• 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!

They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex marria

Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

ReverendHellh0und said:
The only absurdity here is your rebuttal. I will re-state my position. I support marriage equality and I don't care who you ****, do "bolivian marching powder" with, or marry. It's none of my business.

I am also a strong belliever in this government is too large, to convoluted, and too complicated. One such way of simplification it to remove who the government can and can't say who is married, and call EVERYONE a civil union.

This does a couple things. one it takes the wind out of anti-gay marriage types, (100% of course not but it's a HUGE chunk). now you have "civil unions". states CANNOT deny ones partner from seeing thier loved ones as it would then violate the 14th amendment.


It's really quite simple, and this fascist style "BELEIEVE AS WE 100% or even though you support gay marriage, you are a homophobe bigot!!!!!" nonsense is the same intolerant crap, you are suppoosedly against.
Click to expand...

Your suggestion is akin to sheldons suggestion to build a new Jewish holy land in the middle of Mexico, good intentioned yet ignorant of the complexities of the issue.

The legal arguments concerning same sex marriage bans don't change by changing the name of legal marriage to civil unions, and the government could still restrict it in the same ways it currently does, even those that restrict it unfairly.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Deuce said:
U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


should be challenged as a violation of the 14th amendment.



There's no reason to change the word.
Click to expand...


Who's changing the word? I'm suggesting the government not be involved other than to record.

Word says the same. the government just recognizes, records, a civil contract.



Great. And if religious folks don't want their union to share a word with those filthy homosexuals, they can call their marriages something else.
Click to expand...


I REALLY don't get why liberals like to slur those they say they support, from calling black people the "N" word, to this sort of nonsense, it's not needed and does you no favors sir.


You take the government out of the equation, it won't matter what any religious group says.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

ReverendHellh0und said:
it is about winning. the government shouldn't be in the marriage business, why get tax breaks/penalties because you decided to "marry" someone?
Click to expand...

Because people want those breaks given, just as there are tax breaks given for children, for taking care of other family members, for giving to charity, for doing something good for the environment, and for so many other things. Its no more unfair than tax breaks of other kinds.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

ReverendHellh0und said:
*sigh* I'm sorry I am looking at solutions, compromises, and ways to move forward. Like I said, I support gay marriage and don't care what you call it. I can't repeat that long enough.








I've been advocating this for years, I am a libertarian. who you marry is none of my business, and getting government out of your businsess here to me is the libertarian solution to this inequality we have.


2010: (a little bit of a baity thread but I kept it civil.;) )

http://www.debatepolitics.com/law-a...e-between-man-and-woman-2.html#post1059100674

It also alludes to preveious posts for that. There was another forum, I can't remember now, as far back as 2004 I was advocating this. (my entire online forum life).

so on this forum, easily proven since 2010 here (5 years), you see this is what I advocated, if you feel the need you can search further and find for the last 11 years, I've advocated the same online.




I will agian repeat, I don't care what you call it. My position is a solution to get everyone the equal rights they deserve.





I agree, I think changing it all to civil unions takes a big blow to the anti-gay marriage types. That's all I've been saying. remove the government, let them "log" "marrigaes", "civil unions" whatever, but have it have no bearing on anything other than that logging.
Click to expand...

We're moving forward just fine. The SCOTUS has the issue. Barring some serious meltdown of the Court, same sex marriage restrictions/bans will all be struck down as unconstitutional this year.

The government is involved because people want them involved, otherwise they wouldn't get legally married at all.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

roguenuke said:
Because people want those breaks given, just as there are tax breaks given for children, for taking care of other family members, for giving to charity, for doing something good for the environment, and for so many other things. Its no more unfair than tax breaks of other kinds.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. Getting married, unlike having a child or assuming responsibility for a sick or elderly relative, does not impact upon your financial wellbeing...well, it does, but in the opposite direction, likely making your finances easier, not more difficult. There is no economic argument for giving away money to newlyweds, it's a political gesture, saying we approve of your life-choice, we want people to marry. Those are ideological considerations, even when those benefits are rolled out to same-sex couples. Hence fairness is not a consideration and such tax breaks are wholly unfair on those who are single, or in a domestic relationship that isn't recognised as 'marriage'.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

roguenuke said:
Your suggestion is akin to sheldons suggestion to build a new Jewish holy land in the middle of Mexico, good intentioned yet ignorant of the complexities of the issue.

The legal arguments concerning same sex marriage bans don't change by changing the name of legal marriage to civil unions, and the government could still restrict it in the same ways it currently does, even those that restrict it unfairly.
Click to expand...



the pushback to gay marriage, comes MOSTLY from the word, you remove the word, and you do a huge blow to the enemies of freedom and equal liberty, That is my only point on this.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

roguenuke said:
Because people want those breaks given, just as there are tax breaks given for children, for taking care of other family members, for giving to charity, for doing something good for the environment, and for so many other things. Its no more unfair than tax breaks of other kinds.
Click to expand...



It should be removed. taxes should not change based on who you shack up with.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

ReverendHellh0und said:
*sigh* I'm sorry I am looking at solutions, compromises, and ways to move forward. Like I said, I support gay marriage and don't care what you call it. I can't repeat that long enough.








I've been advocating this for years, I am a libertarian. who you marry is none of my business, and getting government out of your businsess here to me is the libertarian solution to this inequality we have.


2010: (a little bit of a baity thread but I kept it civil.;) )

http://www.debatepolitics.com/law-a...e-between-man-and-woman-2.html#post1059100674

It also alludes to preveious posts for that. There was another forum, I can't remember now, as far back as 2004 I was advocating this. (my entire online forum life).

so on this forum, easily proven since 2010 here (5 years), you see this is what I advocated, if you feel the need you can search further and find for the last 11 years, I've advocated the same online.




I will agian repeat, I don't care what you call it. My position is a solution to get everyone the equal rights they deserve.





I agree, I think changing it all to civil unions takes a big blow to the anti-gay marriage types. That's all I've been saying. remove the government, let them "log" "marrigaes", "civil unions" whatever, but have it have no bearing on anything other than that logging.
Click to expand...


I'll take your word for it, and am glad that you have been consistent.

I still think there are plenty of people that have only started talking about taking govt out of marriage once SSM became a reality.

At any rate, I don't think we're going to get rid of the word marriage or the current institution with its many benefits - and responsibilities - for married couples. What we can do is make it open to all couples, not just opposite sex couples. and luckily that is happening quickly
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

ReverendHellh0und said:
the pushback to gay marriage, comes MOSTLY from the word, you remove the word, and you do a huge blow to the enemies of freedom and equal liberty, That is my only point on this.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that. The anti-gay marriage types use that argument of "the word" as a cover. Many are against anything that even resembles marriage for SS couples. In fact, it's written into the Constitutional bans.

For example: "Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect. " Georgia

"Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." -Ohio

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's just a few of them.

And your notion about getting "government out of marriage" just isn't going to happen. It isn't. So continuing to push it as a viable option is just a waste of time.
You may as well be arguing about the weight and dimensions of unicorns.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

paddymcdougall said:
I'll take your word for it, and am glad that you have been consistent.
Click to expand...

Thank you.



I still think there are plenty of people that have only started talking about taking govt out of marriage once SSM became a reality.
Click to expand...

A good JKD man does not oppose force or give way completely. He is pliable as a spring; he is the complement and not the opposition to his opponent’s strength.= Bruce lee

if that's it, take it, be like water, in the end, they are giving in and coming to your side without, (in thier mind) compromising thier beliefs.


At any rate, I don't think we're going to get rid of the word marriage or the current institution with its many benefits - and responsibilities - for married couples. What we can do is make it open to all couples, not just opposite sex couples. and luckily that is happening quickly
Click to expand...

I agree, the ruling class needs us to be completely divided and side taking in order to maintain it's power, this is one of the biggest issues they do it with.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Paperview said:
I don't believe that. The anti-gay marriage types use that argument of "the word" as a cover. Many are against anything that even resembles marriage for SS couples. In fact, it's written into the Constitutional bans.

For example: "Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect. " Georgia

"Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." -Ohio

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's just a few of them.

And your notion about getting "government out of marriage" just isn't going to happen. It isn't. So continuing to push it as a viable option is just a waste of time.
You may as well be arguing about the weight and dimensions of unicorns.
Click to expand...






funny, in the 80's you could say the same thing about unicorns and gay marriage. *shrug*
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

ReverendHellh0und said:
funny, in the 80's you could say the same thing about unicorns and gay marriage. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Some people were talking about it.

Who knew it would take nearly 150 years after we were founded to give women the vote?

Progress for equality takes time. I will admit SSM happened much sooner than most of us expected.

That said, it really doesn't have anything to do with the fact gov't will never be out of marriage. It was involved in colonial days, and will continue to remain involved.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Paperview said:
Some people were talking about it.
Click to expand...

Some people are talking about simplification of the tax system and getting the government out of our lives, including this marriage issue.


Who knew it would take nearly 150 years after we were founded to give women the vote?
Click to expand...


We don't live in those times, things happen much faster these days.


Progress for equality takes time. I will admit SSM happened much sooner than most of us expected.
Click to expand...

I don't, same with marijuana, the internet (now in control of the government), allows for much faster dissemination of ideas and opinions, combined with social media, the pulse of the nation is known much faster and the ruling class can't lie as well about what people actually want.


That said, it really doesn't have anything to do with the fact gov't will never be out of marriage. It was involved in colonial days, and will continue to remain involved.
Click to expand...



What did it do in colonial days in regards to marriage?
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

ReverendHellh0und said:
Some people are talking about simplification of the tax system and getting the government out of our lives, including this marriage issue.
Click to expand...

It's much more than taxes. It's inheritance, SS, legal kinship, hospital visitation, spousal immunity in court cases -- all kinds of things, those are just off the top of my head.

On the order of 1,400 Legal and economic benefits of marriage:
Legal and economic benefits of marriage
+
"In 2009, the GAO prepared a new list which totaled about 1,100 federal benefits."

...

What did it do in colonial days in regards to marriage?
Click to expand...
Most Colonies banned whites and blacks marrying, for one.
Age of consent laws is another...Other than that, when a couple was to get married, marriage intentions needed to be filed with the government, sometimes called "banns" - which needed to be announced to the community, so if anyone had an objection they could state it...Contracts regarding dowries were written, husbands were made accountable for supporting the family, when spouses died, transfer of property, etc., etc...

Gov't has been involved in marriage in America since our earliest days.
 
Last edited:
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Paperview said:
It's much more than taxes. It's inheritance, SS, legal kinship, hospital visitation, spousal immunity in court cases -- all kinds of things, those are just off the top of my head.

On the order of 1,400 Legal and economic benefits of marriage:
Legal and economic benefits of marriage
+
"In 2009, the GAO prepared a new list which totaled about 1,100 federal benefits."

...
Click to expand...



I'm not sure what you think I am advocating that any of this would be an issue. if you kept ALL the things and apply it to a "Civil union" for all, you'd get the same thing.

And, yes, if this isn't possible, fight the long fight for gay marriage.


Most Colonies banned whites and blacks marrying, for one.
Click to expand...

This is a reason to keep marriages in the hands of government? ;)


Age of consent laws is another...Other than that, when a couple was to get married, marriage intentions needed to be filed with the government, sometimes called "banns" - which needed to be announced to the community, so if anyone had an objection they could state it...Contracts regarding dowries were written, when spouses died, transfer of property, etc., etc...
Click to expand...

Well, I think as we move away from this, the ultimate goal is to get them out of the business all together,. gay marriage or not,.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Here's another one: Did you know some colonies had bachelor taxes?

You were taxed by government if you *didn't* get married!
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Paperview said:
Here's another one: Did you know some colonies had bachelor taxes?

You were taxed by government if you *didn't* get married!
Click to expand...



Today that's called..... "a Girlfriend".....




I'd also like to add, I also don't care how many wives/husbands of any variety and mixes that someone wants.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

It still comes down again, as I said then -- arguing over a word - when the word works just fine.

And no, it is virtually impossible to get government out of marriage.

And the "long fight" for Marriage Equality will be achieved soon.

As in ---> Monday, June 29, 2015, shortly after 10:00 am EDT.

(Give or take a day or two)

;)
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

ReverendHellh0und said:
no,

tax issues,
POA issues
inheritence issues


et al. which is why they should be out of it,
Click to expand...

What about tax issues, power of attorney and inheritance?
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Cardinal said:
I dunno, you mentioned them.
Click to expand...



You could have all that be covered under the civil union laws if you must. POA's or civil contracts.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

ReverendHellh0und said:
You could have all that be covered under the civil union laws if you must. POA's or civil contracts.
Click to expand...

So? Government marriage does that already. Bam, problem solved.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Cardinal said:
So? Government marriage does that already. Bam, problem solved.
Click to expand...



cept you have this war now. factions trying to win and the ruling class making bank off the rabble.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

ReverendHellh0und said:
cept you have this war now. factions trying to win and the ruling class making bank off the rabble.
Click to expand...

What war? The "war" is over. I have no idea how your ruling class comment relates to this. Seriously, you just sound like you're babbling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom