Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,552 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6039
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310
That reporter is trying to elicit a response that Cruz hates the less than 1% of the population so the can scream about it.
I dont know if Ted Cruz hates gay people or not, i would assume he doesnt and that he just has a closely held religious belief that should in no way govern the population.
That being said, this isnt the first time that YOU have argued that the size of the gay population is a license to discriminate against them.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,552 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6039
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
The activist reporter found out quickly, why no one wants to debate the guy. Even efforts to marginalize him, have turned just the opposite and empowered him greater in the eyes, of honest American people.
Being a great debater has nothing to do with honest or answering the question, it has to do with manipulating the discussion to your will and controlling the narrative.
A great debater, but definition, would dodge every question he knows makes him look bad.
Good post!!! Legal rights doesn't mean changing the definition of marriage between one man and one woman.
But you are using the religious definition for the legal definition. If you look at the legal definition, it is between two people. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage
Quote:
The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.
they should get the same benefits. In fact if you live your entire adult life with you sister or brother and no one else they should get the benefits, but the law on these rights need to be changed. That does not, necessariy mean same sex marriage is the only way to achieve this. I am 100% in favor of everyone having the same legal rights. I still, based on my religious views think marriage itself is between one man and one woman.
Seperate, but equal isn't equal. When it comes down to it, there is a difference between religious marriage and Civil marriage. Religious views should have baring on whether or not a specific church should perform same-sex marriages or not, that Church gets to make that decision (same for the decision of marrying people of different religions, those who aren't religious,, etc) but should have no baring whatsoever on the legality of a Civil Marriage.
Regardless fact of the matter is, its pretty apparent same-sex marriage will be legal in all of the U.S very shortly. The public's attitudes have changed rather dramatically, the vast majority of Judges who have made a ruling (including Judges from the last 5 Presidents) have ruled the laws banning it are Unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court is likely weeks away from making the same decision. Those who make their opposition to ssm a big part of what they are running on (which is a key reason why Cruz was questioned the way he was) are going nowhere.
But you are using the religious definition for the legal definition. If you look at the legal definition, it is between two people. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage
The topic is certainly worth debating.
There is nothing in the US Constitution that requires any of the 50 states to redefine the definition of marriage. The only way you could redefine the definition is to view marriage as genderless, which is pretty absurd. Biologically, reproduction depends on one man and one woman - however you get that child, through artificial insemination or adoption- it takes ONE man and ONE woman to create a child.
The question before the Supreme Court is not going to be whether or not same-sex marriage is for the best. The question will be, is it required by the Constitution to redefine the definition. Any lawsuit will have to prove that defining one man and one woman is prohibited by the Constitution. The lawsuit could only be won if you view marriage as a genderless institution..
There is nothing in the US Constitution that requires any of the 50 states to redefine the definition of marriage. The only way you could redefine the definition is to view marriage as genderless, which is pretty absurd. Biologically, reproduction depends on one man and one woman - however you get that child, through artificial insemination or adoption- it takes ONE man and ONE woman to create a child.
Is there not childless traditional marriage between heterosexuals, bisexuals and demisexuals who are with partners of the opposite sex? If those marriages are fine, why can't gay marriages be? One's marriage don't infringe on your rights as a married couple whether they are a monogamous relationship or an open marriage. Those don't make your marriage any less in the eyes of the man upstairs either.
Quote:
The question before the Supreme Court is not going to be whether or not same-sex marriage is for the best. The question will be, is it required by the Constitution to redefine the definition. Any lawsuit will have to prove that defining one man and one woman is prohibited by the Constitution. The lawsuit could only be won if you view marriage as a genderless institution.
The problem is legally marriages are between two entities. Most arguments against gay marriage is religious based and work in theocracies but the U.S. isn't one and in fact has a separation of church and state. That don't mean that laws can't take from religious ideas though.
The issue for defining marriage in the legal sense as ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, is that it infringes on the rights of homosexuals as well as bisexuals and demisexuals in long-term homosexual relationships who cannot get the same exact rights and benefits heterosexual marriages can. Thanks to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a government (local, state or federal) CANNOT discriminate and must equally protect its citizens under the law.
Is there not childless traditional marriage between heterosexuals, bisexuals and demisexuals who are with partners of the opposite sex? If those marriages are fine, why can't gay marriages be? One's marriage don't infringe on your rights as a married couple whether they are a monogamous relationship or an open marriage. Those don't make your marriage any less in the eyes of the man upstairs either.
The problem is legally marriages are between two entities. Most arguments against gay marriage is religious based and work in theocracies but the U.S. isn't one and in fact has a separation of church and state. That don't mean that laws can't take from religious ideas though.
The issue for defining marriage in the legal sense as ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, is that it infringes on the rights of homosexuals as well as bisexuals and demisexuals in long-term homosexual relationships who cannot get the same exact rights and benefits heterosexual marriages can. Thanks to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a government (local, state or federal) CANNOT discriminate and must equally protect its citizens under the law.
The 14th Amendment doesn't mention marriage. I'm sure that not one person in 1860 who drafted the amendment and no person voting to ratify it believed it would ever have anything to do with marriage. It's simply ridiculous to think otherwise.
None of the states believing and preferring that the definition of marriage remain between one man and one woman is violating the 14th amendment, and never in history will you be able to find a Supreme Court Justice writing that the definition of marriage violates the 14th Amendment.
Being a great debater has nothing to do with honest or answering the question, it has to do with manipulating the discussion to your will and controlling the narrative.
A great debater, but definition, would dodge every question he knows makes him look bad.
And Ted did just that, coming out smelling like a rose. Answering the question in full, with a nice little punch.... "I'm a Christian"
As you see... The predicament the Progressive Establishment and the Progressive Democrats have is, the fear to have the truth shoved in their faces, by manipulating the discussion to his will and controlling the narrative.
Place the truth in the chair of reasoning......
Last edited by BentBow; 05-24-2015 at 06:05 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
