• 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!

In looming federalism fight, three states say feds can't 'unmarry' gay couples

What you're talking about are what the proposed change would (and could) entail. I'm talking about what is, right now.

Ahh. Well, my view is without that change the mach outlined, then we should just give everyone the right to be married and not care of some get offended. Its not harming them anyway.
 
Ahh. Well, my view is without that change the mach outlined, then we should just give everyone the right to be married and not care of some get offended. Its not harming them anyway.

Right now, the way it seems to me is that so long as nobody is being directly harmed (conceptual or abstract harm doesn't count) and so long as everyone is treated equally, being offended isn't a good enough reason to change the system around.
 
I thought the whole reason for any of this coming up in the first place was so that religious organizations didn't have to see the word "marriage" used for anyone but the religious.
I don't see how that could be true. Many non-religious people are routinely married, legally, and it's called marriage. Prohibiting gays from being married doesn't change that, so if that is the reason, it's irrational.

If, as you say, atheists, pagans and homosexuals can be "married" how does this change achieve that?
They already can, so this change is neutral on that issue.

If someone is very religous, they should be quite happy with the freedom to both legally join (whatever the word), and to be MARRIED in say, the catholic church. They can tell people, "We were married in the catholic tradition", or whatever, and it would be true, and would have whatever meaning it has in that subculture or the wider nation. The idea that this would be insufficient, seems absurd.

Fishstyx just proposed this as an alternative. If it's pros aren't want is desired by the parties, then as megaprogram points out, fine, just allow anyone to be married. If it's government, it can't be religious, end of discussion right?
 
"Marriage" is a civil and religious institution, to claim otherwise is simply false. Churches or private families agreements were the only "marriage licenses". Wasn't until the late 1800s when States got involved. So, if you change the term "marriage" to one of the ones I proposed, under the law, it allows private institutions to decide their "marriage" guidelines. Would also allow churches in favor of same sex unions to use the term marriage as well.

And at the end of the day, "marriage" would likely remain common in the description of two people together under a legal union.

Um no, you can walk down all the aisles in all the churches you want, you're not married until you get that piece of paper from the state. Marriage *USED* to be a religious institution. It hasn't been for a very long time. A religious ceremony is a wholly optional observance that you can choose to have in addition to filling out paperwork and paying your fees to the state. Filling out paperwork and paying your fees to the state is not optional if you want to be married.
 
Ultimately, this is why I agree that gocernments should adopt new terminology, than people can define marriage how they see fit and nobody else has to care.

We have issues of actual importance to not be distracted from by stuff like this.

But you know that's not the problem. You could call it "mashed potatoes" and the religious would be up in arms because their "mashed potatoes" shouldn't be the same as a gay couple's "mashed potatoes". It's not an issue of terminology, it's an issue of religious wingnuttery.
 
I'm glad to see that the strategy I've always advocated - hooking the fight for gay rights into a states' rights argument - is taking off.
 
I'm getting tired of all the gay BS.
Just live and let die. quote ?
 
I don't see how that could be true. Many non-religious people are routinely married, legally, and it's called marriage. Prohibiting gays from being married doesn't change that, so if that is the reason, it's irrational.


They already can, so this change is neutral on that issue.

If someone is very religous, they should be quite happy with the freedom to both legally join (whatever the word), and to be MARRIED in say, the catholic church. They can tell people, "We were married in the catholic tradition", or whatever, and it would be true, and would have whatever meaning it has in that subculture or the wider nation. The idea that this would be insufficient, seems absurd.

Fishstyx just proposed this as an alternative. If it's pros aren't want is desired by the parties, then as megaprogram points out, fine, just allow anyone to be married. If it's government, it can't be religious, end of discussion right?

If this is the case then your position for why marriage should be taken out of the government is less clear than it ever was to me.
 
No, I didn't.

What you just went to the county and got the license? No ceremony at all? Very rare I'd think.

As I replied before, I have no problem with that. However, the majority of even STRAIGHT couples are so entrenched in marriage they wouldn't agree to it. Why do you think it hasn't already been implemented?

Why? They'd still be married. For those straight couples, there would still be the same old marriage ceremony, they'd still be married by a minister, etc. And nothing would change with the state but the title on the paperwork. The churches that do so now could still refuse to perform the ceremony for gay folks. Those churches would preserve their concept of marriage and all the folks regardless of ceremony or not would have the same rights under and access to the state contract.

And it has been thought of, and proposed, but the movement wants the title "marriage".
 
What you just went to the county and got the license? No ceremony at all? Very rare I'd think.

Justice of the peace. Actually more common than you think AND it was not religious in the least.


And it has been thought of, and proposed, but the movement wants the title "marriage".

If by movement you mean straight people, you would be correct. Straight people don't want their "marriages" recognized as "civil" by the state.

Look, the gay population is only 5-7% with the majority of others being straight. If straight people wanted their state recognized marriages changed to "civil" than it would have already been done.
 
Back
Top Bottom