• 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!

As gay marriages begin in Florida, Supreme Court is set to meet on issue

Lursa said:
1.)Marriage does not. Basing marriage on things like tax credits, legal benefits, privileges, etc does IMO. The essence and institution of marriage exists outside of that. We dont base freedom or self defense or the right to one's own body on such things.
2.)Legal marriage is kind of 'regulating' marriage. We dont regulate the rights to freedom or self-defense or the sovereignty of their own bodies unless they break some law that opens the door to consequences.
3.) Marriage as recognized by the state is regulated by definition. Marriage as an institution or tradition is not. And it's not infringed on in the US.
Click to expand...

1.) i dont understand any of that? how does legal marriage do any of that
also you keep mentioning self defense and body sovereignty what does that have to do with legal marriage? those things arent impacted by marriage

2.) its a contract that one gets voluntarily so the subjective view of its regulation is by choice not by force thats why i dont see any logic in claiming it goes against human rights
3.) so basically you are taking your views of marriage and your views of what is tradition, legal and institution and saying they apply to everybody.
The statement " Marriage as an institution or tradition is not. And it's not infringed on in the US" is only an opinion that people may or may not share with you since thier institution or tradition maybe legal marriage.
 
Deuce said:
How about you show me where it is about "control." This was your declaration, man, you ****in support it. Control of what?
Click to expand...

You trying to tell me that any consenting adult can marry any other consenting adult, and that they can adopt in all 50 states in the Union, or even can ensure spousal rights across the board if one passes? You sure you want to make that argument?
 
AGENT J said:
translation: you have no answer, that's what i thought lol
saying what you want is not saying how you do it. I could say i want guns to be legal everywhere that doesnt answer how i would do it

Ill ask again and i bet you dodge it again
you said "I'd rather just see government out of the mix entirely."

Im asking you how would you do that? what system would you put in place to do all the things a marriage contract does and do it without involving government?
Click to expand...

I already answered this, there is no need for a replacement. Not sure I can dumb it down any further for you.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I already answered this, there is no need for a replacement. Not sure I can dumb it down any further for you.
Click to expand...
I knew you would dodge it

Translation: you have no answer, thanks thats what i thought
let us know when you can answer
facts win again
 
AGENT J said:
I knew you would dodge it

Translation: you have no answer, thanks thats what i thought
let us know when you can answer
facts win again
Click to expand...

Dodge what? Why do you need such government authority in personal relationships?
 
OrphanSlug said:
Dodge what? Why do you need such government authority in personal relationships?
Click to expand...

the question you NEVER answered and dodged, ill ask again and i bet you dodge it again
you said "I'd rather just see government out of the mix entirely."

Im asking you how would you do that? what system would you put in place to do all the things a marriage contract does and do it without involving government?
 
AGENT J said:
the question you NEVER answered and dodged, ill ask again and i bet you dodge it again
you said "I'd rather just see government out of the mix entirely."

Im asking you how would you do that? what system would you put in place to do all the things a marriage contract does and do it without involving government?
Click to expand...

Exactly what it says, I would rather government have no say so in marriage. Removing it is elementary. And I *still* would rather see nothing put in its place. I do not think the government should be involved in the definition, the licensing of, or categorization of personal relationships. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
 
AGENT J said:
the question you NEVER answered and dodged, ill ask again and i bet you dodge it again
you said "I'd rather just see government out of the mix entirely."

Im asking you how would you do that? what system would you put in place to do all the things a marriage contract does and do it without involving government?
Click to expand...

Make marriage contract based between the two people (or more) involved. Remove incentives and tax breaks for marriage and remove legal requirements for only government recognized marriage in healthcare cases. I'm sure it's much more complicated but that's where I'd start.

One down side is contract lawyers would have a job boom.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Exactly what it says, I would rather government have no say so in marriage. Removing it is elementary. And I *still* would rather see nothing put in its place. I do not think the government should be involved in the definition, the licensing of, or categorization of personal relationships. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Click to expand...

another dodge, i understand what you WANT, im asking you how you do it, why is that so hard for you to understand and why do you keep dishonestly dodging the question?

if you tel me you want to get rid of all guns and i ask how and you tell me "i dont think we need them they are dangerous" that doesnt answer HOW lol

so i waill ask you AGAIN and i bet you dodge it again
you said "I'd rather just see government out of the mix entirely."

Im asking you how would you do that? what system would you put in place to do all the things a marriage contract does and do it without involving government?
 
Ockham said:
Make marriage contract based between the two people (or more) involved. Remove incentives and tax breaks for marriage and remove legal requirements for only government recognized marriage in healthcare cases. I'm sure it's much more complicated but that's where I'd start.

One down side is contract lawyers would have a job boom.
Click to expand...

contract = government is involved :shrug:
and there are about 1200 things a marriage contract does, i dont know how many are tax breaks but subtract those out and how do you do the rest with no government
 
AGENT J said:
contract = government is involved :shrug:
Click to expand...
Not in the US it doesn't. I can have a contract with another person without government involvement. Just me, the lawyers and the other person. ENFORCEMENT of the terms of the contract if taken to court include the government - in the form of a judicial court. Other than that the government isn't involved.

AGENT J said:
and there are about 1200 things a marriage contract does, i dont know how many are tax breaks but subtract those out and how do you do the rest with no government
Click to expand...

Well then there are 1200 boxes to check to remove government. :shrug:
 
AGENT J said:
another dodge, i understand what you WANT, im asking you how you do it, why is that so hard for you to understand and why do you keep dishonestly dodging the question?

if you tel me you want to get rid of all guns and i ask how and you tell me "i dont think we need them they are dangerous" that doesnt answer HOW lol

so i waill ask you AGAIN and i bet you dodge it again
you said "I'd rather just see government out of the mix entirely."

Im asking you how would you do that? what system would you put in place to do all the things a marriage contract does and do it without involving government?
Click to expand...

Because the process would take time and effort. It would have to start with looking at government legislation on the books thus far (local on up) in how relationships are defined and why. The only place to start is with elements the government uses for whatever reason. Tax code, healthcare, etc.

You asking about it is starting to sound like the real dodge here. Removal does not mean replacement.
 
AGENT J said:
As gay marriages begin in Florida, Supreme Court is set to meet on issue - The Washington Post

Backup links:
Miami judge weds gays and lesbians after ruling against ban
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/us/same-sex-weddings-begin-in-florida.html?_r=0
Miami Judge Who Overturned Ban Weds Gays and Lesbians - ABC News
Same-sex marriages start in Miami, hours before rest of Florida | Reuters
Same-sex marriages start in Florida earlier than expected; couples elated - LA Times
After Miami

seems I'm right on track, I've been saying for a while now that i think equal rights will be national at the latest by the close of 2016 but wouldnt be surprised if it happened in 2015. :D


#EqualRightsAreWinning!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

I'd just like to add something to the discussion since I'm new here. A lot of people consider me right-leaning socially. I'm actually the opposite. I joined the Army during a time of two wars not because I wanted to fight, but because I am very passionate about equal and civil rights for all law abiding, tax paying citizens. When I see people being oppressed, it kills me.

I think gay marriage is a civil right and fully support it. I think the argument "well if I can marry another guy, can I marry a goat???" is ridiculous. I look forward to the day gay marriage is legalized federally.
 
OrphanSlug said:
You trying to tell me that any consenting adult can marry any other consenting adult, and that they can adopt in all 50 states in the Union, or even can ensure spousal rights across the board if one passes? You sure you want to make that argument?
Click to expand...

You sure you want to keep attacking straw men?
 
Ockham said:
Well then there are 1200 boxes to check to remove government. :shrug:
Click to expand...

So when you pass away, who inherits your stuff?
 
Ockham said:
1.)Not in the US it doesn't. I can have a contract with another person without government involvement. Just me, the lawyers and the other person. ENFORCEMENT of the terms of the contract if taken to court include the government - in the form of a judicial court. Other than that the government isn't involved.
2.)Well then there are 1200 boxes to check to remove government. :shrug:
Click to expand...

1.) uhm exactly which means government is involved if theres no enforcement behind it (protection) its meaningless
2.) and then legal marriage would be pointless and other contracts would be needed making it dumb to dismantle marriage
 
OrphanSlug said:
Because the process would take time and effort. It would have to start with looking at government legislation on the books thus far (local on up) in how relationships are defined and why. The only place to start is with elements the government uses for whatever reason. Tax code, healthcare, etc.

You asking about it is starting to sound like the real dodge here. Removal does not mean replacement.
Click to expand...

another dodge, thanks thats what i thought, let us know when you can answer lol
 
11Bravo said:
I'd just like to add something to the discussion since I'm new here. A lot of people consider me right-leaning socially. I'm actually the opposite. I joined the Army during a time of two wars not because I wanted to fight, but because I am very passionate about equal and civil rights for all law abiding, tax paying citizens. When I see people being oppressed, it kills me.

I think gay marriage is a civil right and fully support it. I think the argument "well if I can marry another guy, can I marry a goat???" is ridiculous. I look forward to the day gay marriage is legalized federally.
Click to expand...
thats because like the majority of americans you care about your fellow american and thier equal rights

and of course that non-argument it ridiculous, its dishonest and nobody educated and honest takes it seriously
 
AGENT J said:
1.) uhm exactly which means government is involved if theres no enforcement behind it (protection) its meaningless
Click to expand...
Unless there is a dispute government isn't involved. Prove then that they are involved if you disagree.

AGENT J said:
2.) and then legal marriage would be pointless and other contracts would be needed making it dumb to dismantle marriage
Click to expand...
You consider it dumb that's fine. You like government involvement - that's also fine. You demanded an answer to your question - I gave you one, at least a starting point of one.
 
Ockham said:
The people and family members I have specified in my will.
Click to expand...

oh so another piece of paper that will involve government instead of the other piece of paper that involves government. SOunds great! ;)
 
AGENT J said:
thats because like the majority of americans you care about your fellow american and thier equal rights

and of course that non-argument it ridiculous, its dishonest and nobody educated and honest takes it seriously
Click to expand...

I was a Republican, however, with notions like "gay marriage should be illegal" and their stance on abortion... it drove me further and further away. It's not just social issues. To be honest, i don't even know where I lie, politically. I do know that I defend the right for two tax-paying, law abiding citizens and consenting adults to marry.
 
Ockham said:
1.)Unless there is a dispute government isn't involved. Prove then that they are involved if you disagree.
2.) You consider it dumb that's fine.
3.) You like government involvement - that's also fine.
4.) You demanded an answer to your question - I gave you one, at least a starting point of one.
Click to expand...

1.) exactly so just like i said they are involve because they enforce it and protect it
thats like saying the government isnt involved in laws . . unless you break them . . that type of dishonest is laughed at
sorry the fact remains government is involved
2.) no it would be dumb to negate the 1200 rights, protections and benifits and to have to get them another way that will still involve government
3.) not the involvement the protection of my rights and contract is what i like otherwise its meanignless
4.) and your answer failed because government would still be involved
 
Deuce said:
What if you don't have a will?
Click to expand...

It then depends what is considered joint ownership and what is not. Probate court gets involved since I live in NJ. If a person does not have life insurance or a will and doesn't identify a beneficiary - then probate court determines where the assets go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom