• 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!

Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

sawyerloggingon said:
Anyone who thinks getting a civil union law through would not be easier than a marriage law is the one fooling himself. You guys demand all or nothing that is the problem.
Click to expand...

Right now, no it would not be easier to get a civil union law through because the majority of supporters know that the courts will eventually strike down the bans against same sex couples entering into marriage and that means they can simply get married without extras.

What happened to those civil union laws that existed for some of the states that now have marriage? Most of them simply became obsolete. So why go to something that will simply become obsolete in the near future? The majority want same sex couples to be able to marry, not simply have civil unions. We see no reason that same sex couples should be considered "different" under laws concerning spouses.
 
roguenuke said:
Right now, no it would not be easier to get a civil union law through because the majority of supporters know that the courts will eventually strike down the bans against same sex couples entering into marriage and that means they can simply get married without extras.

What happened to those civil union laws that existed for some of the states that now have marriage? Most of them simply became obsolete. So why go to something that will simply become obsolete in the near future? The majority want same sex couples to be able to marry, not simply have civil unions. We see no reason that same sex couples should be considered "different" under laws concerning spouses.
Click to expand...

Ummm maybe because they ARE DIFFERENT?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Ummm maybe because they ARE DIFFERENT?
Click to expand...

Not according to how the laws work they aren't. They are no different than interracial couples who are married or interfaith couples who are married because sex/gender makes no legal difference in marriage. There is nothing about a person's gender/sex that makes them incapable of fulfilling the legal obligations/responsibilities of marriage for a person of either the opposite or same sex.
 
Once again - in what universe does or should the government have the authority to recognize or regulate marriage?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
First of all, what gives you the impression I am angry? Second, you don't know me, my history or much of what I have complained or not complained about in the past, so it would be highly suggested that one might go gore one's silly ox someplace else and in some situation in which one perhaps knows a little something of which one makes the decision to speak...

I, like you apparently, just went along with things thinking it okay... I, after having studied the situation independently, now see many many places of Federal government and judicial overreach...you may, too, if you open your eyes, have a little knowledge of circumstances under your belt.
Click to expand...

I debated this issue a decade ago. Marbury v. Madison is not something I learned about yesterday.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Once again - in what universe does or should the government have the authority to recognize or regulate marriage?
Click to expand...

And again, the people have given them that authority. In this universe the government, our government and many others, have the authority to recognize and even regulate (to at least a small degree) marriage. We, the people, gave them that authority because it benefits us.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Once again - in what universe does or should the government have the authority to recognize or regulate marriage?
Click to expand...


In this universe Civil Marriage has been a function of government for hundreds of years even before the founding of this country. Civil Marriage is simply the recognition of and establishment of a family relationship as a spouse where one did not exist before.



>>>>
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Anyone who thinks getting a civil union law through would not be easier than a marriage law is the one fooling himself. You guys demand all or nothing that is the problem.
Click to expand...

Wrong, to get a civil union law would require new paperwork and you would have to make sure it is worded in EVERY bit of law the same as marriage. In other words, that would be impossible. Having SSM legalized is tons easier. Don't worry, when SSM is legalized throughout the U.S. you'll find the cons crying about it.
 
TheNextEra said:
Wrong, to get a civil union law would require new paperwork and you would have to make sure it is worded in EVERY bit of law the same as marriage. In other words, that would be impossible. Having SSM legalized is tons easier. Don't worry, when SSM is legalized throughout the U.S. you'll find the cons crying about it.
Click to expand...

What would be easier about civil union is public opinion. There would be far less resistance to it than to some gay guy prancing down the isle in a white wedding dress.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
That is piled horse manure, and you know it. It all depends on which people and which rights.

I am fairly confident that you do not want more rights for individual murderers, child molesters, rapists, etc... that would allow each of them to more freely conduct their mischief on the rest of us... or do you?

This was, admittedly, an exaggerated example to expose the falsehood for what it actually is... a misappropriation of the truth in order to influence, based on an appeal to some vague and noble notion.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between an "exaggerated example" and an incongruous analogy.

Your analogy could never be seen as a credible example of the expansion of rights Rougenuke was advocating.

I believe in more rights for people, for individuals, not less. I'm sorry that you prefer to limit the rights of the people in favor of that of the government.
Click to expand...

How could anyone compare this statement to advocation for expaned rights for criminals...
 
sawyerloggingon said:
What would be easier about civil union is public opinion. There would be far less resistance to it than to some gay guy prancing down the isle in a white wedding dress.
Click to expand...

And while I haven't personally seen this, what makes you think that civil unions would prevent the bolded above? You seem to hate gays and have a stereotype of them, why the hatred? How do they affect YOUR marriage?
 
roguenuke said:
I believe in more rights for people, for individuals, not less. I'm sorry that you prefer to limit the rights of the people in favor of that of the government.
Click to expand...

Not sure how you glean this from what I said.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
What would be easier about civil union is public opinion. There would be far less resistance to it than to some gay guy prancing down the isle in a white wedding dress.
Click to expand...


Let's take a look at Washington State, the only state in the union where we can gather information.

2009
Referendum 71
To provide Civil Unions for homosexuals with all the same rights responsibilities and privileges of Civil Marriage.
Yes = 53.15% | No = 46.85%

2012
Referendum 74
To provide Same-sex Civil Marriage in the State.
Yes = 53.7% | No = 46.3%​



Notice anything? Ummmm

How about how similiar the numbers are. 46.85% voted AGAINST Civil Unions being equal to Civil Marriage and 46.3% (3-years later) voted against SSCM.

The idea that large numbers of people that are against equal treatment for gays under Civil Marriage laws are going to join (voluntarily) in supporting Civil Unions - is pretty much poppy-****. They feel they have a right to mandate teh government discriminate against the gays.


But Hey, I'd might support a Civil Union bill, it would be a good intermediate step. Eventually as the younger generation gains a bigger share of the vote they would be consolidated back anyway.


Washington Same-Sex Marriage Veto Referendum, Referendum 74 (2012) - Ballotpedia
Washington Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibilities, Referendum 71 (2009) - Ballotpedia



>>>>
 
j-mac said:
Not sure how you glean this from what I said.
Click to expand...

The government restricting marriage on the basis of sex/gender gives more rights to the government (in restricting marriage) and less to the people. All people have more choices when it comes to marriage if everyone is allowed to marry someone of either the opposite or the same sex.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
And that is because it does not fit into the militant gay agenda. If gays merely wanted equal rights instead of wanting to make a social statement this would all be over by now.
Click to expand...

??? Gays are recognized as a protected class in many states and have exactly those things.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Correct, times are changing and people are for more accepting of gays so at this juncture a civil union act would sail right through.
Click to expand...

Why cant they have equal rights, period? Are they not equal citizens? Are you not offering them the 'same' things? Just wrapped in a differently-named envelope apparently.

Gays want to be married...they grew up in the same society, believe in marriage the same way, and many cherish it exactly the same as many Christians. WHy should they have less? Because if it's not 'marriage,' it's not the same.

Case in point: if YOU thought civil unions were the same, you'd have no problem with them getting married. Hence, the foundation for why 'separate is not equal.'
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Separate but equal was about things like schools and restrooms not marriage.
Click to expand...

Education and marriage are pretty darn important. Apparently, it wasnt good enough for education.....
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
This type of post is exactly why often one doesn't bother responding to some posts/posters.
Click to expand...

Because apparently you cannot. Just as you cannot explain any harm to our culture by gays...thus far or in the future... Not only that, you cannot even explain HOW 'their culture (sometimes you use lifestyle) is different...yet you object to them vehemently. Vigorously. And except for my belief that you are fixated on them having sex...you have no explanation why.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
And that is because it does not fit into the militant gay agenda. If gays merely wanted equal rights instead of wanting to make a social statement this would all be over by now.
Click to expand...

They bitched about militant blacks and militant women when they fought for their civil rights too. Yeah...if you have to fight for your rights, it's not real convenient for those opposing you...and not so convenient for those being lynched, hosed with firehoses, denied employment, hit with rotten fruit, beaten, and thrown in jail.

Doesnt mean they were wrong, doesnt mean the fight wasnt/isnt justified.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
What I admit was you were not calling me names specifically, except through your name calling of what you believe my posts signify... you came back at me omitting actual evidence, logic or substance with which to refute my arguments, solely the utilization of disparagement... which is not actual debate; or if so considered, certainly a very poor substitute, yano?
Click to expand...

Some substance I would love to see....to support your arguments...so hey, maybe I could refute them, maybe not....would be answers to the basic questions of how gays harm society....how they harm marriage...and you? How, as you have specifically claimed, they will undermine our culture.

Sorry to jump in on someone else's response. Really wanted to reinforce that you are right...these things are needed for actual debate.:mrgreen:
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
That is piled horse manure, and you know it. It all depends on which people and which rights.

I am fairly confident that you do not want more rights for individual murderers, child molesters, rapists, etc... that would allow each of them to more freely conduct their mischief on the rest of us... or do you?

This was, admittedly, an exaggerated example to expose the falsehood for what it actually is... a misappropriation of the truth in order to influence, based on an appeal to some vague and noble notion.
Click to expand...

Which rights would gay marriage infringe on?
 
Mr.Nick said:
Once again - in what universe does or should the government have the authority to recognize or regulate marriage?
Click to expand...

IMO it shouldnt, but since it does, it should be equal.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
What would be easier about civil union is public opinion. There would be far less resistance to it than to some gay guy prancing down the isle in a white wedding dress.
Click to expand...

When my cousin and his partner got married, there was no wedding gown. I hope you are just being facetious and dont actually believe what you wrote. More importantly, I hope you realize that most Americans already know that's not the case, unless the participants are women...if then.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Anyone who thinks getting a civil union law through would not be easier than a marriage law is the one fooling himself. You guys demand all or nothing that is the problem.
Click to expand...

It was tested in Hawaii. A law to legalize civil unions was passed in that state. It was vetoed by a REPUBLICAN governor. Now Hawaii has same sex marriage. I don't know why you are lying to yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom