• 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!

If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do [W:72,96,331

If there was a national vote on equal rights for gays what would you do?


  • Total voters
    133
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

you are free to have that meanignless opinion and the great thing about rights and freedom, gays being granted equal rights wont effect your freedom to have your opinion. You get to keep it. Its a shame your views dont value that though.

So, he's free to not marry gaily? ;)
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

If we could take the vibe on this thread and put it in a bottle, we would have an incredibly deadly poison.

This is nothing.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

the vibe in thie thread isnt posin at all, the vast majority support, understand and want equal rights. thats AWESOME!

the very small minority view (the real poison) do not and thier bigotry and or opposition to equal rights doesnt really matter because equal rights is w

I was talking about people's lack of manners or respect toward each other. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean you're allowed to be a jackass. I know that it's insane for me to expect civility from anonymous internet users, but you really shouldn't call people's opinions meaningless just because they disagree with you. I think that you in particular need to stop behaving like a four-year-old. Or, at the very least, install Spellcheck and learn how to be funny while you're being an ass.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

So, he's free to not marry gaily? ;)

lol yep
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

1.)I was talking about people's lack of manners or respect toward each other. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean you're allowed to be a jackass.
3.) I know that it's insane for me to expect civility from anonymous internet users, but you really shouldn't call people's opinions meaningless just because they disagree with you.
4.) I think that you in particular need to stop behaving like a four-year-old. Or, at the very least, install Spellcheck and learn how to be funny while you're being an ass.

1.) respect is earned. A basic level is given but after that its earned
2.) well if we were talking about "disagreeing" I guess that would matter but we are not. and in no way was i a jackass lol unless stating facts make me one then i'm guilty as charged
3.) again thats not why his opinions are meanignless, also notice i called my own meanignless because this isnt about "agreeing" its about facts and what he said was factually wrong and his opinions are 100% meaningless to rights. they dont matter. He is free to have them but they dont matter
4.) no thanks im good its funny seeing people get upset over facts that prove them wrong because its a trait i simply don't understand since its illogical

please stay on topic, failed insults wont change his post from being factually wrong, thanks in advance
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

1.) respect is earned. A basic level is given but after that its earned
2.) well if we were talking about "disagreeing" I guess that would matter but we are not. and in no way was i a jackass lol unless stating facts make me one then i'm guilty as charged
3.) again thats not why his opinions are meanignless, also notice i called my own meanignless because this isnt about "agreeing" its about facts and what he said was factually wrong and his opinions are 100% meaningless to rights. they dont matter. He is free to have them but they dont matter
4.) no thanks im good its funny seeing people get upset over facts that prove them wrong because its a trait i simply don't understand since its illogical

please stay on topic, failed insults wont change his post from being factually wrong, thanks in advance

I have to say, that's a better comeback than what I expected. Well done. Still full of errors, but we can't be perfect, now can we?
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

I have to say, that's a better comeback than what I expected. Well done. Still full of errors, but we can't be perfect, now can we?

another posts and nothing but deflections and failed insults. Thats what i thought.
Let us know when you have anythign that matters thanks.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

another posts and nothing but deflections and failed insults. Thats what i thought.
Let us know when you have anythign that matters thanks.

You do realize that we're now on a tangent about each others' manners, right? We're on the same side on gay marriage!

Also, if all I do is deflect the questions, then how come peeka chaka no wookiee boonawa tweepie Solo? Ho ho hoooo.

images


Pro SSM: 0
Anti SSM: 0
Jabba: 1
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

This isn't a matter of rights. This is a matter of belief of definition.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

1.)This isn't a matter of rights.
2.)This is a matter of belief of definition.

1.) false as court cases, rights, and laws already prove
2.) subjective beliefs dont matter to equal rights
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

I don't think marriage should have any legal standing whatsoever.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

I don't think marriage should have any legal standing whatsoever.

What do people not understand about the fact that marriage is the only method of creating the legal family relationship of "spouse", and by extension "inlaws". These legal relationships only exist because the government recognizes them. Heck, "in-laws" even says it right there. It is very little different than a birth certificate or adoption papers establishing the relationships of "parent and child", which is where we get much of our legal relationships from.

The government providing the marriage license allows easy tracking of spouses and efficient recognition, especially given the laws that allow for many things that would require a whole lot of other costly legal paperwork to already be taken care of automatically (as most who want to be someone else's spouse want) with just that single document. Plus, without marriage, there would be a whole lot more legal cases because so few things would be established by law that each individual case would need to be heard to determine who should get what. It would be a mess. Legal marriage recognition helps to clear that mess up to procedure and established laws.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

This isn't a matter of rights. This is a matter of belief of definition.

What kind of 'weight' should that carry in our society? Enough to deprive other people of the benefits and legal protections provided to others by the govt?
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

What do people not understand about the fact that marriage is the only method of creating the legal family relationship of "spouse", and by extension "inlaws". These legal relationships only exist because the government recognizes them. Heck, "in-laws" even says it right there. It is very little different than a birth certificate or adoption papers establishing the relationships of "parent and child", which is where we get much of our legal relationships from.

The government providing the marriage license allows easy tracking of spouses and efficient recognition, especially given the laws that allow for many things that would require a whole lot of other costly legal paperwork to already be taken care of automatically (as most who want to be someone else's spouse want) with just that single document. Plus, without marriage, there would be a whole lot more legal cases because so few things would be established by law that each individual case would need to be heard to determine who should get what. It would be a mess. Legal marriage recognition helps to clear that mess up to procedure and established laws.

I'm not saying don't have anything of the sort, but marriage should be a wholly religious thing. I understand what being married legally entails. They should just call it something else. Call it a civil union when people are married legally. I'm saying people should be able to be married religiously without being married legally and be able to be married legally but not necessarily religiously.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

I'm not saying don't have anything of the sort, but marriage should be a wholly religious thing. I understand what being married legally entails. They should just call it something else. Call it a civil union when people are married legally. I'm saying people should be able to be married religiously without being married legally and be able to be married legally but not necessarily religiously.

This is already true hence no need to change anything

religious marriage and legal marriage have nothing to do with eachother unless the people involved want them too.

they are completely separate things, religion in fact is meaningless to this topic, its holds zero weight and barring on the discussion of equal rights.
 
Last edited:
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

I'm not saying don't have anything of the sort, but marriage should be a wholly religious thing. I understand what being married legally entails. They should just call it something else. Call it a civil union when people are married legally. I'm saying people should be able to be married religiously without being married legally and be able to be married legally but not necessarily religiously.

No it shouldn't. Religion does not own marriage. Just because they believe they do doesn't make it true. Marriage existed long before religions practiced today, and in most cultures, without much if an religious intervention at all. In fact, even in Christianity, marriage was considered a private matter between the couple and/or their family, not the church, for almost a millennium.

History of marriage: 13 surprising facts | Fox News

Since contracts are currently protected and governed in large part by the state, and family relationships are tracked by the state, then that means the state has a legitimate interest in being involved in marriage, at least to the same degree that they track things such as parent/child legal kinships. The church however has no legal claim to marriage. While it is fine if they are involved for those who wish them to be, they do not own marriage or have any exclusive right to decide who can get married.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

I'm not saying don't have anything of the sort, but marriage should be a wholly religious thing. I understand what being married legally entails. They should just call it something else. Call it a civil union when people are married legally. I'm saying people should be able to be married religiously without being married legally and be able to be married legally but not necessarily religiously.

Dude what do you think a wedding in a church is, compared to swinging by the nearest town hall for a wedding license? That is religious vs secular marriage. There's no need to change anything, except that some are uncomfortable with sharing a word with a group they don't particularly like. That's not good enough
 
Back
Top Bottom