Ban on same sex marriage ruled unconstitutional by Texas Judge

Superfreak said:
No moron, you don't win. When your response to a post is "Wrong-O" you have shown yourself to be an idiot, incapable of discussion. It is at that point that you lose the debate.

You are a bigot and an idiot whose views are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Wrong-o again. And your resorting to neg reps when your ad-hom was revealed only solidifies your defeat in this debate. :)
 
WinterBorn said:
The federal gov't has already struck down anti-sodomy laws. This is not about sex. It is about antidiscrimination laws.

Other than religious reasons, there is no rational reason for denying gays the ability to marry. And religious reasons would be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Again, there is no such restriction on the States. They are free to define themselves as Christian, or any other religion, and make their own laws accordingly. So if you want to marry your boyfriend, move to Massachusetts or some other gay state.
 
Southern Man said:
Again, there is no such restriction on the States. They are free to define themselves as Christian, or any other religion, and make their own laws accordingly. So if you want to marry your boyfriend, move to Massachusetts or some other gay state.
Click to expand...

Actually no, that is not how it works. Go back and reread what I posted concerning Roy Moore.
 
Southern Man said:
So change the individual State constitutions, which has been my position in this thread all along. Chalk up another win for The Southern Man. :)
Click to expand...

You are always quick to claim a win when none is evident.

There is no need to change every state constitution. A simple federal law will suffice. Remove the restrictions and benefits afforded those who marry, and remove the state from the process. Then it is either a simple legal contract or no legal connection between parties.
 
Southern Man said:
So change the individual State constitutions, which has been my position in this thread all along. Chalk up another win for The Southern Man. :)
Click to expand...

how about another anti-discrimination amendment to the us constitution

what is it going to take to stop discrimination against minority groups

what about the equal protection under the law provision of the constitution
 
WinterBorn said:
The only rational answer would be to remove the gov't (state or federal) from the process completely.
Click to expand...

This is EXACTLY what should happen. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Let the various religions decide whom they wish to marry or not. If the government wants to provide benefits/rights to couples, then they can do so through civil unions.... which should not discriminate.
 
Superfreak said:
The neg rep was for your bigotry. The very fact that you continue to run away from the issue shows that your position is without merit.
Click to expand...
You are the one who continues with this baseless ad hom, showing that you continue to run away from the issue because your position is without merit.
 
WinterBorn said:
You are always quick to claim a win when none is evident.

There is no need to change every state constitution. A simple federal law will suffice. Remove the restrictions and benefits afforded those who marry, and remove the state from the process. Then it is either a simple legal contract or no legal connection between parties.
Click to expand...
Amendment 10 prohibits this.
 
DonQuixote said:
how about another anti-discrimination amendment to the us constitution

what is it going to take to stop discrimination against minority groups

what about the equal protection under the law provision of the constitution
Click to expand...
Again, Amendment 10 prohibits federal involvement. It is not a discrimination or civil right issue.
 
Yurt said:
fuck you....

a good decision is made and you have to bash those who have religious morals....and i guarantee that judge is probably religious, but he ruled according to the law....
Click to expand...
Uhh considering the topic, dont' you find your response a bit hypocritical? LOL I'm sure your minister or priest would certainly approve of you saying "Fuck You" to an apostate! LOL
 
Southern Man said:
Then your argument must include all sexual perversions.
Click to expand...

No it would not. The question here is whether to allow gays to marry. Since they are consenting adults, the answer would be yes.

Any other "perversion" would either be allowed to marry or would not fall under "consenting adults". Currently there are all manner of "perversions" that are allowed to marry.

Also, the major difference would be that gays wanting to marry is not about sex but about who they love.
 
Why not let a man marry his sister, or three of his girlfriends? Or his dog? Obviously, some standards have to be adhered to, and those standards are best based on historical traditions and morality.
 
Southern Man said:
Why not let a man marry his sister, or three of his girlfriends? Or his dog? Obviously, some standards have to be adhered to, and those standards are best based on historical traditions and morality.
Click to expand...

No, we base the laws on what we base most of our laws on where people are concerned. If they are consenting adults they are free to do as they choose as long as they hamr no one.

Letting someone marry the dog does not qualify.

Removing the gov't benefits would make marriage about religious beliefs or about civil contracts. In the latter, "consenting adult" covers it well enough.
 
Southern Man said:
I consider your flowery descriptions of my beliefs to be a baseless ad hom. When you want to continue a logical debate then I'll look forward to it.
Click to expand...
And this again is a simple attempt misdirection, you are bankrupt of ideas on how to excuse the praise of government power used to support your religious doctrines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top