• 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!

Ginsburg nation’s first Supreme Court justice to officiate a same-sex ceremony

opendebate said:
It is indeed. Thank you for your continued support. It is so important to me.
Click to expand...

Oh no, not me. But lot's of sicko's out there in you corner. But what's sliding the scale just a wee bit more? No harm, no foul when basing a marriage on sex, right? Yep, marry who you love, everything is fine.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Oh no, not me. But lot's of sicko's out there in you corner. But what's sliding the scale just a wee bit more? No harm, no foul when basing a marriage on sex, right? Yep, marry who you love, everything is fine.
Click to expand...

yes, exactly. Not you're getting it.
 
opendebate said:
yes, exactly. Not you're getting it.
Click to expand...

Oh no I get it. I just hope you don't. You say you love your daughter. I just hope you don't love her enough to want to marry her or her "friend". Lots of people that want the scale to slide on the marriage issue want it to slide just a little more than others. And they are going to start to make the very same arguments we all heard the first time around. Basing marriage on sex is a very slippery slope.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Oh no I get it. I just hope you don't. You say you love your daughter. I just hope you don't love her enough to want to marry her or her "friend". Lots of people that want the scale to slide on the marriage issue want it to slide just a little more than others. And they are going to start to make the very same arguments we all heard the first time around. Basing marriage on sex is a very slippery slope.
Click to expand...

What does that even mean? Basing marriage on sex Are you suggesting that people are gay for purely sexual reasons? That it is the deviant sex that draws them to it? That's ignorant. People are gay because they fall in love with people of the same gender, not because they have super hot sex.
 
Grendel said:
It's a free country. If you want to tell someone they can't do something, you have to be able to show harm. A gay couple getting married doesn't harm you. I mean, unless they don't invite you to the wedding. That might hurt your feelings, but there's no harm to you in their being married.

Ergo, you have no basis to tell them they can't do it.
Click to expand...

I never said they couldn't get married. But there is no reason for either the state or myself need recognize the "marriage".
 
Aunt Spiker said:
LOL

I can just see you when you're in your nineties . . . "Them damn gays!" and "You fags get off my lawn!" - with your hair in all sorts of crazy Einstein patches between intermittent bald spots, lips pruned and fingers gaunt.

The kids on the street will think you strange, and their parents convinced you're suffering from dementia.
Click to expand...

...let me guess...you forgot your medication, didn't you?...
 
I think this is clear proof that the trollop was prejudiced in her opinion, making the entire ruling meaningless.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Well, yes there is that "First Amendment" thing, thanks for recognizing it. And in that very same source document, The U.S. Constitution we also have that ol’ "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment. This guarantees the same legal protections obtained through “traditional marriage” to citizens engaged in a same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...
Yea, the Fourteenth Amendment addressed former slaves but today it’s twisted to mean all sorts of things.

Well in Greek culture we had the male-male bonding traditions of the Theban Bands, and the Spartan Agoge; During the Zhou Dynasty of China we have the recorded example Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian; Same sex marriage was legal in Rome until 342 AD when the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.

So the Theban Bands were gay folks in the military, the Spartan Agoge assumes homosexuality without proof, Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian may or may not have been gay, same-sex marriage in Rome was legal for a time but the extent to which it was utilized is questionable with some “unions” looking more like the legalized rape of young boys. Seriously, where are the remote African tribes that practiced “same-sex marriages” or the Indian tribes here in America.

Throughout the history of the world there has been no country, culture, religion, people that has ever practice homosexual marriage on any scale of influence. Yes, you can find random examples of same-sex “marriage”. But throughout history, region, culture, religion, etc. marriage is between a man and an woman.

Captain Adverse said:
As you can see, much (though not all) of that information came from a simple examination of wikipedia, but the prime sources for the statements are listed there too for your personal research..
Click to expand...

Yep. Wikipedia. It came form Wikipedia just as you pointed out.

Now think that through…

Captain Adverse said:
You misunderstood. My challenge was not about your claims that kids needed two parents to have a better chance to grow up “well-adjusted.” My response was that you have NO EVIDENCE that the two parents MUST be a man and a women, rather than a couple of the same-sex.
Click to expand...

Evidence? Like this?

Captain Adverse said:
No! Factually true because you are only presuming that this has anything to do with same-sex marriage. It is a red herring, unrelated to the issue at hand. That holds true for the rest of your diversion into divorce. Why? As I've previously stated; all marriages face the divorce issue you raise, whether they be traditional or same-sex. Therefore such points as you raise have no special bearing on same-sex marriage. Strange that YOU can’t see it is a red herring and irrelevant to the issue of same-sex marriage. Now forgive me for by-passing the rest of your divorce argument, because I have already provided the proper response above.
Click to expand...

Look. This ain’t hard. My point is that that a change--any change--to the institution of marriage is harmful as evidenced by what no-fault divorce has done. You want same-sex marriage? Provide evidence that it won’t hurt the institution.

Captain Adverse said:
So what, as stated above you have no evidence that same-sex marriages cause more harm than traditional marriages (or traditional marriages ending in divorce, or remarriages to stepparents) on child-rearing. We only see your personal assumption bias, that same automatic assumption bias shared by people who think that since homosexuality is immoral the harm to children must be “self-evident.”

Your arguments remain fallacious, (red herrings, straw man, etc.) full of false analogies based on assumption bias rather than on facts in evidence. If the First Amendment allows the religious sanction of marriage, then the legal protections tradtitionally afforded by this ceremony are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Click to expand...

“Now forgive me for by-passing the rest of your…argument, because I have already provided the proper response above.”
 
The Baron said:
Yea, the Fourteenth Amendment addressed former slaves but today it’s twisted to mean all sorts of things.
Click to expand...

It exists nonetheless. :)

The Baron said:
…Throughout the history of the world there has been no country, culture, religion, people that has ever practice homosexual marriage on any scale of influence. Yes, you can find random examples of same-sex “marriage”. But throughout history, region, culture, religion, etc. marriage is between a man and an woman.
Click to expand...

No, unless you believe God created humanity 5,000 years ago under that “Creationist Theory” then there was no such thing as “marriage” before the development of organized religion. I said there were oodles of examples in history, I never said it was the dominant theme in history. As for using wikipedia? I noticed you ignored the source material from which that particular article cites it’s facts.

The Baron said:
Evidence? Like this?
Click to expand...

Sorry, that link leads nowhere for some reason. However I did find the “about us” section on the website:

CitizenLink is a family advocacy organization that inspires men and women to live out biblical citizenship that transforms culture. As an affiliate of Focus on the Family, we provide resources that equip citizens to make their voices heard on critical social policy issues involving the sanctity of human life, the preservation of religious liberties and the well-being of the family as the building block of society.
Click to expand...

So, you are quoting from a christian family values website “affiliated” with Focus on the Family. There are many such websites which can be cited to support your position; now try citing one that both sides agree is unbiased.

In any case I think you used the cite in a prior response and I did see it that day. Nothing in it refutes my position that as long as there are two parents there is no requirement they be of different genders except for your (and their) assumption bias.

The Baron said:
Look. This ain’t hard. My point is that that a change--any change--to the institution of marriage is harmful as evidenced by what no-fault divorce has done. You want same-sex marriage? Provide evidence that it won’t hurt the institution. “Now forgive me for by-passing the rest of your…argument, because I have already provided the proper response above.”
Click to expand...

Wrong. YOU assert that any change to the institution or marriage is harmful. That’s merely assumption bias based on a Christian “family values” ideal of marriage. For a long time women and children were considered "chattel" in a "traditonal" marriage allowing the husband to rape and abuse the wife and abuse the children legally, until society changed that "tradition." I'd say that was a pretty positive change, wouldn't you?

You also seem to be unaware of facts regarding divorce in religious history. Divorce has existed in all other religions except Hinduism and Christianity. Even the other two “people of the Book,” Judaism and Islam have always allow divorce. Therefore I need provide nothing since my only assertion is that same-sex marriage at worst would merely share any “harm to marriage caused by divorce” that you believe traditional marriages already face.

I certainly do forgive you, since you have no real argument to support your positions. For the third and final time, your position is based on fallacies and assumption bias, not facts. Nothing you have stated, now or previously, supports your argument for denying same-sex married couples all the same legal rights held by a heterosexual married couple.
 
Last edited:
The Baron said:
I never said they couldn't get married. But there is no reason for either the state or myself need recognize the "marriage".
Click to expand...

There's no reason you should, but the state recognizing any marriage gives it certain protections under the law, and the Constitution prescribes equal protection fo the law to all people. You can't carve out a sub-class of people to whom certain rights do not apply. Not unless you can show cause.

For example, felons can't own guns. I personally disagree with that law, but the argument is that the felon has already demonstrated that he's too dangerous to own a gun. That is a penalty for having caused harm to other people. What harm do homosexuals getting married cause you (that heterosexuals getting married do not cause you).
 
Grendel said:
There's no reason you should, but the state recognizing any marriage gives it certain protections under the law, and the Constitution prescribes equal protection fo the law to all people. You can't carve out a sub-class of people to whom certain rights do not apply. Not unless you can show cause.

For example, felons can't own guns. I personally disagree with that law, but the argument is that the felon has already demonstrated that he's too dangerous to own a gun. That is a penalty for having caused harm to other people. What harm do homosexuals getting married cause you (that heterosexuals getting married do not cause you).
Click to expand...

In male/female only marriage, everyone every one is treated equally under the law.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
In male/female only marriage, everyone every one is treated equally under the law.
Click to expand...

How is everyone treated equally under the law when some people are told their relationship is illegal and some people aren't?

Further, what harm does it do you if all people get the same treatment by the law?
 
disneydude said:
No. The union is the same period, unless you are simply referring to a sexual component.
Click to expand...

I am, one is of the opposite sex and has the potential for offspring, one is of the same sex and has no potential for offspring. So, yes, there are differences, they are not the same.
 
Grendel said:
How is everyone treated equally under the law when some people are told their relationship is illegal and some people aren't?

Further, what harm does it do you if all people get the same treatment by the law?
Click to expand...

So you support pedophilia?
 
Anthony60 said:
I am, one is of the opposite sex and has the potential for offspring, one is of the same sex and has no potential for offspring. So, yes, there are differences, they are not the same.
Click to expand...

Sad that you can only see a sexual component to a relationship. Most people in a successful marriage understand that the sexual component is the smallest part of it.
 
Equal protection doesn't apply, since marraige is available to all. Any man can marry a woman, and visa versa. A Man & a man? Well, that is outside of marraige and you are asking the state to change it to include that.
 
disneydude said:
Sad that you can only see a sexual component to a relationship. Most people in a successful marriage understand that the sexual component is the smallest part of it.
Click to expand...

Nothing at all sad about it, I am pointing out the obvious which seems to elude some many on the left, otherwise I wouldn't need to. And you are in error to believe that I can only see one component of marriage, another assumption that, I believe, liberals like to make because it helps their argument.

You have to weigh both sides of the argument. I know gays love each other as much as anyone in an opposite sex relationship does. That's great, but I still believe we don't need to change the definition of marriage.
 
Anthony60 said:
Nothing at all sad about it, I am pointing out the obvious which seems to elude some many on the left, otherwise I wouldn't need to. And you are in error to believe that I can only see one component of marriage, another assumption that, I believe, liberals like to make because it helps their argument.

You have to weigh both sides of the argument. I know gays love each other as much as anyone in an opposite sex relationship does. That's great, but I still believe we don't need to change the definition of marriage.
Click to expand...

The definition of marriage has zero to do with sexual activity. Its sad that you either don't understand that or fail to recognize it.
 
Anthony60 said:
Equal protection doesn't apply, since marraige is available to all. Any man can marry a woman, and visa versa. A Man & a man? Well, that is outside of marraige and you are asking the state to change it to include that.
Click to expand...

That argument has been rejected. You are going to have to come up with something better than that.
 
disneydude said:
That argument has been rejected. You are going to have to come up with something better than that.
Click to expand...

rejected and destroyed many times

nobody honest buys that failed fallacy of an argument
 
disneydude said:
That argument has been rejected. You are going to have to come up with something better than that.
Click to expand...

on a side note you know one of the things that is funny

all those states that banned gay marriage are actually going to make it EASIER to have gay marriage because the banning are easier to challenge. Their homophobia is gonna make it easier.
When bannings have been pushed to state supreme courts they have been found to violate equality.

THAT makes me giggle
 
Anthony60 said:
What is your objection to having gay unions with the same legal rights as marriage?
Click to expand...

The same as having seperate drinking fountains for blacks. The people who think that black people are "icky" and shouldn't have to share space with them are just going to have to get used to it. "Seperate but equal" is a failed doctrine.
 
Anthony60 said:
Again, to answer your broken record, not sad at all.
Click to expand...

Absolutely is sad. Sad that you cannot see beyond a sexual component. You might not be sad, but it nevertheless is a sad and sorry fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom