• 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!

Why are you against same sex marriage?

roguenuke said:
Not even close to the definition of appropriation.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Agreed; it’s not appropriation. A fake word like “assault weapons”. There’s assimilation and adaptation, but “appropriation”, as used by Liberals, is nonsense. By their definition, all African-Americans and Asians wearing Western clothing are guilty of “cultural appropriation”.

That said, gay rights = human rights. The 14th Amendment has an Equal Protection clause which means gay married couples deserve the same 1138 federal rights and benefits bestowed on straight married couples. The solution was obvious: either grant those gay married couples the same rights or remove them from the straight married couples. The Constitution is clear on this.

Sent from the Fortress of Solitude using crystal tech
 
PeacefulPartier said:
1.) Did you file your taxes as single or married?
2.)Of course they are. There have been several well publicized cases. You are just playing ignorant...right?
3.)Am I supposed to take legal advice from a man that doesn't know the difference between our and are? The intent of certain laws is to protect rights, but in so doing the federal and state governments have inadvertently created two classes of citizens, a protected class and a serving class. The protected class is a group of people that liberals have declared have more rights than the serving class. Examples would be muslims, homosexuals, transgender, feminists (not all women), Jews that vote liberal, dogs and cats. Everyone that encounters these people must serve them regardless of their ability or own rights.
Click to expand...

1.) meaningless to the fact they dont control it.
Can i get religiously married tomorrow and the government has ZERO say in that? yep :D
2.) not in america there isnt, theres no case in america where anybody was "FORCED to abide by, and in some cases participate in, marriages that violate their religious beliefs." zero when it comes to marriage
3.) didnt give you any legal advice i simply pointed out the facts about my country .. your failed hilarious deflection and triggered meltdown is noted though :laughat:

fact remains government doesnt control marriage and on this topic nobody was FORCED to abide by, and in some cases participate in, marriages that violate their religious beliefs.

let us know when those facts change, thanks!
 
cabse5 said:
That above doesn't prove everyone is entitled to marriage. It above means everyone is entitled to gov't protected unions with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage.
Click to expand...

Correct. Christians should be banned from marriage.
 
PeacefulPartier said:
I'm against the government controlling a social construct such as marriage. But that started because Henry the VIII wanted a divorce and couldn't get it. So he created his own church and made himself the head of the church. Can we say theocracy? Unfortunately, when we floated over the big blue pound, we brought with us this idea that the government should approve and deny marriage. That is in direct conflict with the first amendment.

The problem with the government regulating a social construct, especially one that is deeply rooted in several religions, is that any regulation will ultimately violate the beliefs of several religions. Ultimately, people of those religions are forced to abide by, and in some cases participate in, marriages that violate their religious beliefs. And we have seen that in some notable cases with same-sex couples and cakes and photographers.

I would rather the government ended all recognition of marriages.
Click to expand...

You're just another religious bigot who after you lost your attempt to deny LGBT equal rights at the SCOTUS, you now seek to take the supposed libertarian stance of "getting the state out of the marriage but there are many problems with your claim. Just admit that you are a CINO and seek to create a conservative Christian theocracy.

1.) Who does regulate marriage if the state doesn't? How do you enforce the prohibition of polygamy, arranged marriages, green card sham marriages,, and child marriage if the state cannot enforce laws related to marriage?

2.) Do you plan to abandon the legal rights that come with marriage because if the state cannot track marriages they don't know who is entitled to those rights

3.) You would also deny people who are unbelievers and would lack the ability to get married in your plan and would have our rights violated, and there are many more of us than there are LGBT people. Currently, almost 1/4 of the country is not religious or have no religious affiliation.
4.) How do you enforce the prohibition of polygamy, arranged marriage, green card sham marriage, and child marriage if the state cannot enforce laws related to marriage?
 
PeacefulPartier said:
I'm against the government controlling a social construct such as marriage. But that started because Henry the VIII wanted a divorce and couldn't get it. So he created his own church and made himself the head of the church. Can we say theocracy. Unfortunately, when we floated over the big blue pound, we brought with us this idea that the government should approve and deny marriage. That is in direct conflict with the first amendment.

The problem with the government regulating a social construct, especially one that is deeply rooted in several religions, is that any regulation will ultimately violate the beliefs of several religions. Ultimately, people of those religions are forced to abide by, and in some cases participate in, marriages that violate their religious beliefs. And we have seen that in some notable cases with same sex couples and cakes and photographers.

I would rather the government ended all recognition of marriages.
Click to expand...

I understand this, I don't know why it isn't like any other contact.
 
Elvira said:
Click to expand...
Either those who wrote the Bible had free will or they didnt. God couldnt have inspired or allowed/denied anything if it is true that those men had free will. Those men, not god, chose what was written, what went into their words, the Bible.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
Either those who wrote the Bible had free will or they didnt. God couldnt have inspired or allowed/denied anything if it is true that those men had free will. Those men, not god, chose what was written, what went into their words, the Bible.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

And that is only the beginning of why we should all by now understand it’s all bull****.
 
Why are you against same sex marriage?
Click to expand...

I am not against same sex marriage I am against marriage period...Why ruin your life with a contractual long term relationship?
 
roguenuke said:
I have seen no increase in animosity. Any that may have occurred was very shortlived. The vast majority of those against same sex marriage now were against it before any same sex couples could legally marry. And many people have in fact simply changed their views to be more accepting of same sex marriage in the last 7 years.

Show evidence of any increase in animosity.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No, you are choosing to be obtuse.
 
Moonglow said:
I am not against same sex marriage I am against marriage period...Why ruin your life with a contractual long term relationship?
Click to expand...

I know a guy dying from cancer who would prefer to have a wife visiting him at hospice over his sister after his girlfriend found greener pastures. There's something to the "in sickness and in health" vow. Just saying.
 
AGENT J said:
Translation, you cant support your claim because its false.
Click to expand...

No, I just have better things to do than answer an obtuse comment. I don't deny people as a general rule got over the gay marriage stuff, it's not going away but I felt that pushing the issue through the courts so hard like that wasn't the best way forward at the time. I dont' get why people are so bent out of shape about that.
 
Renae said:
1.) No, I just have better things to do than answer an obtuse comment.
2.) I don't deny people as a general rule got over the gay marriage stuff, it's not going away
3.) but I felt that pushing the issue through the courts so hard like that wasn't the best way forward at the time.
4.) I dont' get why people are so bent out of shape about that.
Click to expand...

1.)LMAO riiiiiiiiiiight. Actually the fact remains your claim is 100% false and you cant support it because once again you were talking out of your ass and got owned by another poster :) Facts dont care about your feelings and your claim remains factually wrong.
2.) again meaningless to the fact your claim is wrong
3.) again more feelings and NOT what happened, you understand it was actually the bigots that pushed it through the courts right? without those retards making all types of laws AGAINST same sex marriage there wouldnt have been court cases to challenge all that stuff. Did you just sleep through like 20 years history? So if bigots are bothered by equal rights its their own fault and the court system is exactly the way to handle equal rights.
4.) Who is bent out of shape and by what? are you getting ready to make up another false claim? LOL

SO here we are in the same spot, your claim remains factually false and you have nothing to back it up, let us know when that fact changes, thanks!
 
calamity said:
I know a guy dying from cancer who would prefer to have a wife visiting him at hospice over his sister after his girlfriend found greener pastures. There's something to the "in sickness and in health" vow. Just saying.
Click to expand...

It depends on the person in hospice but being married is no guarantee the spouse will be around at the end.
 
Renae said:
That's nice, pushing through the courts to force something the public was against without taking other measures created animosity that was unnecessary. A Civil Union with the SAME RIGHTS as marriage would have allowed the legal angle to be covered, and let the public both get used to the idea and over time people would have seen how silly it was to be against Gay "marriage" and it would have resolved itself. Ergo my point is there were better ways without pissing off a lot of people, but the agenda must be worshipped I guess.
Click to expand...

Victim blaming.

"Gays wouldn't have a problem if they didn't push for civil rights. So homophobia is their fault!"

Typical anti gay bigotry. Nothing new.
 
ecofarm said:
Victim blaming.

"Gays wouldn't have a problem if they didn't push for civil rights. So homophobia is their fault!"

Typical anti gay bigotry. Nothing new.
Click to expand...

That is neither what I said, nor what I have said nor my stance, you're doing the usual dishonest twisting what is said to throw out the insults as usual.

What my stance is, that due to all the ruckus at the time, I felt that pushing for legal unions would have given us the LGBT community the legal status we deserved and needed, while allowing society as a whole to get used to the idea of "Gay Marriage" and within a generation it would have been seen as silly it was civil unions and we'd have moved on. Ergo, same end game, different path to get there.
 
Renae said:
That is neither what I said, nor what I have said nor my stance, you're doing the usual dishonest twisting what is said to throw out the insults as usual.
Click to expand...

You claimed that bigotry was the result of how gays did things.

Typical homophobia. Scripted.
 
Moonglow said:
It depends on the person in hospice but being married is no guarantee the spouse will be around at the end.
Click to expand...

It does increase the odds. Few people are so callous as to seek a divorce from someone on their deathbed. Besides, there may be money involved.
 
CLAX1911 said:
This was an interesting discussion I was having with people.

If you are against same-sex marriage I would like to hear your explanation as to why keep in mind if you responding you give an explanation I may ask you to rationalize. I won't call you a bigot or attack you in anyway and I expect the same reciprocated. I can't speak for other posters I would ask that they not do that but sometimes people got to do what they got to do what they do.

That being said please explain if you are against same-sex marriage why you are and be prepared to rationalize.
Click to expand...
I personally do not like other men but as far as Im concerned if two men or two women want to spend their lives together that's between them. I would never get with another man but as for two men who do want to get with each other, or two women for that matter, that is their business and it is not for me to get involved.
 
Lisa said:
You're just another religious bigot who after you lost your attempt to deny LGBT equal rights at the SCOTUS, you now seek to take the supposed libertarian stance of "getting the state out of the marriage but there are many problems with your claim. Just admit that you are a CINO and seek to create a conservative Christian theocracy.
Click to expand...

First rule of liberal "debate": call the other person racist, sexist, or some form of bigotry so you don't have to entertain the possibility that another view point might have merit. I never once said or advocated against anyone's rights. When it comes to social issues I'm much more libertarian. My plan doesn't limit anyone from getting married. It only prevents the government from regulating marriage at all. Then it moves into the realm of society. Kind of like having a dinner party, you don't ask the government to do it, you just do it.

1.) Who does regulate marriage if the state doesn't? How do you enforce the prohibition of polygamy, arranged marriages, green card sham marriages,, and child marriage if the state cannot enforce laws related to marriage?
Click to expand...

No one. Get over the idea that marriage has to be covered by the government

2.) Do you plan to abandon the legal rights that come with marriage because if the state cannot track marriages they don't know who is entitled to those rights
Click to expand...

There are no legal rights that come with marriage. There are only privileges. A little reminder on what the difference is: If the government provided it, it is a privilege. If the government doesn't provide it it is a right.

3.) You would also deny people who are unbelievers and would lack the ability to get married in your plan and would have our rights violated, and there are many more of us than there are LGBT people. Currently, almost 1/4 of the country is not religious or have no religious affiliation.
Click to expand...

You completely fabricated that based on your own preconceived bias. No way shape or form did I suggest any such restrictions.

4.) How do you enforce the prohibition of polygamy, arranged marriage, green card sham marriage, and child marriage if the state cannot enforce laws related to marriage?
Click to expand...

I don't. I don't see why the government should have a roll in marriage with the exception of marriage used to entrap people and prevent them from exercising their own rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom