• 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

11Bravo said:
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.
Click to expand...

well just to be clear there are millions of republicans that support equal rights and are prochoice. "stereo-typically" i understand they arent but in real life they are
 
AGENT J said:
oh so another piece of paper that will involve government instead of the other piece of paper that involves government. SOunds great! ;)
Click to expand...

The government doesn't involve themselves in my will unless probate court or the will is contested and then again, the courts are involved. You seem to see enforcement of legal contracts as the focal point of your argument when, government involvement can happen without a contract, for any reason, at any time. Government acknowledgement of marriage as a contract isn't required as I've already stated.

I do not see you providing any evidence, therefore you're opinion is noted, but as far as I'm concerned your opinion holds little to no water other than your personal preference.
 
AGENT J said:
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
Click to expand...

1. Enforcement occurs by government with all things... therefore irrelevant.
2. Your opinion of what is dumb - others don't automatically share your views - also irrelevant
3. Get a good lawyer, put your rights in your non-government contract.
4. Enforcement is always done by courts for everything.
5. You don't like my answer now you post pouty posts - can I expect a full blown tantrum post soon? Can't wait.... :popcorn2:
 
Ockham said:
1.)The government doesn't involve themselves in my will unless probate court or the will is contested and then again, the courts are involved.
2.) You seem to see enforcement of legal contracts as the focal point of your argument when, government involvement can happen without a contract, for any reason, at any time.
3.) Government acknowledgement of marriage as a contract isn't required as I've already stated.
4.)I do not see you providing any evidence, therefore you're opinion is noted, but as far as I'm concerned your opinion holds little to no water other than your personal preference.
Click to expand...

1.) exactly they enforce it :shrug: and they are involved in its verification, which means government is involved
2.) no i just understand the fact the government is involved and saying otherwise is just dishonesty
3.) and thats false when talking about legal marriage which the discussion is about
4.) LMAO deflections like these dont work, if theres somethign i stated as a fact qoute it and prove it wrong otherwise you got nothing lol
 
Ockham said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sure that sounds better than it automatically going to a spouse by law.
 
Ockham said:
1. Enforcement occurs by government with all things... therefore irrelevant.
2. Your opinion of what is dumb - others don't automatically share your views - also irrelevant
3. Get a good lawyer, put your rights in your non-government contract.
4. Enforcement is always done by courts for everything.
5. You don't like my answer now you post pouty posts - can I expect a full blown tantrum post soon? Can't wait.... :popcorn 2:
Click to expand...

1.) not irrelevant since it means government is involved hence the whole point, this fact wont change
2.) so your claim is that if people want the 1200 things that its smarter to do it in a way that requires MORE government steps/contracts and some wil just be lost because some cant be granted any other way but by a marriage
3.) and without the government that contract is meanignless :shrug: remind me if the contract is not honored or when i die who protects my rights and or enforces it? GOVERNMENT lol
4.) yes . . government
5.) failed deflection and lies because facts wont help your post failed, i expected this. will you keep dancing around the facts government is involved? i cant wait either! :popcorn2:
 
Deuce said:
You sure you want to keep attacking straw men?
Click to expand...

You sure you want to hold the position that government in the marriage business does not come with control?
 
OrphanSlug said:
Still no dodge, but thanks anyway! ;)
Click to expand...

facts prove your post wrong, if you disagree simply qoute where you answered HOW.
and you're welcome, let me know when i can help you with your mistakes in the future
 
AGENT J said:
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.
Click to expand...

1) you seem to have lost track of the fact that we were discussing human rights with civil rights. As such, there's no point in my following up with 2 and 3.

And I never claimed legal marriage 'goes against' human rights.
 
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...

If he doesnt feel that it needs to be replaced with anything else, then that is an answer. He cant invent something if it doesnt exist.. and he just doesnt believe it needs to exist.

That's my interpretation anyway.
 
Ockham said:
Unless there is a dispute government isn't involved. Prove then that they are involved if you disagree.

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.
Click to expand...

If the threat of enforcement didnt exist, contracts would be pointless. It is the ability of a govt entity to enforce the contract...or consequences that makes contracts 'work.'
 
Lursa said:
1) you seem to have lost track of the fact that we were discussing human rights with civil rights. As such, there's no point in my following up with 2 and 3.

2.)And I never claimed legal marriage 'goes against' human rights.
Click to expand...

1.) no, as i already said they are clearly separate things legally
2.) uhm i specifically asked you that and you said it diminishes it, what were you talking about then? where did we get crossed lol
 
Lursa said:
If he doesnt feel that it needs to be replaced with anything else, then that is an answer. He cant invent something if it doesnt exist.. and he just doesnt believe it needs to exist.

That's my interpretation anyway.
Click to expand...

but thats factually not an answer, that fact wont change

just like i said

if you tell me you want to get rid of all the guns and i ask HOW and you answer "i think they are dangerous and not needed" that is not an answer of how
 
AGENT J said:
1.) no, as i already said they are clearly separate things legally
2.) uhm i specifically asked you that and you said it diminishes it, what were you talking about then? where did we get crossed lol
Click to expand...

Diminish does not = go against.

And they are not clearly separate legally because we are having this discussion, based mostly on our opinions. I've seen nothing legally defining human right vs civil right regarding govt recognized marriage in the US.
 
AGENT J said:
but thats factually not an answer, that fact wont change

just like i said

if you tell me you want to get rid of all the guns and i ask HOW and you answer "i think they are dangerous and not needed" that is not an answer of how
Click to expand...

SInce he nor you have an answer for what can replace it, then factually there isnt a replacement.

I can also ask how to make men get pregnant. If there is no way, then factually there's no 'how.'
 
Lursa said:
1.)Diminish does not = go against.
2.)And they are not clearly separate legally because we are having this discussion, based mostly on our opinions. I've seen nothing legally defining human right vs civil right regarding govt recognized marriage in the US.
Click to expand...

1.) then tell me how they deminsh human rights self-defense and the right to body sovereignty etc
2.) no they clearly 100% are seperate, human rights are not civil rights, thats just a fact.
some human rights line up just like some reliogus rights line up with civil/legal right but they are completely separate.

are all human rights legal rights/civil rights? no
are all human rights made civil rights/legal rights becuse they are human rights? no
theres nothign to debate, the fact is they are seperate
 
Lursa said:
1.)SInce he nor you have an answer for what can replace it, then factually there isnt a replacement.
2.)I can also ask how to make men get pregnant. If there is no way, then factually there's no 'how.'
Click to expand...

1.) 100% correct ding ding ding you are the winner!!!! correct there is no replacement cable of doing so with out government . . none
2.) very true and if i claimed "i want to get a man pregnant" and you ask me how, saying i want to do it, is not an answer

but your example is exactly my point . . what he wants is impossible
 
Lursa said:
If the threat of enforcement didnt exist, contracts would be pointless. It is the ability of a govt entity to enforce the contract...or consequences that makes contracts 'work.'
Click to expand...

Agreed - that however doesn't diminish my point that the government is only involved during a dispute. If there is no dispute there is no government involvement.
 
Ockham said:
Agreed - that however doesn't diminish my point that the government is only involved during a dispute. If there is no dispute there is no government involvement.
Click to expand...

That's not what it means. The govt is involved *because* the threat of them enforcing consequences exists. That threat is tangible and is present in every contract.

A contract would not be necessary otherwise. There would just be big lists of stuff for people to remember since it was a 'given' that they'd be fulfilled.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) 100% correct ding ding ding you are the winner!!!! correct there is no replacement cable of doing so with out government . . none
2.) very true and if i claimed "i want to get a man pregnant" and you ask me how, saying i want to do it, is not an answer

but your example is exactly my point . . what he wants is impossible
Click to expand...

Yes but his perspective works for him because he doesnt care if there is nothing to replace it, so his opinion is valid, even if you and I dont agree with him.
 
Lursa said:
Well they have the right to live with whoever they want and call it marriage within their belief system. What they dont have is the legal recognition that brings with it the benefits and legal protections that couples get in marriage.

And as long as they didnt get *more* benefits and legal protections than couples, I dont care at all if they legalize polygamy. As I mentioned, they live that way anyway. As long as they are treated "equally" then I dont care. But it's been pointed out by others that that would be difficult, if not impossible.

Hence, an illustration of human vs civil rights. People practice polygamy all the time, it's just not sanctioned by the law. It's also not prevented by law.
Click to expand...

so you oppose this then it is prevented by law. they do not get equal treatment more so it is a violation of the constitution since this is a religious belief that they ar e not allowed to practice.

so technically they have every right.

funny you guys are so vicious over the gay marriage thing but now that we drift into another alternative form of marriage it tends to disappear.
 
iguanaman said:
I stated that gays couples have the same rights as straight couples and you went off on a tangent about polygamy. You might as well have asked about pedophile marriages or animal matrimony it is all the same and has nothing to do with couples who love each other's right to get married. Your belief that if you don't dictate what matrimony is then anything goes is disingenuous on your part and totally false in reality. Because I don't believe pedophiles can molest children that makes me a bigot?
Click to expand...

it is about equal right to marry. nope I am just bring up another group of people that don't have equal rights under the law. yet you are being bigoted and opposing their rights.
I am trying to understand why you can't answer your own argument. you are either for equal rights for marriage or you are not.

you seem to support it as long as it fits your point of view which is a contradiction. why are being bigoted against people that want to marry more than 1 person? I don't understand.
where is your sense of equal rights.

I never mentioned animals that is a strawman.

nope equal rights is what matters. yet you oppose real equal rights for people? why are not consistent in your argument and a bigot against people that want to marry more than 1 person.

I never mentioned pedophiles it has nothing to do with it. that is a strawman.
 
OrphanSlug said:
You sure you want to hold the position that government in the marriage business does not come with control?
Click to expand...

Can you make up your mind? Before it was "about control" and now it "comes with" control.

Speed limits "come with" control. But that's hardly a reason to eliminate speed limits. Maybe you should explain what "control" is placed upon you with the current system and why you hate that so much.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't seem like that long ago when GW Bush ran on a constitutional ban of gay marriage. It's amazing how far we have progressed... :2razz:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom