• 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?

wolfsgirl said:
Some of us didn't want to wait for our rights to be allowed by random peoples votes, we believe that we deserve full constitutional protections just like any other American citizens. People should not get to vote away the rights of other citizens, we are not a democracy where the majority gets to deny rights to the minority.

At the time that interracial marriage was in court there was even lower support for it, about 30% if I'm remembering correctly, but the court ruled that laws can not deny them marriage based on the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

Maybe you missed the calls for just that. There was a big push to get civil unions and we were denied even that, in my state we weren't allowed civil unions, domestic partnerships or any other contract approximating marriage by law.

It isn't about an agenda, it's about the rights of American citizens. If you feel that your rights should be up to others to vote for then that's you. I feel that I am entitled to all rights and legal protections that are guaranteed in the constitution.
 
wolfsgirl said:
Some of us didn't want to wait for our rights to be allowed by random peoples votes, we believe that we deserve full constitutional protections just like any other American citizens. People should not get to vote away the rights of other citizens, we are not a democracy where the majority gets to deny rights to the minority.

At the time that interracial marriage was in court there was even lower support for it, about 30% if I'm remembering correctly, but the court ruled that laws can not deny them marriage based on the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

Correct. Screw waiting for people to "get over it". If that was the case for how civil rights was pushed for, then absolutely nothing would've ever gotten done, ever. So many southerners back in the day were against desegregation policies, and rulings like Brown v. Board of Education, and such. But it didn't matter, because that shouldn't be considered in regards to equal treatment under the law. They can just whine and get over it, and society moves on. Screw waiting so many odd years for morons who were against gay marriage to at some point be okay with the idea of gay marriage; LGBT people deserved to have the same access to a legal marriage as anyone else, and that shouldn't have to wait because of religious conservatives crying about it.
 
Last edited:
wolfsgirl said:
Maybe you missed the calls for just that. There was a big push to get civil unions and we were denied even that, in my state we weren't allowed civil unions, domestic partnerships or any other contract approximating marriage by law.

It isn't about an agenda, it's about the rights of American citizens. If you feel that your rights should be up to others to vote for then that's you. I feel that I am entitled to all rights and legal protections that are guaranteed in the constitution.
Click to expand...

I guess the agenda is equal rights under the law, but it's certainly a good agenda to get behind. Thankfully, this argument is behind us, and the tide of history is against those who opposed gay marriage, as support continues to go up, even among conservatives. I don't have to worry about not being able to get married in the future, if I so choose, and that's certainly a plus.
 
wolfsgirl said:
Maybe you missed the calls for just that. There was a big push to get civil unions and we were denied even that, in my state we weren't allowed civil unions, domestic partnerships or any other contract approximating marriage by law.

It isn't about an agenda, it's about the rights of American citizens. If you feel that your rights should be up to others to vote for then that's you. I feel that I am entitled to all rights and legal protections that are guaranteed in the constitution.
Click to expand...

I didn't miss it, I just feel that the push should have been for that, and let society get more used to concept. We have the same end game, just different paths to get there.
 
Renae said:
I didn't miss it, I just feel that the push should have been for that, and let society get more used to concept. We have the same end game, just different paths to get there.
Click to expand...

The push was for civil unions long before there was a major push for marriage, and we were denied civil unions in most states and they didn't even have the same legal weight.
Why should we let society get used to us having our rights as American citizens? IF we are going to have mob rule, then we might as well burn the constitution and vote on everything. What other rights are you willing to allow others to decide for you?

I kind of like knowing that I have legal protections if anything happens to me or my wife. I like knowing that I can not be refused to be by her bed in the hospital like I was before. I like knowing that our children will not be removed from my wife if something happens to me. I like knowing that her family can not take our house if she dies and leave me with nothing.
 
wolfsgirl said:
The push was for civil unions long before there was a major push for marriage, and we were denied civil unions in most states and they didn't even have the same legal weight.
Why should we let society get used to us having our rights as American citizens? IF we are going to have mob rule, then we might as well burn the constitution and vote on everything. What other rights are you willing to allow others to decide for you?

I kind of like knowing that I have legal protections if anything happens to me or my wife. I like knowing that I can not be refused to be by her bed in the hospital like I was before. I like knowing that our children will not be removed from my wife if something happens to me. I like knowing that her family can not take our house if she dies and leave me with nothing.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand me. That's fine. I dont' really care, you're all in this "RIGHTS!!!" agenda activist stuff. I get it, if you don't fully support THIS AGENDA" you're against it mentality. We both want the same things, I just felt there was a better way, why you can't accept that is on you not me.
 
Renae said:
You misunderstand me. That's fine. I dont' really care, you're all in this "RIGHTS!!!" agenda activist stuff. I get it, if you don't fully support THIS AGENDA" you're against it mentality. We both want the same things, I just felt there was a better way, why you can't accept that is on you not me.
Click to expand...

What agenda? The agenda of equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the constitution?

I accept that you were fine waiting for others to decide what rights you deserve, but I'm not. We've seen how the majority treats the minority when given the chance repeatedly in this country.
 
wolfsgirl said:
What agenda? The agenda of equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the constitution?

I accept that you were fine waiting for others to decide what rights you deserve, but I'm not. We've seen how the majority treats the minority when given the chance repeatedly in this country.
Click to expand...

Again,you're pushing the "You aren't with what I support so you're wrong" crap, we want the same thing, just had different views on how to get there.
 
roguenuke said:
Not true. Many same sex couples were getting married, calling themselves married long before "judges" anywhere got involved. People started demanding things change. Otherwise one of the several failed attempts to pass a Constitutional Amendment to federally ban same sex marriage, to keep it between a man and woman only would have succeeded.

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

A same sex marriage in those before judges' interventionist times wasn't legally a marriage even though the wish for marriage was evident between the couple.
BTW, how did those who called themselves married before judges intervened list their union on a tax form, for example?
 
roguenuke said:
Changing a definition to be more inclusive is not appropriation.

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

So, allowing a non-Mexican to wear a serape during Halloween isn't appropriation, either? Better tell that to SJWs...and colleges.
 
wolfsgirl said:
What agenda? The agenda of equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the constitution?

I accept that you were fine waiting for others to decide what rights you deserve, but I'm not. We've seen how the majority treats the minority when given the chance repeatedly in this country.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I'm not down with waiting until the opposition is okay with it to go ahead with progress. Why should that play a factor into campaigning for equal treatment under the law?
 
Renae said:
Again,you're pushing the "You aren't with what I support so you're wrong" crap, we want the same thing, just had different views on how to get there.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you are wrong, I said that you may be ok with waiting for others voting on your rights, but I am not. My way got it done, your way we would be waiting for another decade or more.
 
wolfsgirl said:
I didn't say you are wrong, I said that you may be ok with waiting for others voting on your rights, but I am not. My way got it done, your way we would be waiting for another decade or more.
Click to expand...

I think that waiting for it, it would be 'waiting forever'.
 
RAMOSS said:
I am against same sex marriage since I am not attracted to the same sex. I don't care what other people do. It's just my personal preference for me.
Click to expand...

That's like saying you're opposed the steak houses because you don't like beef.
 
Rich2018 said:
That's like saying you're opposed the steak houses because you don't like beef.
Click to expand...

Basically. OFcourse, if someone else wants to go there,I don't care.
 
roguenuke said:
They may believe in a different God, whom they are making a covenant with.

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

And, that is up to them to believe in God's of gold and made up ideology. I'm talking about the God of the Old and New Testament in which is the only true God that can make a covenant.
 
wolfsgirl said:
You seem to be confusing a legal civil marriage with a church marriage ceremony. A legal civil marriage in no was requires any religious ceremony, I didn't have a religious ceremony and it's still a legally binding marriage.
Click to expand...

I'm not confusing anything. What I do believe is that God sanctions civil marriages as long as they are not vile-type marriages such as gay marriages. So, if a marriage is sanctioned by God and was done properly by the law of the land, then it's a marriage that has the attributes to fulfill all goodness within a family. Including potential eternal marriage for all eternity.
 
wolfsgirl said:
No, it removed an unconstitutional law.

If there is a law that says women can not get driver's licenses in my state and the courts find that law unconstitutional they are not making a new law they are getting rid of an unconstitutional law that blocks a segment of society from equal access to a state issues license.
Click to expand...

They are still making case law and setting a legal precedent in those cases because if the laws weren't clear about the idea in question before the ruling by the 9 (semi)wise robes, it is now clear after it.
 
Cougarbear said:
I'm not confusing anything. What I do believe is that God sanctions civil marriages as long as they are not vile-type marriages such as gay marriages. So, if a marriage is sanctioned by God and was done properly by the law of the land, then it's a marriage that has the attributes to fulfill all goodness within a family. Including potential eternal marriage for all eternity.
Click to expand...

You can believe what you wish, but there is no religious component required for any legal civil marriage. People of other religions can get married even though they do not believe in your god. Atheists can get married even though they don't believe in any god. Your god is not required to sanction any legal civil marriage, in fact your god is nor even asked to sanction many marriages.
 
Renae said:
What if you're more against how Gay Marriage was pushed rather than against Gay Marriage? I, as a person in an LGBT marriage would have been just fine with a legal union rather than "marriage". Changing the definition of Marriage was... pushed through the courts instead of allowed to organically be, and that was a big mistake.
Click to expand...

The reason why it was pushed through, is because some states word allowing legal unions.
 
cabse5 said:
The same-sex marriage in those before judges' interventionist times wasn't legally a marriage even though the wish for marriage was evident between the couple.
BTW, how did those who called themselves married before judges intervened list their union on a tax form, for example?
Click to expand...

Is marriage only to be defined between white heterosexual Christian couples in the US, or do you permit other religions and races to be married?

The Obergfell decision is legally identical to the Loving v. Virginia decision that guaranteed that interracial people and people in interracial relationship have the right to marry, so if you seek to wipe away one of them you must be consistent and wipe away both of them and as a result, admit to being a racist as well as being homophobic/transphobic.

How has your life or that of your church been negatively changed since either of those SCOTUS decisions on equal rights?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom