• 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!

Bermuda Reversed Gay Marriage Law!

Midwest Lib said:
Heterosexual penises and vaginas can kill too, dude.
Beyond that, are you effectively saying any sterile person having sex is wrong in doing so, being that it can't bring about life?
Click to expand...
You are making the same silly, tired, and frankly, embarrassing arguments. You should rethink them.
 
Quag said:
That argument can be used on pretty much anything.
Example it could be argued that those religious views are immoral and anyone holding them should be banned from procreating.
Click to expand...
You can use it however you like. You asked a question. the question has been answered.
 
VanceMack said:
You are making the same silly, tired, and frankly, embarrassing arguments. You should rethink them.
Click to expand...

It's hard to do that if you dont explain to me why. I refrained from putting words in your mouth and saying what you believe. Give me the benefit of the doubt and tell me WHY my aarguments are silly. Specifically why YOU think they are silly. I haven't had this conversation with you before, so i dont think its too much of an ask, even if apparently you think the arguments are a bit tired.
 
VanceMack said:
You can use it however you like. You asked a question. the question has been answered.
Click to expand...

I asked someone else the question. The answer you gave me may or may not be their answer as well but it is not a very good answer
 
Midwest Lib said:
It's hard to do that if you dont explain to me why. I refrained from putting words in your mouth and saying what you believe. Give me the benefit of the doubt and tell me WHY my aarguments are silly. Specifically why YOU think they are silly. I haven't had this conversation with you before, so i dont think its too much of an ask, even if apparently you think the arguments are a bit tired.
Click to expand...
OK...here we go...
Men and women CAN procreate men and men CANNOT and never have and never will be able to. Because biologically they arent capable and never have been and never will be. Because men and women are wired a certain way.
Genetic anomalies are genetic anomalies. That a couple CANT have children is no different than a couple that chooses to not have children...but doesnt change the fact that men and women CAN have children and same sex unions never can have children.
Heterosexual people that engage in regular unprotected sex outside of a wedded relationship can develop diseases that can kill people. Same sex male couples have to take protective/preventive measures to prevent themselves from killing each other.
Unless it isnt painfully obvious by now...the asshole was not evolutionary designed to receive a penis. Just because you CAN stick something someplace doesnt mean you SHOULD stick it there. That goes for homosexual AND heterosexual coupled relationships.

Now...FFS because I dont know why I ever bother commenting on these types of threads...I dont care what the **** you do and who you do it with. Consenting adults...have a ****ing ball. As for gay marriage...right now...because of a SCOTUS decision, gay marriage is the law of the land. I said all along that I believed some day society would devolve morally to a point where that would happen and when it did, happy days...the sun will still come up and we will all carry on with our lives. I dont expect it will change in the US. My first comment in this thread demonstrated clear acceptance of US law and policy. At the end of the day...I dont much give a **** what people do, so long as they respect other peoples rights to disagree with them.
 
Quag said:
I asked someone else the question. The answer you gave me may or may not be their answer as well but it is not a very good answer
Click to expand...
Its not an answer you like.
 
VanceMack said:
Its not an answer you like.
Click to expand...

No its just a crappy answer. We have freedom of religion which means someone cant force their religious views on another. IE they cannot say 2 homosexuals cannot get married because it goes against their religious views.
 
Quag said:
No its just a crappy answer. We have freedom of religion which means someone cant force their religious views on another. IE they cannot say 2 homosexuals cannot get married because it goes against their religious views.
Click to expand...
Freedom of religion doesnt mean freedom from religions influence. But you are right...I cant force my views on you and would never try. Feel free to be gay and you have no obligation to worry about whether or not God has judged your behavior to be immoral.
 
Quote...

" Marriage is a Holy Union between a man and a woman. "

There are growing numbers who still or refuse to get it. For a long time I have said "Say No to same sex marriage crap". Thank you barack " lil flip " obama for letting this get way out of hand.


Quote...

" Our children do not need to think this way of life is normal. "

I have let my 11 year old son and his two nephews this is wrong. With respect to the religious and Bible,I say so.



Quote...

" These marriage laws that allow homosexual marriage must be reversed as they are not necessary at all. They are pointless in creating more "equal" rights. Many of these people are predators, they are being protected when they should not. Most of which should be no where around anyone's children. "

Learn something new each day. Spot on about the predators which leads to child and black gay porn. We must protect our children d from this foolishness.

Quote...

" This is what is difficult for Republicans. Many Republicans in the US are immigrants who came from Republican countries, and have not been properly informed of their rights as American Citizens. "

The liberal/Demos through the years made sure of it.
Great post !
 
VanceMack said:
Freedom of religion doesnt mean freedom from religions influence. But you are right...I cant force my views on you and would never try. Feel free to be gay and you have no obligation to worry about whether or not God has judged your behavior to be immoral.
Click to expand...

I'm not gay and you have no obligation to worry whether God will judge your immoral behaviour on this matter.
 
Rmoore said:
Good for Bermuda! We in the United States need to reverse these gay marriage laws in all States.

The reason these laws were created were based on the argument of equal rights. When talking about equal rights, people refer to the Constitution. No where in the Constitution does it mention sexuality. Therefore, these people already have their equal rights.

Marriage is a Holy Union between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

well not only did you start off with a false argument about the constitution but then you say the bolded and underlined above. As soon as you say that its an INSTANT failure that shows you have ZERO understanding of the US, rights, laws or constitution. Gay marriage like straight marriage is a LEGAL CONTRACT. It positively 100% has nothing to do with religion or holy matrimony. If the people getting LEGALLY married want to include additional parts they are free too. But the fact remain LEGAL marriage =/= religious marriage. they are totally 100% separate unless the people involve choose to do them together.
 
Quag said:
I'm not gay and you have no obligation to worry whether God will judge your immoral behaviour on this matter.
Click to expand...
Okie dokie then.
 
Somerville said:
What does bringing God into the conversation have to do with the US Constitution and the courts ruling that gay marriage is legal in America -- and Bermuda now?
Click to expand...
Follow a conversation....then get back to me.
 
Rmoore said:
Homosexual people already have their rights granted by the Constitution. Why create "Special" laws just for them. Why do they need to marry? Again, it's just so they can take advantage of taxes that are meant for those who support children.
Click to expand...

What "special laws", Please list them now LMAO
and thier rights granted by the constitution is exactly why they were granted equal rights . . . they were being denied them before and now they have them. this isnt rocket science.
 
Rmoore said:
True, but these laws can been used in conjunction with other laws to avoid constitutional law. This is what Iean by dismantle. But what you say is my point, they have their "equal" rights. They point to equal rights, but want to change marriage law. Rights are given based on the Constitution.

Changing marriage law only serves to help socially engineer other peoples children from afar.
Click to expand...

marriage law wasnt "changed" its the same its always been the contract just no longer discriminates based on sexual orientation
 
Rmoore said:
I hadn't yet read that they had revoked it. We should still reverse these laws accross the US.
Click to expand...

since the constitution exists the way its written right now it ain't going to happen.
 
Rmoore said:
Civil rights were granted to us through the Constitution. Rights are being stripped away with unnecessary laws that can circumvent the Constitution.

We should all have our rights granted by the Constitution as American citizens. It doesn't even say anything about African Americans.

But I understand why so many protested. There were not actually any laws that needed to be changed for those people either.

The fact that people could not accept not having slaves, or believe African Americans were equal was a good reason for protest. Not a good reason to create extra laws.

Their belief that African Americans were not equal was based on the false idea that they are less evolved. Many were intentionally less edjucated. Africa was also less advanced. But that did not mean their people were less intelligent, just less knowledgeable about technology. They are not less evolved.
They have equal capacity for intelligence, therefore they are equal.

They among people with less money are systematically held down. Now these "Elites" are targeting middle class Americans.

The Lgbtq people are among the victims. Many of which have become predators, the predators have lost their chance to fight for their rights. Others still have a chance.

This is why we need to reverse those laws. These extra laws are just part of a larger strategy to conquer America.
Click to expand...

What extra laws, again list them lol
 
Rmoore said:
Someone else mentioned it was again reversed. It still does little to take away from the reason for this post. Which is the fact that I believe these laws that allow homosexuals to marry should be reversed.
Click to expand...

whats the law that needs reversed, name the laws.
 
Rmoore said:
I am also aware that homosexual couple's of the opposite sex do have children. The logic of this is what? They may as well be straight and not promote the problem of homosexuality.
Click to expand...

Don't know why this post seemed a lot longer on my phone....

This point is having children, the same as straight couples desire to have children. The desire to have children has nothing to do with the what sex one is attracted to. Nor does what sex you are attracted to have any impact upon one's ability to raise a child or children.
 
VanceMack said:
...and same sex unions never can have children.
Click to expand...

You leave an unwritten caveat in this statement. The statement only works if you consider sexual intercourse alone AND none outside the marriage. However, there are many possibilities for having children aside from sexual intercourse within the marriage. Artificial insemination (because I don't limit the concepts to man/man gay couples only), adoption, surrogacy, and many more. All options used by straight couples. The ability and decision to have children or not has no true impact upon marriage, especially not the legal type.

Same sex male couples have to take protective/preventive measures to prevent themselves from killing each other.
Click to expand...

This is simply and factually false. If we apply the same standard that we expect out of straight couples, that you wait to have sex till you're married and then only in the marriage, then homosexual couples are no more at risk to any STD than a heterosexual couple. And once again, you are making an argument against SSM based upon only male couples, completely ignoring female couples. Unless your argument is that male SSM should be banned and female SSM is ok.

At the end of the day...I dont much give a **** what people do, so long as they respect other peoples rights to disagree with them.
Click to expand...

And along with that comes the right of others to disagree and counter argue those disagreements. If you don't want to hear it, then don't put out the disagreement.
 
AGENT J said:
marriage law wasnt "changed" its the same its always been the contract just no longer discriminates based on sexual orientation
Click to expand...

No, marriage law was changed.....many times. It changed when licenses were first introduced. It changed when interracial marriage was found to be unconstitutional. And it changed again for SSM. None of those changes necessarily affected other parts of marriage law, but they were part of marriage law one point and their addition or removal still constitutes a change to the overall marriage laws.
 
maquiscat said:
No, marriage law was changed.....many times. It changed when licenses were first introduced. It changed when interracial marriage was found to be unconstitutional. And it changed again for SSM. None of those changes necessarily affected other parts of marriage law, but they were part of marriage law one point and their addition or removal still constitutes a change to the overall marriage laws.
Click to expand...

Theres a topic here and its about gay marriage being legal. My statment remains true, im glad you qouted it.

"marriage law wasnt "changed" its the same its always been the contract just no longer discriminates based on sexual orientation"


No, the "marriage" contract/law didn't change at all only who was denied or in this case no longer denied participation. The "marriage" contract/law is the same as it was before gays were being denied and after gay were granted equal rights on this issue.
 
AGENT J said:
Theres a topic here and its about gay marriage being legal. My statment remains true, im glad you qouted it.

"marriage law wasnt "changed" its the same its always been the contract just no longer discriminates based on sexual orientation"


No, the "marriage" contract/law didn't change at all only who was denied or in this case no longer denied participation. The "marriage" contract/law is the same as it was before gays were being denied and after gay were granted equal rights on this issue.
Click to expand...
Marriage law covers all the individual laws that deal with and/or affect marriage as a legal institution. Laws were added that banned SSM in many places. Those were changes to marriage law. The SCOTUS decision caused those laws to be no longer valid. More changes. Anytimes anything is added or removed, be it a benefit or a limitation, then marriage law as a whole changes. many individual laws never changed, true. But marriage law as a whole has, and will again. Whether those.changes.are.for.better or worse in purly opinion

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
Marriage law covers all the individual laws that deal with and/or affect marriage as a legal institution. Laws were added that banned SSM in many places. Those were changes to marriage law. The SCOTUS decision caused those laws to be no longer valid. More changes. Anytimes anything is added or removed, be it a benefit or a limitation, then marriage law as a whole changes. many individual laws never changed, true. But marriage law as a whole has, and will again. Whether those.changes.are.for.better or worse in purly opinion

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

so basically your mistake is making up your own scope of a topic and interjecting it into a conversation that isnt about your scope, falsely appling it to statment you didnt make (that is still 100% correct btw) based on at best semantics to suit your needs? no thanks ill be sticking to what i was actually talking about and my statment still stands just as you quoted it. If you disagree with it simply disprove it:

this is my statment you quoted:
"marriage law wasnt "changed" its the same its always been the contract just no longer discriminates based on sexual orientation"

My friend mike and his wife steffanie were married before equal rights of marriage was ruled on. My friend Kimmi and her wife Luarie were married AFTER equal rights of marriage was ruled on.

Please list the ways thier marriage contract are different from eachother or changed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom