• 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!

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.



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.



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.
I dont care that people disagree. I just get tired and bored with people offering inane arguments.

You go right ahead and continue to pretend that male to male sexual contact is normal, natural, or in any way healthy. Ignore the admonitions of every pro-gay support agency in the world. Ignore the reality that in this country a very small percentage of the population (gay men) make up the overwhelmingly large percentage of HIV/AIDS deaths. Ignore the fact that regardless of Mm or FF homosexual relationships, NO homosexual relationships are capable of the basic foundational existence of all species...procreation. Feel free. Heck...maybe you can throw in some of the other common arguments...rats **** anything that move...so homosexuality occurs in nature! The undesirable breeding males of some species after getting shut out during rut will sometimes hump one another, so see? Homosexuality occurs in nature.

Im not attacking homosexuals. Im not suggesting gay couples male or female should be banned. Ive NEVER said anything other than consenting adults should do what they do and be happy. Heck...Im not even taking a stand for or against gay marriage. In this thread there were a few questions asked and I offered the answer to the question. To me...whether I agree with gay marriage or not, in the US the question was settled by the Supreme Court.
 
I dont care that people disagree. I just get tired and bored with people offering inane arguments.

You go right ahead and continue to pretend that male to male sexual contact is normal, natural, or in any way healthy. Ignore the admonitions of every pro-gay support agency in the world. Ignore the reality that in this country a very small percentage of the population (gay men) make up the overwhelmingly large percentage of HIV/AIDS deaths. Ignore the fact that regardless of Mm or FF homosexual relationships, NO homosexual relationships are capable of the basic foundational existence of all species...procreation. Feel free. Heck...maybe you can throw in some of the other common arguments...rats **** anything that move...so homosexuality occurs in nature! The undesirable breeding males of some species after getting shut out during rut will sometimes hump one another, so see? Homosexuality occurs in nature.

Im not attacking homosexuals. Im not suggesting gay couples male or female should be banned. Ive NEVER said anything other than consenting adults should do what they do and be happy. Heck...Im not even taking a stand for or against gay marriage. In this thread there were a few questions asked and I offered the answer to the question. To me...whether I agree with gay marriage or not, in the US the question was settled by the Supreme Court.

It's not like gay men or women are going to stop having sex, no matter what their legal or discriminatory hurdles.

That's not going to change, nor is their desire to have families, which appears to be as strong as that of straight couples.
 
I dont care that people disagree. I just get tired and bored with people offering inane arguments.

1.) You go right ahead and continue to pretend that male to male sexual contact is normal, natural, or in any way healthy.
2.) Ignore the admonitions of every pro-gay support agency in the world.
3.) Ignore the reality that in this country a very small percentage of the population (gay men) make up the overwhelmingly large percentage of HIV/AIDS deaths.
4.) Ignore the fact that regardless of Mm or FF homosexual relationships, NO homosexual relationships are capable of the basic foundational existence of all species...procreation. Feel free. Heck...maybe you can throw in some of the other common arguments...rats **** anything that move...so homosexuality occurs in nature! The undesirable breeding males of some species after getting shut out during rut will sometimes hump one another, so see? Homosexuality occurs in nature.

5.)Im not attacking homosexuals. Im not suggesting gay couples male or female should be banned. Ive NEVER said anything other than consenting adults should do what they do and be happy. Heck...Im not even taking a stand for or against gay marriage. In this thread there were a few questions asked and I offered the answer to the question. To me...whether I agree with gay marriage or not, in the US the question was settled by the Supreme Court.

1.) like female and male sex and female and female sex it is normal, natural and healthy
2.) what is being ignored
3.) wonder if the numbers wouldnt be that way if people with bigoted views didnt push these people underground? wonder if other numbers would go up if they were pushed underground? wonder if you simply compared safe sex vs unsafe sex if the numbers start to even out some? :)
4.) 100% meaningless to anything that matters when it comes to marriage and equal rights
5.) thats good because your fweelings dont matter nor do some your factually wrong claims

do you have anything else? you know maybe somethign that actually matters to rights.marriage and is accurate? LMAO
 
It's not like gay men or women are going to stop having sex, no matter what their legal or discriminatory hurdles.

That's not going to change, nor is their desire to have families, which appears to be as strong as that of straight couples.
Who cares? Where have I ever suggested consenting adults souldnt be free to do with and to one another whatever they like?
 
Who cares? Where have I ever suggested consenting adults souldnt be free to do with and to one another whatever they like?

Now you are just being dishonest. You know you dont have any options, legally or even socially, re: the status of gays now. So you post the obvious ^^.

But this makes it very clear your choice would be different if you actually had a choice:
I dont care that people disagree. I just get tired and bored with people offering inane arguments.

You go right ahead and continue to pretend that male to male sexual contact is normal, natural, or in any way healthy. Ignore the admonitions of every pro-gay support agency in the world. Ignore the reality that in this country a very small percentage of the population (gay men) make up the overwhelmingly large percentage of HIV/AIDS deaths. Ignore the fact that regardless of Mm or FF homosexual relationships, NO homosexual relationships are capable of the basic foundational existence of all species...procreation. Feel free. Heck...maybe you can throw in some of the other common arguments...rats **** anything that move...so homosexuality occurs in nature! The undesirable breeding males of some species after getting shut out during rut will sometimes hump one another, so see? Homosexuality occurs in nature.

Im not attacking homosexuals. Im not suggesting gay couples male or female should be banned. Ive NEVER said anything other than consenting adults should do what they do and be happy. Heck...Im not even taking a stand for or against gay marriage. In this thread there were a few questions asked and I offered the answer to the question. To me...whether I agree with gay marriage or not, in the US the question was settled by the Supreme Court.


You can deny it, it doesnt really matter. Your opinion is clear, even tho you have 'accepted' the realities of today's legal and social state.
 
Now you are just being dishonest. You know you dont have any options, legally or even socially, re: the status of gays now. So you post the obvious ^^.

But this makes it very clear your choice would be different if you actually had a choice:



You can deny it, it doesnt really matter. Your opinion is clear, even tho you have 'accepted' the realities of today's legal and social state.
I think you are getting things a little twisted. I dont care what two consenting adults do to or with one another. I dont agree with gay marriage and if it were put to a vote I would vote against it. There is no ambiguity there. But since the SCOTUS has ruled, it is what it is, and I dont much care either way. I have family members on my wifes side that are gay and have offered them to use our property for their wedding and reception. Hell...I'll even provide the BBQ. I can disagree with them and still love them. If people have a hard time understanding that or cant handle it, that's what we like to call "your ****ing problem".
 
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.

What is a special right about marriage? How are they demanding a 'special right'?? Do they have a right you do not?
 
I think you are getting things a little twisted. I dont care what two consenting adults do to or with one another. I dont agree with gay marriage and if it were put to a vote I would vote against it. There is no ambiguity there. But since the SCOTUS has ruled, it is what it is, and I dont much care either way. I have family members on my wifes side that are gay and have offered them to use our property for their wedding and reception. Hell...I'll even provide the BBQ. I can disagree with them and still love them. If people have a hard time understanding that or cant handle it, that's what we like to call "your ****ing problem".

Like I said, it doesnt really matter. To me or society. It matters to your friends and family and I'm glad you reached out. But you still wrote a very clear message about your real opinion. That's all I meant. YOu would indeed impose discriminatory laws on gays if you had the choice.
 
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.
First let me add in some punctuation, just to be sure I am reading correctly. If I am wrong I will respond to the corrected statement.

"Marriage law wasn't 'changed'. It's the same it's always been. The contract just no longer discriminates based on sexual orientation".

The "contract" I would provisionally agree hasn't changed, especially with the SCOTUS ruling. A lot would depend upon what you are calling the contract. Personally all I have ever received and signed is an certificate or license. That's not a contract since it contains no terms or conditions. However, I can see the contract as being those laws by which the benefits and/or responsibilities are denoted.

That said, the "contract" is not the entirety of marriage law. Who has access to the institution of marriage is also part of marriage law and would not be part of the "contract". And that has indeed changed over the years. The introduction of licenses was a change, since they did not exist before. The laws that made it Illegal for interracial marriage to occur was a change to marriage law as those laws did not exist before. The ruling that made such laws unconstitutional created another change, as those laws no longer applied. The cycle repeated with SSM of laws being created and then ruled against.

Whether or not the wording of the "contract" itself changed, the laws surrounding who may or may not obtain that contract have and they are part of marriage law. And this is specifically the part of marriage law that the OP is discussing and wanting changed again.

And ironically enough you have directly shown the change.

the contract just no longer discriminates based on sexual orientation".

For something to no longer do something, a change has to have occurred. How can something factually no longer do what it was doing without a change occurring?

Now as noted, I do not think the "contract" itself has changed. Contracts rarely, if ever, state who is and isn't eligible to enter into them. That usually occurs in separate documentation.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
First let me add in some punctuation, just to be sure I am reading correctly. If I am wrong I will respond to the corrected statement.

"Marriage law wasn't 'changed'. It's the same it's always been. The contract just no longer discriminates based on sexual orientation".

The "contract" I would provisionally agree hasn't changed, especially with the SCOTUS ruling. A lot would depend upon what you are calling the contract. Personally all I have ever received and signed is an certificate or license. That's not a contract since it contains no terms or conditions. However, I can see the contract as being those laws by which the benefits and/or responsibilities are denoted.

That said, the "contract" is not the entirety of marriage law. Who has access to the institution of marriage is also part of marriage law and would not be part of the "contract". And that has indeed changed over the years. The introduction of licenses was a change, since they did not exist before. The laws that made it Illegal for interracial marriage to occur was a change to marriage law as those laws did not exist before. The ruling that made such laws unconstitutional created another change, as those laws no longer applied. The cycle repeated with SSM of laws being created and then ruled against.

Whether or not the wording of the "contract" itself changed, the laws surrounding who may or may not obtain that contract have and they are part of marriage law. And this is specifically the part of marriage law that the OP is discussing and wanting changed again.

And ironically enough you have directly shown the change.



For something to no longer do something, a change has to have occurred. How can something factually no longer do what it was doing without a change occurring?

Now as noted, I do not think the "contract" itself has changed. Contracts rarely, if ever, state who is and isn't eligible to enter into them. That usually occurs in separate documentation.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Yes you are wrong with your assumptions, scope and punctuation.

Also no for somethign to change, a change to the contract doesn't need made. i never said ZERO changes occured. Like i said stick to what i actually said and not make up any scope you like. If i have a contract i wont give to you because your name starts with an M, but then im told its not legal to deny you, the contract hasnt changed one bit i just simply must allow you to participate. The only thing you were right about pertaining to what i was actually discussing in when you said "The "contract" I would provisionally agree hasn't changed, especially with the SCOTUS ruling." That is correct and the only thing that pertains to what i actually said.

I explained what I was referring to and it still stands and like i said if you disagree simply answer my question. but it appears you do agree you just want to apply what i said to a vast array of things i did not and it doesnt work that way.
 
Like I said, it doesnt really matter. To me or society. It matters to your friends and family and I'm glad you reached out. But you still wrote a very clear message about your real opinion. That's all I meant. YOu would indeed impose discriminatory laws on gays if you had the choice.
Of course my opinion is clear. its never been otherwise. I would expect people to have their own opinion and heres a REAL shocker...I can disagree with them without losing my ****ing mind over it.
 
Of course my opinion is clear. its never been otherwise. I would expect people to have their own opinion and heres a REAL shocker...I can disagree with them without losing my ****ing mind over it.

That might be true but logically your posting history and style here doesnt support that at all LMAO
 
Yes you are wrong with your assumptions, scope and punctuation.

Then by all means, please provide the statement with proper punctuation, as the lack of it fails to properly convey your intended message.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
Then by all means, please provide the statement with proper punctuation, as the lack of it fails to properly convey your intended message.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

I already explained it :shrug:
 
You say that my post is immediately suspect, but then you back up my point.

Why have laws to "protect" the rights of lgbtq when they already have equal rights. The Constitution does not exclude them.

The Constitution was written before the internet. The internet should not however infringe upon the rights of Americans.

If you can show me how same-sex couples being married interferes with the rights of people then you have an argument.

Otherwise you just bumping your gums about religious nonsense.
 
Homosexual people already have their rights granted by the Constitution. Why create "Special" laws just for them.
because they wanted their marriages viewed legally as equal and States stood in the way.

Why do they need to marry?
the ability to do something is not based on need we're not a communist Society. Nobody needs a Bugatti Veyron but the people who can buy one should not be prevented just because they don't need it.

Again, it's just so they can take advantage of taxes that are meant for those who support children.
Yes that's what it's for and some of them actually do raise children. Maybe because of that didn't deserve it.
 
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.
so what marriage law can change.

Changing marriage law only serves to help socially engineer other peoples children from afar.
The whole concept of marriage is a legal Institution was specifically to socially engineer Society.

If two people of the same sex being able to get married doesn't really have any effect on someone else's kids from afar. Whatever that means.
 
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.

These people only want the right to marry to take advantage of tax breaks meant for married couples who support children. The fact that they argue for equal rights is just to help systematically dismantle the US Constitution.

The last thing America needs is solidifying the social engineering trick that homosexuality really is. Our children do not need to think this way of life is normal. These people have been forced into this way of life by people who wish to enslave our entire nation. These people are hypnotized into this way of life, others are intimidated into silence.

They are the side effect of a much larger issue, but they are used for political persuasion with their numbers. We in America cannot allow this problem to continue.

The truth is, There are so called "Elite" who care nothing for the rights of Americans. Socialism needs to be stopped. I do not wish to offend Catholic people, and not all Catholic denominations are the same. But Catholicism is more a system of rule than it is a religion. They are too scared to speak out about what is wrong with the church, or they have too much pride, as this is how they were raised.

Unfortunately those with pride are the ones who feel it is to their advantage to be Catholic. These are the ones who believe in and support slavery. These are the so called "Elite", but most of those who believe this lie are also slaves. The "elite" are comprised of some of the richest people in the world. Many of which are not even Americans, their countries are already Utopian.

Some of our Constitution was founded upon Utopian ideas, but much of it was founded with the knowledge that there must be a balance. Utopia is antiquated compared to Democracy. America was the fear and Envy of the world when we truly embraced Democracy as it should be.

These marriage laws only further weaken democracy and help to strip Americans of our rights as Citizens. As an American Citizen, it is only Logical to be a Democrat. As anything else is contrary to Democracy.

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.

There is a huge issue with this right now because Large Tech corporations are basically immune to many laws that would police any other corporation. These laws are changing. Technology has gotten to the point that pchycotronic weaponry has become commonplace among large corporations. This weaponry is what is used to brainwash people to live these "alternative" "lifestyles".

This weaponry is also used on our military and people with less money. Young people are tricked and taken advantage of with the use of these weapons. BCI "brain computer interface" is ruining people's lives and they are also levereged into silence through ebarrasment or shame. Some of their parents are scared of prosecution because they made the mistake of molesting their children as they were either attacked with pchycotronic weapons, or they were already brainwashed into thinking this was the way it is.

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.

I applaud Bermuda in their reversal of these pointless laws, they serve no purpose other than to undermine the Constitution!

Please apply to immigrate to Bermuda if you are so offended. This gay man will help you with the forms, and shut the door behind you. We are not going anywere, nor is the the Supreme Courts decision. I suggest you get measured for some Bermuda shorts.
 
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.

These people only want the right to marry to take advantage of tax breaks meant for married couples who support children. The fact that they argue for equal rights is just to help systematically dismantle the US Constitution.

The last thing America needs is solidifying the social engineering trick that homosexuality really is. Our children do not need to think this way of life is normal. These people have been forced into this way of life by people who wish to enslave our entire nation. These people are hypnotized into this way of life, others are intimidated into silence.

They are the side effect of a much larger issue, but they are used for political persuasion with their numbers. We in America cannot allow this problem to continue.

The truth is, There are so called "Elite" who care nothing for the rights of Americans. Socialism needs to be stopped. I do not wish to offend Catholic people, and not all Catholic denominations are the same. But Catholicism is more a system of rule than it is a religion. They are too scared to speak out about what is wrong with the church, or they have too much pride, as this is how they were raised.

Unfortunately those with pride are the ones who feel it is to their advantage to be Catholic. These are the ones who believe in and support slavery. These are the so called "Elite", but most of those who believe this lie are also slaves. The "elite" are comprised of some of the richest people in the world. Many of which are not even Americans, their countries are already Utopian.

Some of our Constitution was founded upon Utopian ideas, but much of it was founded with the knowledge that there must be a balance. Utopia is antiquated compared to Democracy. America was the fear and Envy of the world when we truly embraced Democracy as it should be.

These marriage laws only further weaken democracy and help to strip Americans of our rights as Citizens. As an American Citizen, it is only Logical to be a Democrat. As anything else is contrary to Democracy.

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.

There is a huge issue with this right now because Large Tech corporations are basically immune to many laws that would police any other corporation. These laws are changing. Technology has gotten to the point that pchycotronic weaponry has become commonplace among large corporations. This weaponry is what is used to brainwash people to live these "alternative" "lifestyles".

This weaponry is also used on our military and people with less money. Young people are tricked and taken advantage of with the use of these weapons. BCI "brain computer interface" is ruining people's lives and they are also levereged into silence through ebarrasment or shame. Some of their parents are scared of prosecution because they made the mistake of molesting their children as they were either attacked with pchycotronic weapons, or they were already brainwashed into thinking this was the way it is.

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.

I applaud Bermuda in their reversal of these pointless laws, they serve no purpose other than to undermine the Constitution!

I suggest you might want to move to Uganda or Ethiopia if people having freedoms bothers you so much. Ethiopia is a Christian theocracy so it's already set up for you.

I wouldn't take Saudi Arabia off the table either.

But I'm sorry the United States does not seem a right fit for you.
 
Please apply to immigrate to Bermuda if you are so offended. This gay man will help you with the forms, and shut the door behind you. We are not going anywere, nor is the the Supreme Courts decision. I suggest you get measured for some Bermuda shorts.

I'd suggest Uganda or Saudi Arabia
 
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.

It would seem you are far too late on this issue and my advice is to drop this futility and be more concerned with the gay couples you are bound to see in heaven. That is eternity and life on this Earth is just fleeting.
 
This is hilarious, God knows what is in his heart. Reference the post above this one. That church will get, and is getting smeared by your cousin.

Are you from Alabama, per chance?
 
This is an interesting reply, and constructive.
I still think these things that apply toarried couples don't really apply to the lgbtq, just because they can make these decisions for themselves. Or agree to share bills. But they just want to game the system. What I find interesting about your reply is the mention of their Deity. Who is their deity?

You think they're trying to "game the system" because you seem to think that (A ) there's such a thing as a "gay agenda" and (B ) you might even believe that there's some kind of "gay germ" where they turn other people gay.
It can't possibly be that they just want to be married like any other couple to you, can it?
There's something sneaky and sinister about two gay people wanting to marry, isn't there?
 
I'm also not right wing. I'm a Democrat.

Like that marriage clerk who made the big fuss, right?
That's a very "unusual" kind of "Democrat".
There might be as many of you as there are puppies with two peters.
 
Back
Top Bottom