- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
[h=2]Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage[/h]
"I support traditional marriage and we should reject attempts by the Obama administration to force same-sex marriage on all 50 states. The State Marriage Defense Act helps safeguard the ability of states to preserve traditional marriage for their citizens," he said.
wow what a waste of time and money, also nothing like making sure you wont be president either lol Equal rights is coming bigots . .. give it up
again im not saying this one topic SHOULD decide who could be president but any candidate that comes out against equal rights and thy make it "PART OF THEIR CAMPAIGN AND RUNNING PLATFORM" are sure to lose lol its just the way politics will be in 2016
lastly traditional marriage is in no danger by equal rights, its a made up subjective thing, it wont be impacted at all, next "the obama administration forcing it"? It doesnt get any dumber than that. :lamo
good lord
the war is over but its entertaining seeing the last desperate attempts of bigotry, it shows peoples true colors
wow what a waste of time and money, also nothing like making sure you wont be president either lol Equal rights is coming bigots . .. give it up
again im not saying this one topic SHOULD decide who could be president but any candidate that comes out against equal rights and thy make it "PART OF THEIR CAMPAIGN AND RUNNING PLATFORM" are sure to lose lol its just the way politics will be in 2016
lastly traditional marriage is in no danger by equal rights, its a made up subjective thing, it wont be impacted at all, next "the obama administration forcing it"? It doesnt get any dumber than that. :lamo
good lord
the war is over but its entertaining seeing the last desperate attempts of bigotry, it shows peoples true colors
Add Jindal to the list
Jindal won't 'evolve' on same-sex marriage - CNN.com
he wants a constitutional amendment in favor of bans lol, does he also plan on removing the 14th? lol
I think Ted Cruz knows this kinda bill is a dud, but is well aware stunts like these will keep the Religious Right in Texas voting for him.
I dont totally disagree but is that his end game? just making the religious extremist and right fringe happy?
Not that I think he ever had a shot but does he not care to be POTUS?
Butchering of English grammar aside, I'm actually semi-okay with this and here's why: essentially what he is arguing for is to protect a state's ability choose if it wants to allow SSM in the state or not. Mainly because the way the electorate is going anyways, even if said bill was passed, eventually every state will legalize SSM anyways.
It amazes me that so many GOPers are willing to hitch their wagon to such a clear losing issue.
I'm sure he's ambitious enough to one to be President one day, but he's not stupid enough to think it'll happen in the next 4-8 years.
I know what he is going for but the problem is the state has no power to choose in this case. The states rights are already fully in tact. Bannings overreached thier power and thats why they are being corrected.
Saying that "eventually" states will probably stop infringin on and violating individual rights is not a good point at all, and its purely a guess. It was either alabama or mississippi that tried a bill to stop interracial marriage in the last past 2-3 years, of course it failed but Im just saying . . . . .
It amazes me that so many GOPers are willing to hitch their wagon to such a clear losing issue.
And 10 years ago this issue got Bush re-elected. It's crazy how much movement there's been on the issue in such a short period of time.
`
Cruz is an idiot, elected by idiots.
I certainly don't think he's an idiot. I do think he's soulless, shameless and slimy.
It amazes me that so many GOPers are willing to hitch their wagon to such a clear losing issue.
1.)No, that's what I'm saying. SSM is an issue, must like drugs incidentally, that the nation has been softening on for about a decade. 2.) And there are serious legal issues raises when you try to extend the 14th amendment to protect legal agreements (which is really what SSM is all about). It opens up the doors for all sorts of other issues like incest and polygamy. I'm not saying that loving someone of the same sex is a choice, but to enter into a legal agreement that says such is. See the difference?
Does that have more to do with a) not liking his politics and/or b) being cynical he buys into said politics?
1.) as far as wanting it to be illegal or banned, its only an issue for bigots and people against equal rights. Those people "feelings" dont matter
2.) good grief sorry but no it doesnt extend (open the doors) to incest and polygamy
there is ZERO legal precedence that is based solely on equal rights for SSM that lends itself to polygamy and incest, not one
if your argument held true at all individual rights and equal rights is the problem itself in your scenario, not protecting the equal rights of gays
i could apply yourargument to any rights, women's minorities, religious etc etc theres no danger here
It could be that they are standing up for their sincere belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.
You're not listening to what I'm saying. The reason it wouldn't apply to women or race is because you are judging them based solely on who they, not what their doing. You feel, and I think many on our side erroneously think so as well, that many of those who oppose SSM do so because they simply hate gays. This isn't some backwater African government that wants to ban any expression or support for homosexuality. What they fear most is what will happen when you start assigning equal rights to legal arrangements and that's all that marriage (straight or gay) is. Once you start assigning those protections to legal arrangements, then you start to move into the territory where stuff like polygamy can be recognized under the law and offered the same treatment as other marriages.
If all parties consent, why shouldn't polygamy be legal? Marriage is a contractual agreement. Why should people be prevented from entering into such an agreement?
That said, claiming A inexorably leads to B is the textbook "slippery slope" logical fallacy.
`
True.....uncompassionate, insensitive, heartless...lacking any kind of nobility.
I'm not sure how it's a fallacy when you validate the point in the previous line...
Haters gotta hate I suppose.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?