• 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!

New Hampshire to vote on gay marriage repeal

ChuckBerry said:
That's my question.
Click to expand...

That's our question. Why if it's only a name fight so hard against it? You all just look like children when you try to deny SSM.
 
 
Your Star said:
That's our question. Why if it's only a name fight so hard against it? You all just look like children when you try to deny SSM.
Click to expand...

So why, if it's only a name fight, isn't the rights and protections of civil unions more important? If a compromise is reached where one side gets the rights and protections they claim they want and the other side gets to keep the name...why is that not good enough? I've already disproven that segregation is not the issue.
 

No. That isnt the point though. Homosexuals will have an entirely separate institution then heterosexuals. Thats unconstitutional.
 


The issue is they are creating a separate right which makes it unequal. So yes it is about equality under the law.
 

First off segregation is the issue, it's pretty evident, secondly the people against SSM have proven time and time again that they do not want to give the same rights, it is just an argument to stop SSM from becoming law. And one the anti side likes because it hides the bigotry behind their motivation. Also benefits as marriage, in fact civil unions are not marriage, and do not have as much legal power, nor precedence as marriage does. It's about the rights that marriage brings with it, and the only way to get that is to get marriage.
 
Omgitsme said:
Homosexuals will have an entirely separate institution then heterosexuals.
Click to expand...

If there is no difference in the law and how it applies to two sets of people, it is not discriminatory. Again, this has zero to to with gay only toilets and lunch counters. SS couples will be able to go and do anything and everything that an OS couple can and in the same places. The ONLY issue is the word. So I wonder, again, it it's really about equality.
 
If a civil union as proposed by the particular state is any way deficient compared to marriage, then you have a point. Can you name a state where their proposal for civil unions is deficient?
 

Why is it such a problem if it's just called marriage? Do you have something wrong with gay couples being called married?
 
Last edited:
ChuckBerry said:
If a civil union as proposed by the particular state is any way deficient compared to marriage, then you have a point. Can you name a state where their proposal for civil unions is deficient?
Click to expand...

By name it is deficient, there are certain rights which only pertain to marriage. Marriage is a legal institution, and denying it to a certain member of the populace based solely on the sex of the two people involved is wrong. End of discussion.
 
To me if the people of any state vote to approve gay marriage I would reluctantly live with that decision...I ask my Liberal friends if the people of a state vote to have marriage defined ad a union between a man and a woman will you accept that decision..........Never mind I know the answer, and you lefties call us the intolerant ones....HYPOCRITES!!!!!!!!!!
 

I would live with it to.

But good to know you can make assumptions.
 

Your intolerant because you promote intolerant laws, don't call me intolerant for opposing intolerance.

****ing ludicrous argument.
 

 
A law redefining ALL marriages between any two consenting adults to instead become civil unions would be equal.

A law recognizing some couples as legally married, while others as having a civil union...would not be equal.

In any case, there's no rational basis for having different terms in the first place, and appeal to "tradition" (typically a code word for some of the more socially conservative strains of organized religion which continually -- and falsely -- appoint themselves guardians of a monolithic culture which never existed in the first place) has no place in the legislature.

In the era of open de jure segregation, there were mobs all over the south (and many more people silently backing them) Who Simply Didn't Get It, and were more than content to fight tooth and nail to oppose and prevent effective equality under the law so long as they maintained the social, political, and financial power to do so. People arguing against legal recognition of marriage for gay couples are today's equivalent of those mobs and silent armchair supporters.
 
Your Star said:
Your intolerant because you promote intolerant laws, don't call me intolerant for opposing intolerance.

****ing ludicrous argument.
Click to expand...

I like the law where it is.........you are the one who wants a special law to accomadate 1% of the population.
 
Navy Pride said:
I like the law where it is.........you are the one who wants a special law to accomadate 1% of the population.
Click to expand...

It's more like 3-4%, and I love how you don't actually address my point, I'm sure your conceding that your point is the intolerant one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…