• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Gay marriage adds complexity in swing states[W:166; 763]

Redress said:
Responding you your words is unacceptable now? Why do you think your words should be protected so?

Hint: if you do not want people to comment on your calling Obama beautiful, stop doing it.
Click to expand...

I call him by the name his father gave him and will continue to do so...........If you don't want to debate the subject of the thread that is fine to.........Hussein Obama is not ashamed of his name, I don't know why you are..........You can call Romney or GWB by their middle name or anyone else I could care less............This is my last word on
the subject....
 
CHARMtheMEDIA said:
Gay's can legally get married anywhere, so long as the pastor agrees to perform the ceremony.
What they cannot do in every state is get the government to recognize their marriage as legal. Which begs one question.
Why do they want it recognized?
Is it for spiritual recognition?
No, that would be silly.
How about recognition that they are committed to a relationship in which they live in the same household and share the same finances, and are worthy of the same benefits any other couple would live under those circumstances?
That sounds more logical.
On behalf of all Christians in America, I would like to STRONGLY caution Christians from encouraging the government to get involved in spiritual business.
If you do that be prepared.
Tithing may no longer be tax deductible and many other religious freedoms which you take for granted may not be legal.
Personally I do not want the government involved in my spiritual affairs.

P.S. I am still not voting for Obama

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Marriage has been around long before God had a say in it.
 
Navy Pride said:
This is my last word on the subject....
Click to expand...

Well it isn't our last word on the subject as long as you continue to do it.

You try to make it out to be an innocent thing but we know why you do it, because it's a juvenile attempt to make him the "Other".

The outsider.

The non American.

We see through it and believe me if someone can be convinced to vote against Obama because you keep calling him beautiful... :lol: they weren't gonna vote for him in the first place.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Well it isn't our last word on the subject as long as you continue to do it.

You try to make it out to be an innocent thing but we know why you do it, because it's a juvenile attempt to make him the "Other".

The outsider.

The non American....
Click to expand...

the sad fact is, NP's constant calling the President, "Hussein Obama" is freally just an ad hom attack, suggesting that his African heritage somehow makes him in eligible to be President or his choices and policies are less legit, because of his ethnic heritage.

its just unfortunate that his ad-home just happens to be a pretty gay thing to thay.

:)
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Marriage has been around long before God had a say in it.
Click to expand...

That is debatable itself, but in my opinion, doesn't really pertain.
After all, this forum is Debate Politics, not Debate Spiritual Beliefs.
Unfortunately, this thread seems to be a catalyst to debate just that.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
 
CHARMtheMEDIA said:
That is debatable itself, but in my opinion, doesn't really pertain.
After all, this forum is Debate Politics, not Debate Spiritual Beliefs.
Unfortunately, this thread seems to be a catalyst to debate just that.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

But since, especially in the case of Gay Marriage peoples spiritual beliefs influence their political ones it is cause for discussion and debate.
 
CHARMtheMEDIA said:
Gay's can legally get married anywhere, so long as the pastor agrees to perform the ceremony.
What they cannot do in every state is get the government to recognize their marriage as legal. Which begs one question.
Why do they want it recognized?
Is it for spiritual recognition?
No, that would be silly.
How about recognition that they are committed to a relationship in which they live in the same household and share the same finances, and are worthy of the same benefits any other couple would live under those circumstances?
That sounds more logical.
On behalf of all Christians in America, I would like to STRONGLY caution Christians from encouraging the government to get involved in spiritual business.
If you do that be prepared.
Tithing may no longer be tax deductible and many other religious freedoms which you take for granted may not be legal.
Personally I do not want the government involved in my spiritual affairs.

P.S. I am still not voting for Obama

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

No, gay people cannot legally marry a person of the same sex anywhere. Being married in the legal sense is not about a church service. It does however come with any number(over 1000 on the federal level) of legal benefits. Churches are entirely irrelevant to a discussion of whether gay couples should be able to be married.
 
Navy Pride said:
I call him by the name his father gave him and will continue to do so...........If you don't want to debate the subject of the thread that is fine to.........Hussein Obama is not ashamed of his name, I don't know why you are..........You can call Romney or GWB by their middle name or anyone else I could care less............This is my last word on
the subject....
Click to expand...

That is not the name his father gave him. You decided to ignore a part of it. What you actually did is call him beautiful.
 
Navy Pride said:
I would think you would want the turnout to be low because if its high all those people taht are continually voting for marriage to be between a man and a woman......I expect them to be out in mass come November.
Click to expand...


I don't. I think that the overall turnout is gonna be pitiful and will be majorly composed of the middle-aged middle-class family. That being said, I think that their vote will go towards Obama
 
Redress said:
No, gay people cannot legally marry a person of the same sex anywhere.
Click to expand...
That is only partially correct, there is no law which prohibits a gay couple from a marriage ceremony. There are only laws which prohibit it from being recognized as legal. Meaning, the police won't beat down the doors of a gay church to stop a ceremony.

Redress said:
Being married in the legal sense is not about a church service. It does however come with any number(over 1000 on the federal level) of legal benefits. Churches are entirely irrelevant to a discussion of whether gay couples should be able to be married.
Click to expand...

That is essentially what I said in my original post.
I am confused though, is your statement intended to dispute or agree, my belief that gay couples willing to live under the same circumstances as a straight married couple should be entitled to the same benefits?
Or did you simply read
"P.S. I am still not voting for Obama"
and assume I was a brainwashed conservative incapable of my own thoughts...lol

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:
CHARMtheMEDIA said:
That is only partially correct, there is no law which prohibits a gay couple from a marriage ceremony. There are only laws which prohibit it from being recognized as legal. Meaning, the police won't beat down the doors of a gay church to stop a ceremony.



That is essentially what I said in my original post.
I am confused though, is your statement intended to dispute or agree, my belief that gay couples willing to live under the same circumstances as a straight married couple should be entitled to the same benefits?
Or did you simply read
"P.S. I am still not voting for Obama"
and assume I was a brainwashed conservative incapable of my own thoughts...lol

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

When discussing marraige in terms of SSM, it is safe to assume unless otherwise stated that the discussion is about marraige as a legal entity. People can say they are married all they want, but if the law does not recognize that marriage, then for all intents and purposes they are not married.

I am not sure entirely what your point was in your first post. With the unusual formatting and no real train of thought it was hard to tell, so I simply corrected your mistake and pointed out that religious discussion have no bearing on marriage as a legal construct.
 
Redress said:
When discussing marraige in terms of SSM, it is safe to assume unless otherwise stated that the discussion is about marraige as a legal entity. People can say they are married all they want, but if the law does not recognize that marriage, then for all intents and purposes they are not married.

I am not sure entirely what your point was in your first post. With the unusual formatting and no real train of thought it was hard to tell, so I simply corrected your mistake and pointed out that religious discussion have no bearing on marriage as a legal construct.
Click to expand...

I would like to think that even the simplest of minds have a train of thought, though often they are hard to follow. If you were confused, why did you not ask for further explanation, as I respectfully asked you.
Also I clearly stated religion should have no bearing on legal issues, or so I thought.
I could be wrong here, but I sense that this is an issue you are passionate about.
I commend you on that, but would caution you to balance your passion with self control.
It seems we are both in agreence with the issue of gay marriage, yet you have chosen to debate with me.
This certainly is not conducive to our cause.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
 
TheLastIndependent said:
I don't. I think that the overall turnout is gonna be pitiful and will be majorly composed of the middle-aged middle-class family. That being said, I think that their vote will go towards Obama
Click to expand...

So let me un derstand your logic here.......Most people in this country are moderates............Hussein Obama is a liberal like you.........Romney is a moderate.........So the Moderates that vote will vote for the Liberal which they disagree on almost every issue...........Is that it?
 
Navy Pride said:
So let me un derstand your logic here.......Most people in this country are moderates............Hussein Obama is a liberal like you.........Romney is a moderate.........So the Moderates that vote will vote for the Liberal which they disagree on almost every issue...........Is that it?
Click to expand...

In Fox News and Rush Limbaugh land, Obama is a liberal and Romney is a moderate. In reality, Obama and Romney are virtually the same person who had to have an issue like gay marriage in order to have any contrast.
 
CriticalThought said:
In Fox News and Rush Limbaugh land, Obama is a liberal and Romney is a moderate. In reality, Obama and Romney are virtually the same person who had to have an issue like gay marriage in order to have any contrast.
Click to expand...

Honestly, almost every politician is controlled by their party. I wouldn't neccessarilly say Obama and Romney are the same. I would say that the primaries in today's world are a joke. No matter what candidate is your choice, essentially they will become a puppet to their party, if they are not already.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
 
CHARMtheMEDIA said:
Honestly, almost every politician is controlled by their party. I wouldn't neccessarilly say Obama and Romney are the same. I would say that the primaries in today's world are a joke. No matter what candidate is your choice, essentially they will become a puppet to their party, if they are not already.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

I think this kind of depends on how well they are at reaching people. There are more and more people becoming Independents all the time because they don't quite fit in with either side on multiple issues. If a candidate can appeal to enough of those people while still some how energizing their own party, without actually supporting everything the party does, they could beat that image. This would work best if the other party was sending in a candidate that was basically a radical that appealed mostly to the absolute base of the party and very few others, to the point where most people who weren't in the other party wouldn't vote for the other guy for almost anything.
 
CriticalThought said:
In Fox News and Rush Limbaugh land, Obama is a liberal and Romney is a moderate. In reality, Obama and Romney are virtually the same person who had to have an issue like gay marriage in order to have any contrast.
Click to expand...

OK

Obama .............Pro Abortion
Obama ............ Pro Gay Marriage
Obama............. trillion dollar spender
Obama............. cut defense to the bare bone
Obama............. Anti Death Penalty
Obama.............Letting Bush tax cuts expire


I am sure I missed a few, but Romney is the opposite on all those issues...............Got it..............
 
Navy Pride said:
OK

Obama .............Pro Abortion
Obama ............ Pro Gay Marriage
Obama............. trillion dollar spender
Obama............. cut defense to the bare bone
Obama............. Anti Death Penalty
Obama.............Letting Bush tax cuts expire


I am sure I missed a few, but Romney is the opposite on all those issues...............Got it..............
Click to expand...

Which Romney are you talking about? The one we see today or the one that existed 10 years ago?

Honestly, you consider Obama to be "pro abortion"? What is with you and the politically charged language? It seems like you get off on being as partisan as possible. Yeah, we get it. You drank the red kool aid and you loved it.
 
Last edited:
TheLastIndependent said:
Why were the cuts even necessary? Did you think that maybe there is so much opposition to said tax cuts because they have no real affect?
Click to expand...

Maybe to put some extra money in peoples pockets and stimulate the economy Like Reagan and JFK did.......What a novel concept.........

By the way did you send your tax cut back for the last 10 years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom