• 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!

Federal government recognizes same-sex marriages in six more states [W:70,126]

Well, it's a discussion on gay marriage (specifically the Federal government recognizing your marriage). If the Federal government now recognizes your marriage, how is that a negative for you?

How old are you 12-teen?

How about the federal government doesn't acknowledge marriage?

Have another drink while you ponder that insane concept.
 
Well, it's a discussion on gay marriage (specifically the Federal government recognizing your marriage). If the Federal government now recognizes your marriage, how is that a negative for you?

I'm not answering for him, but I'm going to answer. Marriage is a shoddy, careless contract and shouldn't be recognized by the government. Contracts for partnerships of any level or type should have proper, fully disclosed, completely detailed, written and signed contracts. Additionally, since it costs considerably less to live as a couple than a single, all the tax breaks etc that recognizing marriage offers are counterintuitive to how they should be distributed, if at all.
 
I'm not answering for him, but I'm going to answer. Marriage is a shoddy, careless contract and shouldn't be recognized by the government. Contracts for partnerships of any level or type should have proper, fully disclosed, completely detailed, written and signed contracts. Additionally, since it costs considerably less to live as a couple than a single, all the tax breaks etc that recognizing marriage offers are counterintuitive to how they should be distributed, if at all.

Except that the contract of marriage already covers an enormous number of things (the hospital visits and automatic recognition of inheritances and such are two of the most publicized rights), and so MrNick should appreciate these benefits now that same sex marriage is becoming legal. That he doesn't is counterproductive for himself.
 
Ok, I'm whatever you want me to be.

What is the difference between a gay libertarian and a straight libertarian?

Say I am gay, say I am straight, how are my politics influenced by any of that nonsense?

They aren't, I was just saying.
 
It seems the progressives want me to be gay.....

What's new?

They're itching to agree on politics yet they cant bring themselves into the libertarian or classical liberal mindset without taking baby steps.

Grow the **** up!
 
How old are you 12-teen?

How about the federal government doesn't acknowledge marriage?

Have another drink while you ponder that insane concept.

Ad homs are against forum rules. Please control yourself.
 
see post #2

I did, hence my response to that exact post. That post only spoke about there not being "gay marriage" in there, I wrote that there was not even the mention of the word marriage at all.
 
Except that the contract of marriage already covers an enormous number of things (the hospital visits and automatic recognition of inheritances and such are two of the most publicized rights), and so MrNick should appreciate these benefits now that same sex marriage is becoming legal. That he doesn't is counterproductive for himself.

I don't agree. Someone can on purpose or by default enjoy the benefits of a program without necessarily agreeing with it. For example, progressives don't agree with Citizen's United, but in order to compete will in fact do the same thing. Many people think their taxes should be higher, but nonetheless fill out their taxes as instructed and don't artificially increase their taxes, and so on. To say that because someone may be reaping benefits they should be forced to agree with the laws or rules or whatever cause or allow those benefits is silly.
 
I did, hence my response to that exact post. That post only spoke about there not being "gay marriage" in there, I wrote that there was not even the mention of the word marriage at all.

So are you saying that you're not getting married, or that your own marriage is now defunct?
 
I'm not answering for him, but I'm going to answer. Marriage is a shoddy, careless contract and shouldn't be recognized by the government. Contracts for partnerships of any level or type should have proper, fully disclosed, completely detailed, written and signed contracts. Additionally, since it costs considerably less to live as a couple than a single, all the tax breaks etc that recognizing marriage offers are counterintuitive to how they should be distributed, if at all.

I'm kind of wondering how the issues of inheritance, child rearing, medical decisions for unconcious spouses, etc. could be properly handled without government-sanctioned marriage. I am not a big fan of government dictating who can and cannot marry, but at the same point I don't see scrapping the whole thing as a viable alternative. I'd be fine with just enforcing the 14th amendment and allowing all consenting adults to marry.
 
So are you saying that you're not getting married, or that your own marriage is now defunct?

a. I am not married.
b. I do not live in the US and in our laws marriage is not only mentioned but also regulated.
 
I'm kind of wondering how the issues of inheritance, child rearing, medical decisions for unconcious spouses, etc. could be properly handled without government-sanctioned marriage. I am not a big fan of government dictating who can and cannot marry, but at the same point I don't see scrapping the whole thing as a viable alternative. I'd be fine with just enforcing the 14th amendment and allowing all consenting adults to marry.

Same as they are once the marriage is in divorce, legal contracts, which is how they should have started imo.
 
We should really stay on topic here.
 
There wasn't an ad-hom there genius.

Don't forget the "ad" in your nonsense.

Let me refresh your memory:

How old are you 12-teen?

How about the federal government doesn't acknowledge marriage?

Have another drink while you ponder that insane concept.

(bold mine)

So again, control yourself. You're clearly taking this topic too personally. Relax.
 
a. I am not married.
b. I do not live in the US and in our laws marriage is not only mentioned but also regulated.

Well if you ever do plan on getting married, probably best to stay out of the U.S. since, as you say, marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution.
 
Let me refresh your memory:



(bold mine)

So again, control yourself. You're clearly taking this topic too personally. Relax.

Let me refresh your 5th grade memory - that is not an "Ad".

Figure it out yourself...
 
We should really stay on topic here.

I am up for the government staying out of marriage and doing away with all public accommodation laws. But I am not up for people who claim those are their position when they really just oppose homosexuality.
 
So what would be the difference?

The only argument I have seen is that it would be more expensive and might involve more than one contract without government.
 
Let me refresh your 5th grade memory - that is not an "Ad".

Figure it out yourself...

I took Latin for four years (no, I'm actually not bragging about that, that's a lot more like a confession). "Ad" is "to" so an ad hominem is "to the man" Which your insult was because you mentioned the derogatory comment ("12-teen") and then addressed it ("you"). Ergo (that's another Latin word, it means "therefore") you made an ad hom. I've been completely respectful of your sexuality in this thread, and feel I haven't merited your ill treatment toward me.
 
Back
Top Bottom