• 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!

US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban

Simply pointing out that according to your stated concern about two same sex individuals using marriage fraudulently, seems to me plenty of heterosexual couples are doing the same in that they don't live in the same house, they don't have sex with each other, they don't behave in any matrimonial way but still claim the legal benefits of marriage, intentionally and mainly to retain those benefits. Are you outraged about those folks defrauding the benefits of marriage as you claim concern about it happening if SSM is legal?

I've said 1000 times I think our government should stay out of marriage....

I don't care who screws who.... I shouldn't be our governments concern, yet our government makes it their concern so naturally using my brain I will attempt to throw the best solution I can concoct out there for public debate.

Make sense?
 
No it doesn't. It means the opposite. It means protecting the individual from the tyranny of the majority or of the state.

Those poor polygamists :( Living under tyranny because states won't regocnize multiple partner marriages. Heck, some of them may even say it not only infringes on their rights as loving, committed people but also their religious freedom because their religion may encourage polygamy or allow it with the state not accommodating that.

Seriously, it isn't tyranny for the state to uphold traditional marriage. What it is is an outcome that some people dislike. The tyranny is taking away the freedom to make those laws and imposing unjust rulings based on social opinion and changes in societal values and not on the letter of the law or new amendments. For years traditional marriage has been law in many states, only until recently fueled by social outcry and politics have we seen a change. Let Oklahoma be Oklahoma with their marriage policies and definitions and let Massachusetts be Massachusetts with the citizens of those states voting and law makers creating and directing policy.
 
I've said 1000 times I think our government should stay out of marriage....

I don't care who screws who.... I shouldn't be our governments concern, yet our government makes it their concern so naturally using my brain I will attempt to throw the best solution I can concoct out there for public debate.

Make sense?
No not really, but little of what you type is cohesive over the long haul.
 
I've said 1000 times I think our government should stay out of marriage....

Before it became obvious same-sex marriage was coming, you said this zero times I'm guessing.

I don't care who screws who.... I shouldn't be our governments concern, yet our government makes it their concern so naturally using my brain I will attempt to throw the best solution I can concoct out there for public debate.

Make sense?

If you don't care who screws who, why do you care who marries who?
 
Look, it's a so-called American who doesn't believe in equal protection under the law. I didn't think those still existed.

Is there some "financial burden" you perceive arising from same-sex marriage?

Contract IS NOT BIASED (unless you're getting divorced)..

The United States DOES NOT and states DO NOT recognize marriage...

They recognize what you would understand as a compound contract...

The Church recognizes marriages, Christians recognize marriages as do the majority of religions - it's a religious even and celebration but NOT A STATE SPONSORED CELEBRATION...

That is the epic flaw in the homosexual psyche...

States and the Federal Government understand contracts NOT marriage.

I'm sorry if this is too hard for someone to understand.
 
Contract IS NOT BIASED (unless you're getting divorced)..

The United States DOES NOT and states DO NOT recognize marriage...

They recognize what you would understand as a compound contract...

The Church recognizes marriages, Christians recognize marriages as do the majority of religions - it's a religious even and celebration but NOT A STATE SPONSORED CELEBRATION...

That is the epic flaw in the homosexual psyche...

States and the Federal Government understand contracts NOT marriage.

I'm sorry if this is too hard for someone to understand.

And I'm sorry if this is too hard for you to understand, but what we're talking about here is state recognition of same-sex marriage contracts. Whether or not your particular church recognizes it or not is not part of this discussion. In fact, nobody cares whether you personally approve.

Some churches choose to approve. Other churches choose not to. This is their choice, and not relevant.
 
Before it became obvious same-sex marriage was coming, you said this zero times I'm guessing.



If you don't care who screws who, why do you care who marries who?

Well, because marriage is a contract and that is why......

People cannot wrap their head around this..... That is the way I see it and that is the way it is.

One can choose to get married by a justice or have a religious wedding - it's their choice......

The simple fact they don't understand the contract procedures shows how bent they are on the social aspect and how obsessed they are with the religious aspect..... I'm sure there are plenty of gay couples that would like both but forcing one another to adhere to your desires is wrong... Most religious congregations (especially catholic) wont do a gay wedding no should they have to.

Religious institutions are NOT a public service. Weather I agree with that or not is irrelevant, but I think most know where I stand there.
 
And I'm sorry if this is too hard for you to understand, but what we're talking about here is state recognition of same-sex marriage contracts. Whether or not your particular church recognizes it or not is not part of this discussion. In fact, nobody cares whether you personally approve.

Some churches choose to approve. Other churches choose not to. This is their choice, and not relevant.

There is not STATE RECOGNITION BEYOND CONTRACT LAW - I have said this about 10 times so far...
 
Well, because marriage is a contract and that is why......
That's my point, not yours.

One can choose to get married by a justice or have a religious wedding - it's their choice......
Yes, exactly. The religious component is not necessary. The government isn't really concerned whether or not you have a religious ceremony.

The simple fact they don't understand the contract procedures shows how bent they are on the social aspect and how obsessed they are with the religious aspect..... I'm sure there are plenty of gay couples that would like both but forcing one another to adhere to your desires is wrong... Most religious congregations (especially catholic) wont do a gay wedding no should they have to.

Nobody is forcing any congregation to do anything. Where on earth did you get that idea?
Religious institutions are NOT a public service. Weather I agree with that or not is irrelevant, but I think most know where I stand there.

Nobody disagrees. Now I'm really confused as to what your point is.
 
There is not STATE RECOGNITION BEYOND CONTRACT LAW - I have said this about 10 times so far...

Yes, exactly. So leave the religious discussion out of it. It's not relevant. A Christian's disapproval of same-sex marriage is not reason enough for the state to fail to recognize that contract.
 
I love this **** "its all about love" - yeah, in about 5-10 years its about "I hate you and want all your ****."

Gay, straight or from Mars you will understand mediation or straight up litigation real quick....
 
Then what are you stating?
I wanted a quote from a strong pro-SSM that I could save and throw back at someone in a future debate. That's it. I wasn't trying to 'say' anything with that post. I was fishing for a sound-byte.
 
I love this **** "its all about love" - yeah, in about 5-10 years its about "I hate you and want all your ****."

Gay, straight or from Mars you will understand mediation or straight up litigation real quick....

Yes, some gay marriages will end in divorce. Very astute observation.
 
Yes, exactly. So leave the religious discussion out of it. It's not relevant. A Christian's disapproval of same-sex marriage is not reason enough for the state to fail to recognize that contract.

That was my point - Marriage is a) not state recognized (beyond contract law) and b) generally only recognized by the Church or in front of God..

The State doesn't recognize one or the other.... If they did the argument would be a First Amendment argument and not a Fourteenth (or other issues associated) "equal protection clause" argument.

The Fourteenth is useless given the aforementioned criteria.
 
That was my point - Marriage is a) not state recognized (beyond contract law) and b) generally only recognized by the Church or in front of God..

The State doesn't recognize one or the other.... If they did the argument would be a First Amendment argument and not a Fourteenth (or other issues associated) "equal protection clause" argument.

The Fourteenth is useless given the aforementioned criteria.

But we're talking about contract law. You can't say "beyond contract law" because contract law is the entire scope of this discussion.
 
So according to you then the majority of the population are bigots who discriminate. So having a referendum now days is meaningless, if some progressive fascist smuck disagrees they shop it to a idealogical judge who will rule on socialist progessive idealogy & not the constitution. Welcome to a top down Authoritarian state as long as it go's your way who cares about the will of the majority huh?

The only bigots that I see in this issue are the ones who call others bigots for having a differing opinion.

LOL....no. Actually the majority of the population favors marriage equality. Evenso...Constitutional rights are not subject to a "referendum" of the popular vote. I love it when people try to argue that laws that grant freedom to people are "socialist". It is a completely illogical argument.....one where expansion of rights is viewed by the extreme right wackos as "Authoritarian". Welcome to backwards day.
 
But we're talking about contract law. You can't say "beyond contract law" because contract law is the entire scope of this discussion.

It was figure of speech talking about the Church or Temple or whatever religion you vow under.
 
Prenup places modifications on the contract. There is nothing about a prenup that violates the Constitution.

Agreed, but usually not after the fact - not in normal marriages.
 
On a couple of other forums, members used to swear on their mothers that *their* state constitutional laws preventing SSM could NEVER be overturned. Michigan and TX are the 2 that come to mind.

What we're seeing here with NM, Utah, OK....exactly what I told them.
 
It was figure of speech talking about the Church or Temple or whatever religion you vow under.

All of which are irrelevant to state recognition of a same-sex marriage contract.

What is your objection to state recognition of a same-sex marriage contract?
 
Agreed, but usually not after the fact - not in normal marriages.

That's why its called a "Pre" nup. However, I think the parties would be allowed to modify the terms of their marital agreement if they filed appropriate legal documents post nuputial.
 
Agreed, but usually not after the fact - not in normal marriages.

A pre-nuptial agreement is before the fact, literally by definition. A prenup doesn't change things after the fact ever.
 
But we're talking about contract law. You can't say "beyond contract law" because contract law is the entire scope of this discussion.

It depends, I cant give you a 101 on **** **** (I'm criminal law but know litigation and what I call **** **** "marriage ****")

Maybe I'm just too blunt..... sorry.

BTW, I don't advocate any divorces or want my legal ideas to be used is such a manner..... (also they generally apply in Illinois).

I'm merely just pointing out that marriage is a legal contract and is NOT some sort of state recognition...

So there was no bias there to begin with - gays can sign legal contracts too, they're not "legally married" but the benefits that a married couple would have exist to both."
 
Back
Top Bottom