• 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!

Are civil unions an acceptable compromise for SSM?[W:237]

Are civil unions an acceptable compromise for SSM?

  • Yes, civil unions are an acceptable compromise.

    Votes: 17 17.2%

  • No, they are not, because:

    Votes: 51 51.5%

  • The government should not be involved with marriage, at all.

    Votes: 23 23.2%

  • Other (Please Explain)

    Votes: 8 8.1%
  • Total voters
    99
OscarB63 said:
so what you are saying is that IVF have higher rates of "tardation" than sibling mating and yet no one is squealing to outlaw IVF.

it's as I suspect. people find incest disgusting and morally unacceptable...just as the mojority of people used to view homosexuality. it's a personal preference. if you are going to support equal rights...support equal rights for everyone

it is none of your, my, our business what consenting adults do in the bedroom.

if two dude want to get married....fine
if two cousins want to get married...fine
if a girl and two guys want to get married....fine
if a guy wants to marry becky the blowup doll....fine
Click to expand...

I'm right there with you except for the blowup doll. Inanimate objects can not give consent.
 
wolfsgirl said:
I'm right there with you except for the blowup doll. Inanimate objects can not give consent.
Click to expand...

inanimate objects are also property. if the person can prove that he/she owns the property, then proof of ownership is proof of consent ;)


wasn't there a case in Japan earlier this year or last where some dorky guy married his robot girlfriend?

edit: it wasn't a robot, it was a video game girlfriend he created and married.

equally bizzare:

Lee Jin-gyu fell for his ‘dakimakura’ – a kind of large, huggable pillow from Japan, often with a picture of a popular anime character printed on the side.
Click to expand...


http://metro.co.uk/2010/03/09/man-marries-pillow-154906/
 
Last edited:
Compromise?

the issues is EQUAL rights, if there is a COMPROMISE then the issue is STILL equal rights, thats just silly.
 
OscarB63 said:
might want to read the plethora of other threads on this and other forums. sure "other" arguments have been used...but the heart of the argument for SSM is that gays deserves equal rights, specifically the same rights as heteros when it comes to marriage.

funny how those who squeal the loudest for "equal rights" are usually the first ones to spew a laundry list of excuses/reason why other non-traditional unions should be denied the very rights that they bleat for so loudly for themselves

if gays "deserve" the right to get married....then any other group of consenting adults deserve that same right.
Click to expand...

Nowhere did I say other arguments had not been used. They are not the best nor primary arguments.
 
OscarB63 said:
inanimate objects are also property. if the person can prove that he/she owns the property, then proof of ownership is proof of consent ;)

wasn't there a case in Japan earlier this year or last where some dorky guy married his robot girlfriend?

edit: it wasn't a robot, it was a video game girlfriend he created and married.

equally bizzare:

Man marries pillow | Metro News
Click to expand...

It wasn't a legally recognized marriage. Just like marrying your blowup doll or any other property wouldn't be legally recognized because those things cannot legally sign a contract nor do they have legal rights at all.
 
Redress said:
Nowhere did I say other arguments had not been used. They are not the best nor primary arguments.
Click to expand...

so what is the primary argument?
 
OscarB63 said:
so what is the primary argument?
Click to expand...

That they are not legally allowed to enter into a contract based on their relative sexes/genders. That, in itself is good enough to challenge the laws. Then this is countered by the state by giving what legitimate state interest is rationally being furthered because of this restriction to entering into a contract based solely on their sexes/genders. Whatever reasons the state comes up with are then legally able to be countered with evidence by those wanting same sex marriage.
 
roguenuke said:
That they are not legally allowed to enter into a contract based on their relative sexes/genders. That, in itself is good enough to challenge the laws. Then this is countered by the state by giving what legitimate state interest is rationally being furthered because of this restriction to entering into a contract based solely on their sexes/genders. Whatever reasons the state comes up with are then legally able to be countered with evidence by those wanting same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

IOW...the primary argument is equal rights and non-discrimination.
 
OscarB63 said:
IOW...the primary argument is equal rights and non-discrimination.
Click to expand...

Which is an argument to get it to court, not won. Those other groups have every right to bring their cases to court and have them heard. But the difference will then come in the state's arguments for why the unequal treatment/discrimination is furthering a state interest. This argument is the key. Whether or not the state's argument for it furthering a state interest to deny those groups access to marriage.
 
roguenuke said:
Which is an argument to get it to court, not won. Those other groups have every right to bring their cases to court and have them heard. But the difference will then come in the state's arguments for why the unequal treatment/discrimination is furthering a state interest. This argument is the key. Whether or not the state's argument for it furthering a state interest to deny those groups access to marriage.
Click to expand...

so, if the heart of the matter is equal rights...why do so many gay supporters not support equal rights for those other groups? forget the courts
 
OscarB63 said:
so, if the heart of the matter is equal rights...why do so many gay supporters not support equal rights for those other groups? forget the courts
Click to expand...

1.) how do you know they dont and that it is "so many"
2.) what "EQUAL" rights are you referring to or are you simply referring to NEW RIGHTS that some want

regardless gay rights is equal rights and its a shame so many Americans would vote against them.

DOnt have to like it, dont have to support it/fight for it, but those that vote against it are pathetic hypocrites.
 
Objective-J said:
1.) how do you know they dont and that it is "so many"
2.) what "EQUAL" rights are you referring to or are you simply referring to NEW RIGHTS that some want

regardless gay rights is equal rights and its a shame so many Americans would vote against them.

DOnt have to like it, dont have to support it/fight for it, but those that vote against it are pathetic hypocrites.
Click to expand...

how do I know they don't? because I see them saying so on this forum.

what equal rights? the same equal right to get married that gays want.

I have posted many times that I have no problem with SSM. what I find hypocritical are those who support SSM but oppose marriage of other non-traditional unions between consenting adults
 
OscarB63 said:
1.)how do I know they don't? because I see them saying so on this forum.

2.)what equal rights? the same equal right to get married that gays want.

I have posted many times that I have no problem with SSM. what I find hypocritical are those who support SSM but oppose marriage of other non-traditional unions between consenting adults
Click to expand...

1.) some people on this forum thinking what you thinking what you think is against equal rights means there are "so many"? ok LOL

2.) yes but you havent explains what equal rights you are talking about, simply wanting to marry is not a equal rights so i am asking you what "non-traditional" (which is made up opinion) marriages are you talking about.

Im guess you arent talking about "EQUAL" rights and you are talking about people wanting NEW rights is my point. please give me an example.
 
Some people on this thread think they are sarcastically funny. Nope.
 
Objective-J said:
1.) some people on this forum thinking what you thinking what you think is against equal rights means there are "so many"? ok LOL

2.) yes but you havent explains what equal rights you are talking about, simply wanting to marry is not a equal rights so i am asking you what "non-traditional" (which is made up opinion) marriages are you talking about.

Im guess you arent talking about "EQUAL" rights and you are talking about people wanting NEW rights is my point. please give me an example.
Click to expand...


since when is wanting to get married a "new" right?
 
OscarB63 said:
since when is wanting to get married a "new" right?
Click to expand...

well facts and reality
it would depend on what and who wants to marry.

seems you are shying away from the question because you realize your argument is a failed one. (hypocrites not standing up for OTHER EQUAL rights)

now your examples please
 
Objective-J said:
well facts and reality
it would depend on what and who wants to marry.

seems you are shying away from the question because you realize your argument is a failed one. (hypocrites not standing up for OTHER EQUAL rights)

now your examples please
Click to expand...

already given and dismissed or ignored because they don't agree with your POV
 
OscarB63 said:
already given and dismissed or ignored because they don't agree with your POV
Click to expand...

translation: you cant back up you BS false statment, I knew that already but i was trying to give you the benifit of the doubt :shrug:

again if you disagree all i need is factual examples of these EQUAL RIGHTS that many pro gay equal right people dont support.
 
Ikari said:
Only if the government issues Civil Union licenses only (i.e. the Marriage License is done away with it total).
Click to expand...
Exactly. Government has no business in marriage. Anyone who is against big government but supports a marriage license is a hypocrite.
 
OscarB63 said:
so, if the heart of the matter is equal rights...why do so many gay supporters not support equal rights for those other groups? forget the courts
Click to expand...

You are I believe purposely misrepresenting the argument. The heart of the matter is equal rights for people in the same situation as others. Same sex couples are in the same situation as opposite sex couples. But 3 or more spouses are not in the same situation as 2 spouses when it comes to the legal parts of marriage. Family members, particularly immediate family members (and I and many others are all for allowing first cousins and further out to marry), are not in the same situation as non-family members, mainly because they already have man of the rights of marriage from just being family. No other situation deals with individuals that would be able to enter into a contract with each other legally anyway.
 
roguenuke said:
You are I believe purposely misrepresenting the argument. The heart of the matter is equal rights for people in the same situation as others. Same sex couples are in the same situation as opposite sex couples. But 3 or more spouses are not in the same situation as 2 spouses when it comes to the legal parts of marriage. Family members, particularly immediate family members (and I and many others are all for allowing first cousins and further out to marry), are not in the same situation as non-family members, mainly because they already have man of the rights of marriage from just being family. No other situation deals with individuals that would be able to enter into a contract with each other legally anyway.
Click to expand...

more equivocation. they are all in the same situation...consenting adults who want to get married. go ahead and try to quibble and narrow the parameters all you want in an attempt to show how gays are somehow special and unique......
 
OscarB63 said:
more equivocation. they are all in the same situation...consenting adults who want to get married. go ahead and try to quibble and narrow the parameters all you want in an attempt to show how gays are somehow special and unique......
Click to expand...

this is factually incorrect and it shows you dont understand what equal rights are. You are being dishonest to try and cover up the fact the your BS argument is a failure. Its pretty entertaining watching you spin, but the other funny thing is facts dont care about your ignorance off the topic at hand.

If you disagree by all means factually prove your argument id love to hear it.
 
OscarB63 said:
more equivocation. they are all in the same situation...consenting adults who want to get married. go ahead and try to quibble and narrow the parameters all you want in an attempt to show how gays are somehow special and unique......
Click to expand...

They are not all legally in the same situation. It just simply isn't that way.

It has nothing to do with a person's sexuality either. Should we ask people what sexuality they are when they apply for a license? We don't ask them now. No one cares if two homosexuals marry as long as they are of the opposite sex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom