
I believe it should be allowed only if all parties consent.
Click to expand...

You didn't really want to say that did you? Now what is your position on what the human species is a product of?
 
I don't understand what the issue is. So, you don't want the Federal gov't to dis-allow gay marriage. I understand that. But you do want them to allow it. So in other words, you're fine with the Federal gov't dictating something, as long as it's what you want? That's not how it works and Rand Paul understands that, I believe. Some people, despite what you've heard, don't agree with gay marriage. They don't care about the constitutional reasons for it. Some people don't want marijuana legalized either. Why not allow those people's states to represent their citizens beliefs? I don't have an issue with that. If you don't like a state due to this, don't live there. It's as simple as that.
 
Rocketman said:
No one is oppressing anyone here.
Click to expand...
What do you call not being allowed to do something based simply on your attracted to the same sex? What do you call being fired simply because your attracted to the same sex?

It is a chemical imbalance and has been proven through various studies, look it up.
Click to expand...
I have found no proof of you little theory
 
TheDemSocialist said:
[/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Century, Times, serif]Read more @: Rand Paul All Right With 'Neutral' Federal Gay Marriage Law[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Century, Times, serif]Rand Paul doesnt care if states decide to discriminate people, or withhold peoples civil rights! Yayy! As long as it goes along with "state rights"! [/FONT]
Click to expand...

Marriage, being a religious construct, should not be within the authority of federal or state government to create laws which respect the beliefs surrounding marriage. Or, because marriage in the legal sense is a contract, to which a license is issued, between consenting adults, which places no injury on anyone else, either physically or financially, the government’s role both federal and state should consist only of recognizing and upholding those contracts.
 
Last edited:
Perotista said:
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.
Click to expand...

As long as the fed govt is doling out benefits on the basis of marriage status, yes

I"d be more sympathetic to your pov if the states' rights crowd complained about the feds intrusion on the state issue of marriage
 
TML said:
Marriage, being a religious construct, should not be within the authority of federal or state government to create laws which respect the beliefs surrounding marriage. Or, because marriage in the legal sense is a contract, to which a license is issued, between consenting adults, which places no injury on anyone else, either physically or financially, the government’s role both federal and state should consist only of recognizing and upholding those contracts.
Click to expand...

Well as soon as you successfully get the government out of ALL marriages let us know. Until then gays will fight for the same government recognition as straight couples get when they want to marry.
 
Rocketman said:
It is a chemical imbalance and has been proven through various studies, look it up.
Click to expand...

Such an ignorant and unintelligent comment. Not surprising coming from you.
 
mak2 said:
Are you saying homosexuality is caused by a chemical imbalance? Then you said look it up? No you didnt.
Click to expand...

there have been multiple studies, one is posted on this board, saw it last night
 
TheDemSocialist said:
What do you call not being allowed to do something based simply on your attracted to the same sex? What do you call being fired simply because your attracted to the same sex?


I have found no proof of you little theory
Click to expand...

It is posted on this board in the sex thread, read it last night. I can't wait until you find an excuse as to why some people might be attracted to animals or something else:lamo
 
TheNextEra said:
Until then gays will fight for the same government recognition as straight couples get when they want to marry.
Click to expand...

And they should have it, as I explained.
 
captainawesome said:
States rights is modern code for deny civil rights.
Click to expand...


Really? So the Federal Government getting out of the business would harm the rights of those that did pass same-sex marriage laws?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Marriage? The right to be married to someone? Being bared from marriage because of your sexuality, being bared from a job because of your sexuality, being denied the benefits of marriage because of your sexuality. All those are real and happen and all of those deal with the legislative process. "Wake the **** up" :roll:
Click to expand...

And that's what makes the issue complicated. It's called Judeo-Christian values. Marriage is defined as man and women, period. But what the gay marriage crowd fails to understand is there is no difference between Marriage and Civil Union legally if the Defense of Marriage Act was stuck down.

Hence you need the Federal Government out of "Marriage". It's the Federal Government that is oppressing the rights to benefits, not States.
 
sangha said:
The constitution gives the power to regulate marriage to the states but requires the states to recognize marriages performed in other states

Now show me where the constitution gives the govt the power to regulate drugs or immigration :lol:
Click to expand...

Commerce Clause. Drugs are illegal under the guise of you need a stamp for carrying or selling. Federal Government issues no stamps for public consumption. Started with the Harrison Narcotic Tax Act and then went to the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 (yep that's how they spelled it).
 
sangha said:
As long as the fed govt is doling out benefits on the basis of marriage status, yes

I"d be more sympathetic to your pov if the states' rights crowd complained about the feds intrusion on the state issue of marriage
Click to expand...

Marriage has been around a lot longer before the fed government started doling out benefits. But the conversation I was having was more about do you marry for love or do you marry for benefits.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
If i "really didnt want to say it" then i just wouldnt of responded to you.


Uhhh sex..
Click to expand...

1. You had to say it or put yourself in the obvious corner.

2. Do you think we are the result of millions of years of evolutionary accidents? Yes or no will suffice. Thanks
 
Perotista said:
Marriage has been around a lot longer before the fed government started doling out benefits. But the conversation I was having was more about do you marry for love or do you marry for benefits.
Click to expand...

I realize that those who want to deny others equal rights always have a rationalization for why they're OK with the govt treating others unfairly, but yours took the cake

You may want to limit the discussion to an argument that benefits your side, but the thread is clearly about more than that.
 
TheNextEra said:
It it's the argument celticwar17 put out, it's been debunked. Otherwise please link where.
Click to expand...

Never seen anyone stutter while they write before

One study is in the sex thread area, it is one of many, I do not subsidize others.
 
Rocketman said:
One study is in the sex thread area, it is one of many, I do not subsidize others.
Click to expand...

YOU are the one that brought it up. If you can't back it up, that's your problem not mine. Your ignornace stands.
 
sangha said:
I realize that those who want to deny others equal rights always have a rationalization for why they're OK with the govt treating others unfairly, but yours took the cake

You may want to limit the discussion to an argument that benefits your side, but the thread is clearly about more than that.
Click to expand...

Call it a discussion or a thread within a thread. I head on the news coming home from picking up my grand daughter from school, that the SCOTUS will probably punt on the California ruling. This throws it back to the 9th circuit courts previous ruling the the ban was unconstitutional. If they do this, I do not have a problem with it. I think it is the right decision and gay marriages in California will once again be legal. But of course we will have to wait until June to actually hear the SCOTUS verdict as most of the talking heads usually get their rulings wrong.

Tomorrow the SCOTUS will hear arguments over DOMA. Now that I feel is unconstitutional.
 
Rocketman said:
It is posted on this board in the sex thread, read it last night. I can't wait until you find an excuse as to why some people might be attracted to animals or something else:lamo
Click to expand...

So its so hard to link it?
 
hfd said:
1. You had to say it or put yourself in the obvious corner.
Click to expand...
Uhhh no


2. Do you think we are the result of millions of years of evolutionary accidents? Yes or no will suffice. Thanks
Click to expand...
What the hell does this have to do with anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom