• 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!

Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

Silly, marriage is already legal! I dont know what you're talking about.

Never said it wasn't.

Marriage is recognized in law, but that has nothing to do with "marriage legalization".

OK, since it is recognized by law, demonstrate where procreation comes in... since this is your reason for denying gays the legalization of marriage.

Marriage was recognized by societies the world over to be a man and woman, because they populate those societies with offspring, and those societies have a vested interest in those man-woman unions being committed and stable, hence the recognition of marriage. Gay unions are not recognized by societies, and are not the equivalent of marriage, because they do not provide the same benefit to society. But then I've already indicated this, and you've never disproven any of it.

And, See! No "requirement" or "legalization" anywhere in there!

I've disproven all of it... repeatedly. The issue here is not the recognition of marriage, but marriage legalization. Marriage is legal. Since your position depends on biology and procreation, please show where biology or procreation has anything to do with the legality of marriage. Here's an example. In order for two people to get married, the both must demonstrate that they are over 18... or have their parents sign a permission paper. See? That's a legal issue in order to get married. Your position supposes that because gays cannot procreate between themselves, they should not be allowed to marry. Your task is to prove this by demonstrating where this is a part of the law.
 
I've disproven all of it... repeatedly. The issue here is not the recognition of marriage, but marriage legalization. Marriage is legal. Since your position depends on biology and procreation, please show where biology or procreation has anything to do with the legality of marriage. Here's an example. In order for two people to get married, the both must demonstrate that they are over 18... or have their parents sign a permission paper. See? That's a legal issue in order to get married. Your position supposes that because gays cannot procreate between themselves, they should not be allowed to marry. Your task is to prove this by demonstrating where this is a part of the law.
...and also to demonstrate why

a) Your 'procreation' argument does not apply to those who are infertile, especially those where this is obviously the case (for example, octogenarian women).
b) A gay couple, while biologically infertile between each other, should be prevented from providing a parental benefit to society through use of a sperm donor, through adoption, or through providing extra for stepchildren from any prior straight relationships.
 
Obviously you are predisposed to see evil where there is none.

Creating a new term for SS committed monogamous civil union domestic partnerships is simply appropriate, as the use of a proper name to accurately describe something is a modern, civilized and intelligent thing to do.

We've used the word "marriage" for 12,000 years to reference the OS committed monongamous civil union domestic partnerships between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Since the word "marriage" does not apply for SS couples, a new word needs to be coined, as we simply don't have a word yet coined for their relationships, understandably.

I suggested "homarriage", drawing the analogy between "man" and "woman" to apply here: "marriage" and "homarriage" -- quite applicable and descriptive.

If you prefer another new term, then suggest it and justify its usage.

That you suspect me of "belittling and demeaning" is simply ludicrous.

I'm searching, as we centrists often do, for win-win scenarios, and win-win scenarios that rightly respect definitive propriety, as respecting definitive propriety creates progress whereas disrespecting definitive propriety causes regression, regression that most often ultimately gets corrected anyway and was nothing more than a waste of time against progress.

That you see my efforts as "mean-spirited", in effect, .. well, perhaps I need to remind you that your entire position is one of being "I don't give a damn" uncaring about an entire class of people and their 12,000 year-old institution, just as long as you get what you want, you don't care who and how many people you have to, in effect, steal from in order to get it.

All in all, it's best that the new term for SS relevant relationships be both employed and as accurate as possible.

That the term I suggested includes the word "marriage" should be at least somewhat satisfying for you.

Whatever your intention it is derogatory. Nobody assigned you the authority to name same sex relationships. Where do you think you get off coming up with a term like that and ascribing it to people without their consent? Do really feel that superior?

Centrist? Don't make me laugh. Not even far right publications like WND make up derogatory terms for SSM, they just put marriage in quotes to designate they do not recognize it. Your language is insulting and tyrannical.
 
Last edited:
Here is the poll you referenced:

"Do you believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to get legally married, allowed a legal partnership similar to but not called marriage, or should there be no legal recognition given to gay and lesbian relationships?"

.............................Legally married....legal partnership....No legal recognition....Unsure
....................................%............. .........%..........................%............. .......%
5/13-15/12...................37......................33... ......................25.....................5
8/10-11/10...................37......................29... ......................28.....................6
5/12-13/09...................33......................33... ......................29.....................5
11/4-5/06 LV................30......................30...... ...................32.....................7
6/13-14/06...................27.....................25.... ......................39.....................8
5/18-19/04...................25.....................26.... ......................40.....................9
3/3-4/04......................20......................33 .........................40.....................7

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, unlike your claim, in fact more people prefer marriage to civil unions and by a significant margin. So you where wrong on that whole majority thing, and wrong that only a small minority prefer to call it marriage. In fact you posted results which show you to be 100 % completely wrong. You won't admit this, and will continue to make excuses why the things you image really are true, despite all the evidence saying otherwise. But that will not change the fact that you where wrong.
Here you exhibit typical ideologue fantasizing.

You present the poll question that validates precisely what I stated, that 63% oppose the word "marriage" applying to SS couples, and that if given a choice between "marriage" or "no recognition" 55-57% support "marriage" (as the general poll in the link stated) but if you allow state recognition without the word "marriage", "marriage" support drops to 37% and opposition to recognition also drops to 25%, meaning that then recognition support jumps from 55-57% to a whopping 70%! This clearly proves that SS activists' best chances for success in winning public support for state recognition in the remaining great majority of states -- where there are already state constitutional amendments stating that "marriage is only between a man and a woman as husband and wife" -- is to enact civil union domestic partnership statutes for SS couples and call them homarriage or the like.

But then you just pretend that's not the obviously presented case! :shock:

Instead you then you just deny the obvious realities with "Nuh uh, no it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not!!!" in true ideologue disconnect from reality fashion.

So here's a reality check for you: only liberal run states are going to allow the ludicrous oxymoronic SS "marriage".

The rest of the states are run by centrists and conservatives, together comprising the vast majority of Americans.

These people aren't susceptible to the brainwashing of SS activists' employment of repetitive mantra oxymoronic chanting.

And, that's reflected in this poll.

Only big-city liberals support the oxymorons, and that demographic is essentially all used up now.

Facing reality is really for the best, and, as the statistics show, that means facing the reality that the states with constitutional amendments banning SS "marriage", many requiring a two-thirds majority to change their constitution, well, it simply ain't gonna happen.

I've tried to show you how "homarriage" opens the door to getting what you really and initially wanted: state recognition of SS relationships all across America.

But you SS activists are so oppositionally defiant about stealing what from a foundational definitive propriety appeal simply does not belong to you that you uttterly fail to see the reasonableness of my recommendation.

But, that's the legacy ideologues always leave: unresonable oppositional defiance and fantasy denial of obvious realities.
 
The one who is whining is you. Again, you have refused to source your ridiculous opinions, demonstrating that you do nothing but post dishonestly. So, let me ask you again... you claim that the majority of folks who support gay unions do NOT support these unions being called marriage. Prove it. Links are required. Let's see if you do what you always do... run away or divert from any challenge to prove your position. I have no need to discredit you personally or discredit what you post. You do both of those things each time you say anything. All I have to do is point out your errors which is quite easy since your posts are full of them. You ran... as you usually do when you are proven wrong. This is a demonstration of your lack of integrity. All you needed to do was either quote where I used the word "redefine" or when you couldn't (and since I didn't, you couldn't) admit that you were either wrong or had screwed up. But you don't have the integrity to do that. So instead you ran away from the challenge. Tell you what... I'll give you one more chance to show the community here that you do have some integrity and that you can actually debate a topic. Here is your claim: My challenge is for you to find where I stated that marriage was "redefined". Here is your claim: And here is your challenge... show where I have said that today's ruling is anything but a state's rights decision. Come on, Ontologuy. Show the community what an awesome debater you are. Show everyone how you are right and I am wrong. Will you accept the challenge? Or will you run away? I'll even give you a HINT... Post #842 was the first post I made towards you in this thread. You can start there. So, what's it going to be. Are you going to show everyone how good a debater you are, how you called me out on something and proved me wrong? Or are you going to find out that you were wrong... and either show some integrity and admit it or run away and dismiss it... showing the community that I don't have to do a thing to discredit you. You do all the work yourself. Nah... I'm just waiting to see if you'll accept any of my challenges and actually debate this issue... or if you will do exactly what we all know you will do.
Different day, same old ODD/BPD postings from CC. :roll:

If you'll read back to the beginning of your rants, you'll see that I never said you said it was anything other than a states' rights decision.

In fact, it may be one of the few things we actually agree on in the matter.

I merely emphasized that point .. and you apparently mistook it to mean you had said otherwise .. in typical oppostional defiant ideologue misconstruence.

:roll:

Again, giving it a rest may be your best move right now.
 
In bold. Prove your position. Links are required.
Rather than knee-jerking your oppositional defiance, you would have done well to read the poll reference I presented that validates the obvious reality I presented.
 
It's not about any "valid effort made to pass such a thing on the federal level", as that must be initiated by the states, not the fed.

In order to get federal benefits, it would need to be initiated by the federal government.

Your statement "Even most of the states that passed same sex civil unions just went ahead and opened up marriage to same sex couples" is a contradiction. Thus it is unlikely that any state ever did create the non-marriage civil union domestic partnerships you allege .. so I'll call you on that one: please provide proof, not only that those were ever created and called something other than marriage, but then later they were deleted/abandoned and replaced with SS marriage statutes. This should not be too hard for you, as only a handful of states now have SS marriage statutes.

There have been many states that give civil unions to same sex partners. Vermont was the first, but not the last.

Civil union in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Two more states allow same-sex civil unions - CNN.com

Civil Unions and Domestic Partnership Statutes

Same sex civil unions have been replaced in at least 5 states so far with just marriage. Another 4 states offer civil unions for same sex couples and at least two of those we have seen a solid push for marriage access.

Thus your statement of "they recognize the foolishness ..." is merely a contrived fantasy.

Not a fantasy at all.

Also, your statement that "ss marriage has grown to over 50% acceptance ..." is blatantly false, as proven by the link I presented a page or so back that shows without any rational conjecture that only 37% favor SS "marriage" andthat 63% are opposed to it.

Wrong. Because you cannot show how many of those who would prefer a union not named marriage would settle for them having marriage if that was the only option (as it should be). You can't logically claim all of those on your side.

The fact that there are no SS homarriage statutes on state books would be because SS activists thought that would take too long, and so they opted for the hijacking of marriage.

Clearly, according to the poll results, that hasn't been successful, and is not likely to be successful nationally.

Activists would have a better chance at getting SS recognition if they followed public sentiment and stumped hard for SS homarriage statues in every state.

Then the fed would instantly prepare for it.

It really is that simple and that obvious.

All of this is wrong and has been shown so. There have been states and still are some with same sex civil unions legal in some states, and many of those have already legalized access of same sex couples to marriage. Even those that have civil unions only now are looking to just allow same sex couples access to marriage. You can argue all you want, but this is a fact.

Plus, despite your noise about this, many of those states that ban same sex marriage also ban same sex civil unions/partnerships of any kind. So those laws would have to be changed either way. Might as well go for marriage and not waste taxpayer money on the stop-gap that has been shown to be a stop-gap only in several cases so far, and likely in the rest of the state in the near future.
 
Here you exhibit typical ideologue fantasizing.

You present the poll question that validates precisely what I stated, that 63% oppose the word "marriage" applying to SS couples...

You can't make that conclusion from the poll.

What the poll shows is:

1) Detailed support for three options: 37% for legal marriage, 33% for legal partnership, and 25% for no recognition (2012)
2) 70% support legal status for same sex couples (2012)
3) 53% of those supporting legal status for same sex couples favor legal marriage (37%/70%) (2012) [Redress's point]

To reach your conclusion, one would need to ask respondents to choose between legal marriage or no recognition. Some share of those supporting legal partnership would almost certainly choose legal marriage when confronted by a choice between marriage or no recognition. If only 42% of those who chose legal partnership selected marriage when asked to choose between marriage and non-recognition, marriage would garner more than 50% overall support. Very likely, a majority of those choosing legal partnership would shift to support for marriage under those circumstances, as they already oppose non-recognition.

Not surprisingly, a June 2013 Washington Post/ABC News poll found exactly that outcome: 57% of adults favored legal marriage for same sex couples and 40% opposed it.

Do you support or oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally? - The Washington Post
 
Thank you. You just proved your position incorrect. Here is your claim:



So, you said that of those people who support SS couples partnerships, A SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY OF THEM PREFER THAT A DIFFERENT NAME BE USED.

...

So, what do we learn from THIS poll? Same as we've learned from the other two. Ontologuy's assertion was patently false and he spoke before doing his homework... a common theme with him. In this poll, of those who support SS partnerships, a STRONG MAJORITY support calling it marriage over civil unions.
As we all know, most people when contacted by pollsters say "no thanks", and on this subject, liberals jump at the chance, so all of these polls are naturally skewed in favor of the oxymoronic SS marriage .. thus, from a nationwide perspective, you have to reduce the SS "marriage" support by about 15-20 or so in the percentage number to approximate the nation as a whole .. I mean you do if actual reality is important to you.

In this case, when asked about "gay marriage" most centrists and conservatives are either unreachable or decline to state, and these are people who would be opposed to "marriage" but in support of "homarriage", especially the centrists, the great majority of Americans.

Nevertheless, none of the poll questions validated your point, as they would have to be phrased "if given a choice between only SS "marriage" and CUDPs for SS couples called something other than "marriage", what would you prefer".

The answer to that question would validate my point that the great majority would answer "other than the word "marriage"".

Reality reamains, as you so at-length diverted in our oppositional defiant rant, is that for SS activists to get across-the-nation state recognition for SS couples, their best chance is the "homarriage" route, obviously.

When you factor in the non-response-to-poll people, that becomes even more obvious.
 
The decision that was rendered today, does not give you gay marriage...

But the oligarchists in state supreme courts will give it to you. My concern is: these SSC oligarchists fully use their state constitutions and not fully use their ideologies; that empathy for SSM advocates is completely removed from their decision.

I agree with the SCOTUS striking down the section of DOMA that prevents SSM (I also agree with SS unions) members from receiving federal benefits. Or, if the matter came up, I would agree with SSM members and SS union members receiving state, local, whatever benefits, as well.
 
Last edited:
Whatever your intention it is derogatory. Nobody assigned you the authority to name same sex relationships. Where do you think you get off coming up with a term like that and ascribing it to people without their consent? Do really feel that superior?

Centrist? Don't make me laugh. Not even far right publications like WND make up derogatory terms for SSM, they just put marriage in quotes to designate they do not recognize it. Your language is insulting and tyrannical.
:roll:

Typical of SS oxymoronic ideologues -- someone tries to help them create a win-win in a losing situation, and rather than admit to their own faults of stealing something that doesn't belong to them, they simply whine against the people trying to help them.

That's called hypocrisy, CT.

Reality remains that, as the polls show, polls answered mostly be those aligning with the liberal faction, only 37% support SS "marriage", meaning that 63% oppose it .. but if you change the wording to "homarriage" or the relevant like, support jumps to 70%!

You are perhaps forgetting that in CA's Prop 8, though the state itself is run by liberals, Prop 8 passed! And why? Because the Black community, normally that sides with liberals on most all of the other issues, was hugely in favor of Prop 8!

You would do well, if state recognition success is your goal, to consider a more reasonable approach.

But if the logically accurate and relevant term "homarriage" isn't to your liking, please tell me what term in place of "marriage" would be acceptable to you for SS CUDPs (Civil Union Domestic Partnership).
 
What do Libertarians, who revere Thomas Jefferson, think about this SSM decree by SSCs? Are you conflicted?

I know Libertarians don't want the US gov't to prevent anyone from being anything they want to be, but what if SSM is not agreed to by the people of the state?
That a small number of people, SSC judges, are deciding the fate of this issue for everyone in the state?
 
You can't make that conclusion from the poll.

What the poll shows is:

1) Detailed support for three options: 37% for legal marriage, 33% for legal partnership, and 25% for no recognition (2012)
2) 70% support legal status for same sex couples (2012)
3) 53% of those supporting legal status for same sex couples favor legal marriage (37%/70%) (2012) [Redress's point]

To reach your conclusion, one would need to ask respondents to choose between legal marriage or no recognition. Some share of those supporting legal partnership would almost certainly choose legal marriage when confronted by a choice between marriage or no recognition. If only 42% of those who chose legal partnership selected marriage when asked to choose between marriage and non-recognition, marriage would garner more than 50% overall support. Very likely, a majority of those choosing legal partnership would shift to support for marriage under those circumstances, as they already oppose non-recognition.

Not surprisingly, a June 2013 Washington Post/ABC News poll found exactly that outcome: 57% of adults favored legal marriage for same sex couples and 40% opposed it.

Do you support or oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally? - The Washington Post
No, your point #3 is simply an erroneous illogic.

I already showed you the correct reasoning.

Go back and review that .. maybe in time, you'll see your error.

Regardless, it is clear that SS activists are oppositionally defiant in this matter, despite the great odds against them at this point.

I don't know how this will all play out, though the deck is stacked against nationwide acceptance of the oxymoronic SS "marriage".

It just seems that SS activists would do well to dial down the rhetoric and take a more reasonable stance of success in getting SS CUDPs recognized in the great majority of states, those states with constitutional amendments against SS "marriage", those states run by centrists and conservatives, as the liberal-run states are essentially all used up, and the geographical dynamics of the non-big-city states naturally favors a centrist/conservative approach to politics .. and that simply ain't gonna change.

You can misinterpret poll results all you want, as well as falely imagine that most poll respondents on this subject weren't liberals, and that Blacks (normally liberal) didn't abandon you in droves as they did on this issue, but that won't serve your goal of SS state recognition across the board.

Acceptance is really for the best.
 
You can't make that conclusion from the poll.

What the poll shows is:

1) Detailed support for three options: 37% for legal marriage, 33% for legal partnership, and 25% for no recognition (2012)
2) 70% support legal status for same sex couples (2012)
3) 53% of those supporting legal status for same sex couples favor legal marriage (37%/70%) (2012) [Redress's point]

...

Your 2012 poll results disprove support for SSM. 33% for SS legal partnerships + 25% no recognition = 58% against SSM; 37% for SSM
 
Last edited:
Your 2012 poll results disprove support for SSM. 33% for SS legal partnerships + 25% no recognition = 58% against SSM; 37% for SSM

You cannot claim all of those who support other than marriage SS partnerships because if given no choice of other than marriage, many of those simply would allow same sex couples to marry.
 
Results are results.. If the survey question(s) is tilted to show someone's ideology... well that's never been done before has it? Your ideology doesn't accept the findings of this survey. Not at all a surprise.
 
Results are results.. If the survey question(s) is tilted to show someone's ideology... well that's never been done before has it? Your ideology doesn't accept the findings of this survey.

And the results do not show what you are claiming. They do not say that those people are completely against same sex marriage. Because when given no other option (as they shouldn't be), many choose allowing same sex couples to marry, not no recognition.
 
Did I miss something? Does the survey claim that those who agreed with legal SS partnerships meant SSM?

I agree with legal SS partnerships but not SSM.
 
Did I miss something? Does the survey claim that those who agreed with legal SS partnerships meant SSM?

No, you tried to claim that if they said something other than marriage that meant they didn't support same sex marriage. It simply isn't true. When given no other choice, as they should not be given, they support same sex marriage. There is no other option nationally than marriage and no legitimate effort to put any other recognition in place. Most benefits/protections come from the federal government, not the state, so this is very important. If it isn't marriage, it isn't recognized by the federal government. And civil unions have been shown to be a stepping stone to marriage for same sex couples. Many of those states that have allowed same sex couples civil unions have already allowed them to just legally marry. And several more are working on just allowing them to marry. No state is simply leaving it at "civil unions for same sex couples", so that makes that a financially stupid arrangement.
 
Why do I continually try to debate with an ideologue?
 
Did I miss something? Does the survey claim that those who agreed with legal SS partnerships meant SSM?

I agree with legal SS partnerships but not SSM.
No, but given that the survey was single-response only, choosing one answer does not indicate your opposition to any other - merely your preferred outcome. Someone might prefer same sex marriage by any other name, but would support SSM if "by any other name" was not an option - which is almost certainly the case, as indicated by the majorities support on the pure "pro-SSM vs anti-SSM" question.

As for why "Homarriage" (or any other euphamism) is offensive - it's another analogy with racism. One drinking fountain for blacks, one for whites - one partnership for straights, one for gays. "Separate but equal" does not work.
 
Oh, and the requirement to procreate is my argument with you, refuting your entire position. Btw... did you ever find any of that evidence that shows that there is a requirement to procreate in any marriage license paperwork? I asked you for it to prove your position, but I haven't seen it. Feel free to post it when you are ready.

Actually, you are all wet on this argument with Ontologyguy. Procreation isn't a condition of marriage but it absolutely was and still is the general purpose of marriage. You don't have to own a car to get a driver's license. You aren't forced to go hunting after you buy a hunting license. You don't have to know how to tie a hook onto a line in order to get a fishing license and you don't have to prove you will bear children and/or validate your marriage by bearing children in order to get a marriage license. But the purpose of a driver's license is for driving. Fishing license for fishing. Hunting license for hunting and a marriage license for procreating and raising a family.

Alito was absolutely right and people who deny this are either stupid or dishonest.
 
Actually, you are all wet on this argument with Ontologyguy. Procreation isn't a condition of marriage but it absolutely was and still is the general purpose of marriage. You don't have to own a car to get a driver's license. You aren't forced to go hunting after you buy a hunting license. You don't have to know how to tie a hook onto a line in order to get a fishing license and you don't have to prove you will bear children and/or validate your marriage by bearing children in order to get a marriage license. But the purpose of a driver's license is for driving. Fishing license for fishing. Hunting license for hunting and a marriage license for procreating and raising a family.

Alito was absolutely right and people who deny this are either stupid or dishonest.
....and make up the majority of the Supreme Court. Sucks to have your POV, it seems.
 
No, but given that the survey was single-response only, choosing one answer does not indicate your opposition to any other - merely your preferred outcome. Someone might prefer same sex marriage by any other name, but would support SSM if "by any other name" was not an option - which is almost certainly the case, as indicated by the majorities support on the pure "pro-SSM vs anti-SSM" question.

As for why "Homarriage" (or any other euphamism) is offensive - it's another analogy with racism. One drinking fountain for blacks, one for whites - one partnership for straights, one for gays. "Separate but equal" does not work.

Your gayness is showing. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

Marriage is a sanctioned partnership for heterosexuals. "Breeders" as homosexuals like to call them. (also known to homosexuals as "straights", like you seem to prefer calling them).

Homosexuality is the "alternative lifestyle". An alternative to marriage seems entirely appropriate.
 
Back
Top Bottom