• 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!

Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

Wrong. You are free to define marriage for yourself, but not for others. Not allowing a group the same ability to marry who they love, without justification (so no red herrings like pedophilia or marrying a pet).

Excuse me, do you get to define murder, grand larcency, contract law, to suit yourself???
 
Marriage as been redefined many times throughout history. But again, your free to define it for you and practice it as you and your spouse choose.

You really don't want to answer the question.
 
Second class citizen?

Yeah, I would be upset too if the court made me a second class citizen said my beliefs and vote do not count because it ticks off homosexuals and their supporters with their emotional and warped mantra of "equal rights." Hopefully the SCOTUS will make the right decision and let the states decide marriage for themselves and overturn DOMA under those grounds as well.

If they let individual states decide, then DOMA should stand, as most of them have already decided as has Congress (and the answer was to disallow).
 
Marriage as been redefined many times throughout history. But again, your free to define it for you and practice it as you and your spouse choose.

Then why would you argue that it is some sort of right?
 
Yay.... I'm shocked you know that considering progressives believe we live in a dictatorship where presidents can dictate at will.

Why do so many like to argue stereotypes instead of the person before them?
 
Wrong. You are free to define marriage for yourself, but not for others. Not allowing a group the same ability to marry who they love, without justification (so no red herrings like pedophilia or marrying a pet).

Who are you to say someone cant marry a pet or even an inanimate object? - wouldn't that be you defining marriage?

Furthermore do you know what standards are? do you know what the purpose of a standards are?
 
Then why would you argue that it is some sort of right?

Because me and you can do it, and homosexuals can't. Denying hem the same right we have, to marry he one we love, without justification is discrimination.
 
If they let individual states decide, then DOMA should stand, as most of them have already decided as has Congress (and the answer was to disallow).

DOMA essentially punishes states that recognize SSM. Those people are legally wed but cannot receive federal benefits due to the federal government legislating marriage which is not their jurisdiction.
 
Who are you to say someone cant marry a pet or even an inanimate object? - wouldn't that be you defining marriage?

Furthermore do you know what standards are? do you know what the purpose of a standards are?

A pet can't consent. Neither can a table. Again, there is justification there.
 
Because me and you can do it, and homosexuals can't. Denying hem the same right we have, to marry he one we love, without justification is discrimination.

A gay person has the same rights as I when deciding who to marry. Would you disagree?
 
Why do so many like to argue stereotypes instead of the person before them?

Common knowledge seems to be uncommon these days.... 75% of adults today would fail a civics exam.
 
Common knowledge seems to be uncommon these days.... 75% of adults today would fail a civics exam.

Again, that has nothing to do with what you said.
 
Marriage as been redefined many times throughout history. But again, your free to define it for you and practice it as you and your spouse choose.

No, it really hasn't. Not in this context. Always been one man/one woman or one man/X number of women. If you want to include the later in the modern definition, more power to ya. But SSM has never fallen within the definition of marriage.

And the states HAVE decided. The vast majority have decided against SSM. And the few outliers, most allow it only through court decision and in opposition of the will of the electorate.
 
I did answer it. You're mistaken in your proposition. I think I made hat clear.

No, you've studiously ignored it. Do you think laws defining marriage as between men and women have been unconstitutional since 1868, or is it some more recent date?
 
Is is not a State decision since they are the ones issuing the licenses?

Not completely, no. State laws must abide by the 14th Amendment EPC. And yes that is used a lot to justify striking down state laws because many states have laws in place or have put laws in place that violate that clause because they can't seem to understand that the 14th Amendment is a limitation to states' rights in favor of individual citizens' rights.
 
A pet can't consent. Neither can a table. Again, there is justification there.


Yeah well a pet cant consent to being adopted now can they? obviously a table cant consent to being purchased.... So what is the damn difference???

You can adopt a pet but not marry a pet?

You can buy a table but not marry a table?

And if you don't think people DON'T want to marry pets or inanimate objects then you would be totally wrong.
 
Not completely, no. State laws must abide by the 14th Amendment EPC. And yes that is used a lot to justify striking down state laws because many states have laws in place or have put laws in place that violate that clause because they can't seem to understand that the 14th Amendment is a limitation to states' rights in favor of individual citizens' rights.

What is being applied in an unequal manner?
 
A gay person has the same rights as I when deciding who to marry. Would you disagree?

I disagree. If you're a heterosexual, you can marry who you are attracted to and love, assuming they feel the same. The homosexual person can't do the same. To see the discrimination you have to take your fingers out of your ears and listen.
 
A gay person has the same rights as I when deciding who to marry. Would you disagree?

My single sister does not have the same right you do. She cannot marry a woman only because she is a woman. You can marry a woman because you are a man. There is no legitimate government being furthered by not allowing my sister to marry a woman based solely on her sex/gender.
 
The States should be the only ones deciding...

Don't get mortally wounded on vacation in a state that doesn't allow gay marriage.

Your spouse will not be allowed in the ICU.

Better yet, lets make truckers have a license for each state. Wouldn't want to impose on an indivduals states requirements.

Of all the ridiculous nonsense....
 
I disagree. If you're a heterosexual, you can marry who you are attracted to and love, assuming they feel the same. The homosexual person can't do the same. To see the discrimination you have to take your fingers out of your ears and listen.

Why would one want to marry someone of the same sex
 
Again, that has nothing to do with what you said.

It has absolutely everything to do with what I said.

Besides, you were the one making assumptions in the first place claiming "there is a process for that" - like that is something I didn't know.
 
What is being applied in an unequal manner?

Access to marriage. You can marry a woman but a woman cannot marry a woman only because of her gender/sex. That is gender discrimination and it is only in place due to animosity towards those who would want to marry someone of their own sex/gender. There is no state interest being furthered by not allowing two people of the same gender/sex to marry.
 
Back
Top Bottom