• 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!

Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote


LMAO
Ok :shrug:

1.) awww its cute you think people care if a poster like you buys it or not
2.) see 1.) we dont care about you not carring
3.) you are welcome to the opinion
4.) weird the majority of my friends and family do care and support equal rights, so what
5.) whoopty doo LMAO i think its offensive to see ugly people affectionate in public, so what
6.) did someone say it was?

your funny
 

thanks :shrug:
 

You made no points, not only that but you changed my post then went ahead and spelled "you're" wrong.

I DON'T CARE, I don't care what the **** people do - yet you call yourself a libertarian and have a difficult time understanding that idea???

There is no such thing as EQUALITY.... Your argument here would apply to just about anything.. Why should the doctor who works 50 hours a week make more than the dummy who works 50 hours a week scrubbing his toilets??? They both work the same hours so why should one get more than the other??

Civil unions/gay marriage are a TENTH AMENDMENT ISSUE - EVERY LIBERTARIAN KNOWS THIS...
 

I bet most blacks will never vote for him again
 

Frankly, I agree with the African Americans on this one.

The LGBT movement has gone out of its way to make a mountain out of a mole hill with regards to the whole same sex marriage issue from the very beginning. I can understand wanting equal rights, but trying to compare the trivial inconvenience of not being able to technically call an already de facto civil and domestic union "marriage" with the very real horrors of the Segregation, or (God forbid) slavery, is insulting and tasteless in the extreme.

Homosexuals are not being lynched by the thousands each year. Homosexuals are not being rounded up on trumped up charges and forced to work like slaves on chain gangs. Homosexuals are not having their opportunity to succeed in everyday life hampered by Jim Crow Laws. Homosexuals were not treated as human property for 400 years and often worked to death in the harsh environment of plantation agriculture.

I'm sorry, but there really simply isn't any valid grounds for comparison here between the plight of the two minority groups in question. African Americans have every right to be offended that so many pundits in the MSM attempt to frame the issue as such.

Homosexuals make up all of 2-4% of the population in any given nation. A lot of people on the political and cultural Left need to take a step or two back and try to gain at least some degree of perspective on the matter to say the least.
 
Last edited:

1.) i didnt have to because you didnt either LMAO i just pointed how how the things you said didnt matter to facts and reality
2.) no i only numbered it
3.) oh on what will i ever do
4.) LMAO easy on the temper tantrum before you break your keyboard
5.) wow, you are so emotionally out there i don even think you know who you are talking too, you certainly dont know what you are talking about. Can you point out where i said im a libertarian?
6.) wait wait wait, so i have an argument now? i thought you said i made no points? jeez you are confused. Does gay rights always make you this angry or is that just who you are and angry person?
7.) LMAO where do you come up with this stuff , can you point out where i said they should? or who even where i mentioned doctors and scrubbing toilets?
you like to just make stuff up and go on random meaningless rants don't you?
8.) thanks for this opinion :shrug:

let mw know when you figure out what you are actually arguing about and who you are talking to LMAO
 

Comparing two things does not necessarily equate to putting those two things on equal footing.

The whole "call it union, but not marriage" argument does seem familiar to "separate, but equal", but, that does not mean the two are necessarily equal.
 
zstep18 said:
Comparing two things does not necessarily equate to putting those two things on equal footing.

The whole "call it union, but not marriage" argument does seem familiar to "separate, but equal", but, that does not mean the two are necessarily equal.
Click to expand...

The simple fact of the matter is that it is a deliberately dishonest tactic meant to draw false emotional comparisons between two issues which barely have anything to do with one another.

The overall goal of the LGBT lobby in doing all of this isn't to gain "equal rights." It never has been. The goal is to force the idea that homosexuality is "normal" down society's collective throat.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't see society as having any such obligation. I'll grant homosexuals equal rights, but that doesn't mean that I'll change my whole belief system for them.
 
Last edited:
zstep18 said:
Comparing two things does not necessarily equate to putting those two things on equal footing.

The whole "call it union, but not marriage" argument does seem familiar to "separate, but equal", but, that does not mean the two are necessarily equal.
Click to expand...

the civil union argument/domestic partnership is always a failed argument for multiple reasons.

1.) separate but equal is still discrimination
2.) both civil unions and domestic partnerships are not equal to marriage legally and rights wise

so anybody using this failed argument simply inst educated on the issues at hand.
 

1.) nope just your opinion, not a FACT
nothing dishonest about comparing discrimination and equal rights to discrimination and equal rights :shrug

2.) thanks for that opinion do you have anything to support that? not to mention how can they force it down you throat?
correct me if im wrong arent there people out there that still think minorities and women arent equal? guess they have throat blockers. That is not what the LGBT lobby is doing sorry you are wrong.

3.) lol thanks for just contradicting yourself, i thought you were going to be forced? the people that are vocal around here all seem to say they dont care what people think/feel but they just want equality, guess they are just kidding.
 

It is about equality. "You can have a civil union, but not marriage" is not equal by the very nature of it.
 
None of it matters. The homosexuals will NEVER be happy. They loathe themselves and each other. That is part of the pathology that no one is allowed to talk about.
 
Ray410 said:
None of it matters. The homosexuals will NEVER be happy. They loathe themselves and each other. That is part of the pathology that no one is allowed to talk about.
Click to expand...

It would be one thing, if any of that was remotely true.

Stop making things up.
 
zstep18 said:
It is about equality. "You can have a civil union, but not marriage" is not equal by the very nature of it.
Click to expand...

If civil unions grant the same rights as marriages, what does it matter?

Seems awfully superficial and petty to me.
 
Gathomas88 said:
If civil unions grant the same rights as marriages, what does it matter?

Seems awfully superficial and petty to me.
Click to expand...

But, civil unions DON'T grant the same rights as marriages.
 

Yeah, the govt coming in and forcing a view point is a sure fire way to energize an opposition. Even Ginsberg is highly critical of RvsW for how it seemed unnecessary (the states were already moving towards legalization), energized resistance to it, and was based on shaky legal reasoning
 
zstep18 said:
But, civil unions DON'T grant the same rights as marriages.
Click to expand...

So why not go for that, civil unions granted the same rights and avoid the whole marriage issue?
 
zstep18 said:
But, civil unions DON'T grant the same rights as marriages.
Click to expand...

They could be amended to do so. However, this has never been what the LGBT lobby has pushed for.

They want "marriage," and won't stand for anything less.

I can just about guarantee you that the issue wouldn't be anywhere near the ****storm it is today if homosexuals had simply used the former tactic. Again, the fact of the matter is that they won't use such non-confrontational means precisely because "equal rights" aren't what they're really after.

They want recognition and validation from society at large.
 

1.) because separate but equal isnt not equal, Why would they fight for non-equal rights that stupid and illogical LOL
2.) translation, they want EQUALITY
3.) you maybe right, im sure the "****storm" would have been less if woman and minorities chose to NOT fight for equal rights too LOL that just dumb
4.) everytime you call this a fat you fail 100% but pleae continue to be dishonest lol
the real fact is they want marriage because thats the ONLY way to achieve equality, any honest person can see this

5.) im sure some do just like minorities and woman before them but that doesnt change the fact that marriage is the only way to achieve equality on the MARRIAGE issue LOL
 
clownboy said:
So why not go for that, civil unions granted the same rights and avoid the whole marriage issue?
Click to expand...

The definition of "marriage" needs to be changed. Plain as that.
 
clownboy said:
So why not go for that, civil unions granted the same rights and avoid the whole marriage issue?
Click to expand...

go for what? civil unions are not equal and they cant be made equal
separate but equal is not equal history already proves this
 
AGENT J said:
1.) because separate but equal isnt not equal, Why would they fight for non-equal rights that stupid and illogical LOL
Click to expand...

actually, until quote recently, I think the advocacy did focus on civil unions. But once it was seen that they could likely garner the support for marriage, they moved on to that.

Not that I blame that, politics naturally calls for politically calculating
 

You need to be reminded that it was the Right which, when faced with the reality that mass murder was no longer feasible, bludgeoned gay people into establishing mock straight relationships in the first place...............Before 1980 "gay marriage" was unheard of.......................
 

yes there was and is movements for both civil unions and domestic partnership because at least its something and those were stepping stones when in some case equality was met with such bigotry and or resistance and disdain. So some took what they could get and want what they could get. (still true of some)

but the end game is equality as it should be
 
AGENT J said:
go for what? civil unions are not equal and they cant be made equal
separate but equal is not equal history already proves this
Click to expand...

Why in the world do you think that? How is it that they cannot be made equal? We're talking in a strictly legal sense here you understand that, right? You cannot successfully legislate social acceptance. Even if we could, that's a very dangerous path to follow.
 
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…