• 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!

President Obama now says the Constitution protects same-sex marriage

HenryChinaski said:
I still can't fathom why anyone would care that two people of the same sex would want to marry. It doesn't affect me one iota, and gays have the PRIVILEGE along with everyone else to be miserable, so let them get hitched.
Click to expand...

fixed it for you.
 
ernst barkmann said:
fixed it for you.
Click to expand...

Whatever, You can call it corned beef hash for all I care. There is zero reason besides bigotry and some moral authoritarian power trip in telling consenting adults that they can't enjoy a privilege that others can. If Peter want to marry harry then so what? Let em' marry till their hearts content.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Whatever, You can call it corned beef hash for all I care. There is zero reason besides bigotry and some moral authoritarian power trip in telling consenting adults that they can't enjoy a privilege that others can. If Peter want to marry harry then so what? Let em' marry till their hearts content.
Click to expand...

but there is a difference between a right and a privilege........this is causing problems because people do not understand that difference.
 
ernst barkmann said:
but there is a difference between a right and a privilege........this is causing problems because people do not understand that difference.
Click to expand...

Whatever. Why shouldn't two consenting adults that happen to be of the same sex be able to enjoy the same privilege? Were blacks told that riding on a bus was a "privilege" so don't complain about taking a seat in the back?
 
HenryChinaski said:
Whatever. Why shouldn't two consenting adults that happen to be of the same sex be able to enjoy the same privilege? Were blacks told that riding on a bus was a "privilege" so don't complain about taking a seat in the back?
Click to expand...

you seems to want to debate emotional context of things....i debate law.............so our statements have nothing in common then..
 
ernst barkmann said:
you seems to want to debate emotional context of things....i debate law.............so our statements have nothing in common then..
Click to expand...

Laws change. If this were 1965 would you be arguing against interracial marriage because it was against the law?
 
HenryChinaski said:
Laws change. If this were 1965 would you be arguing against interracial marriage because it was against the law?
Click to expand...

why is it when a person say marriage is not a RIGHT.......its assumed a person is against SSM?

marriage is a privilege, it not a right.....its a privilege of government.


The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
 
ernst barkmann said:
why is it when a person say marriage is not a RIGHT.......its assumed a person is against SSM?

marriage is a privilege, it not a right.....its a privilege of government.


The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Click to expand...
Why shouldn't two consenting adults of the same sex be able to marry one another? This is a civil rights issue and the winds are blowing in the right direction.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Why shouldn't two consenting adults of the same sex be able to marry one another? This is a civil rights issue and the winds are blowing in the right direction.
Click to expand...

i dont know why

BUT

civil rights = privileges under constitutional law

they are not rights.
 
Cardinal said:
End result of this difference: zero.
Click to expand...

wrong, a right and a privilege are a big difference.

privileges come from government ,and they must honor them...not people or business.....which is why a privilege requires an action from government.

a right only requires it not be hindered when exercising it.

which is why marriage is not a right.....because it does not require an action.
 
ernst barkmann said:
wrong, a right and a privilege are a big difference.

privileges come from government ,and they must honor them...not people or business.....which is why a privilege requires an action from government.

a right only requires it not be hindered when exercising it.

which is why marriage is not a right.....because it does not require an action.
Click to expand...

I said "result," not "significance of your differentiation." In other words, your choice of terminology is irrelevant -- it has no impact on real word events.
 
Cardinal said:
I said "result," not "significance of your differentiation." In other words, your choice of terminology is irrelevant -- it has no impact on real word events.
Click to expand...

false, and rights cannot be infringed upon....meaning government cannot hinder its exercise.......a privilege is granted by the government...... and it can have strings attached to it to receive it.
 
ernst barkmann said:
false, and rights cannot be infringed upon....meaning government cannot hinder its exercise.......a privilege is granted by the government...... and it can have strings attached to it to receive it.
Click to expand...

Name for me one real world result (within this topic) where what you're talking about has had an impact in the real world. Not in theory, not in semantics...the real world.
 
Cardinal said:
Name for me one real world result (within this topic) where what you're talking about has had an impact in the real world. Not in theory, not in semantics...the real world.
Click to expand...

if you have a
......is it illegal to infringe on it........yes it is

but a privilege is not a right, privileges are dispensed by government, and they can come with strings attached to them, ..meaning if you wish to receive the privilege then you might have to meet the qualifications to get it.

rights..... do not have a qualifying factor

by calling a privilege..... a right, this confuses things....and in essence says that you can have a privilege, but exercising it like a right. at the expense/labor of another citizen, if you meet government's qualification.

government cannot grant you a privilege, at another citiznes expense or labor.​
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
if you have a
......is it illegal to infringe on it........yes it is

but a privilege is not a right, privileges are dispensed by government, and they can come with strings attached to them, ..meaning if you wish to receive the privilege then you might have to meet the qualifications to get it.

rights..... do not have a qualifying factor​
Click to expand...


Do you know what "real world impact" means? Because so far the concept has been going right over your head.​
 
Cardinal said:
Do you know what "real world impact" means? Because so far the concept has been going right over your head.
Click to expand...

point blank to you...........you are calling a "privilege" given to you by government "a right"............and exercising a "privilege of government"................ on other citiznes, as a "right".......over another "citizens rights".

privileges of government cannot override a natural right.
 
ernst barkmann said:
point blank to you...........you are calling a "privilege" given has given to you by government "a right"............and exercising a "privilege of government"................ on other citiznes, as a right.
Click to expand...

Tell it to a Federal judge.
 
ernst barkmann said:
again i ask a simple question, ...do you believe government can grant you a right........which violates my rights?
Click to expand...

No, and that's why votes for bans against ssm are being continually ruled unconstitutional.
 
Cardinal said:
No, and that's why votes for bans against ssm are being continually ruled unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

wrong......marriage is not a right....

what is going on is states are granting the privilege of marriage to people, ...however they are not granting it to everyone, meaning gay people.

the Constitution states if you grants privileges to the people you must grant it to them all, unless the states can show its in their interest no to give you the privilege, but states have not been able to do that.

Article 4

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States"
 
ernst barkmann said:
if you have a
......is it illegal to infringe on it........yes it is

but a privilege is not a right, privileges are dispensed by government, and they can come with strings attached to them, ..meaning if you wish to receive the privilege then you might have to meet the qualifications to get it.

rights..... do not have a qualifying factor

by calling a privilege..... a right, this confuses things....and in essence says that you can have a privilege, but exercising it like a right. at the expense/labor of another citizen, if you meet government's qualification.

government cannot grant you a privilege, at another citiznes expense or labor.​
Click to expand...


Sure it can it is called income redistribution supported by taxation. I'll gladly give you a hamburger today and tax your neighbor to pay for it. ;)​
 
ernst barkmann said:
i didn't say the judgement action was wrong.

its wrong, in meaning its a "right".
Click to expand...

And that brings me right back around to "Tell it to a Federal judge." Shrug.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom