View Poll Results: Could you accept no government recognized marriages as a compromise?

Voters
79. You may not vote on this poll
  • I oppose SSM but could accept no government recognized marriage as a compromise.

    6 7.59%
  • I support SSM but could accept no government reconized marriage as a compromise

    24 30.38%
  • I oppose SSM It's a function of government to recognize legitimate marriages. No compromise.

    7 8.86%
  • I support SSM. It's a function of government to recognize legitimate marriages. No compromise.

    42 53.16%
Page 10 of 51 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 503

Thread: Same sex marriage compromise

  1. #91
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,928
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    Addressing your concern with discrimination.



    ALL of those types of marriages are presently banned in the United States. Would it be only logical and fair to allow those as well?
    I think that is a fair question. Marriage in the western world anyway, has pretty much been defined by the church and the bible. The reason for only one wife, the outlaw of polygamy was because the church and the Christian faith thought of it as a heathen life style, perhaps the same as the homosexual life style and gay marriage. But since it has been part of America's history since Columbus set foot here with the exception of the Mormons, monogamy has been accepted as the norm. Although there may have been more than a couple of the Indian tribes that practiced Polygamy.

    So if this secular government is going to do away with one religious value, gay marriage. It ought to away with the other religious value, polygamy. It seems only fair.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  2. #92
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Can you prove any of that? On the first count, California has a civil union law that confers every entitlement (they're not rights) that the state confers to the married. If you want equity in federal entitlements, go for a federal civil union law.
    In fact the courts even ruled the benefits of marriage are not rights. I do however enjoy how people keep saying that getting rid of the benefits are somehow violating their rights.

  3. #93
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,158

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Yes. This is actually my preferred outcome.

    I don't see why the government is in the business of rubber-stamping people's personal romantic relationships. What business is it of theirs?

    I think the legal rights that are assigned to marriage (medical rights, childcare rights, etc) should be opened up to allow anyone to assign them to whomever they like. Only an individual can decide which people are the best to assign their own rights to, and a spouse may not be right for all of them.

    I think "marriage" should only be a social ceremony, or a name someone chooses to assign to whatever collection of rights they have traded with their spouse. But the rights themselves should be completely separated from a person's relationship status.

    Actually I think I'd prefer that myself. I like to minimize the impact of government on people's private lives as much as possible.

    Then again, there's this compromise I've been offering to pro-SSMers...

    Give me universal Constitutional Carry (no permit, open/concealed, anywhere normally open to the public, every state and city of USA) and I'll give you full-fledged gay marriage.

    I like it myself. If you support my personal liberty issue, I'll support yours....

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  4. #94
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,892

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    The same way anyone else does. Why is marriage somehow needed to deal with any of these issues? Do people out of marriage not have children, not share a deed to a house, not deal with share assets? Yes, they do and just how do you think they manage without a marriage contract? I don't see why its all of a sudden different because of marriage.



    To the most part people should be left to their own devices to deal with private matters and the state should handle any claims as unchanged until those parties ask for a change. I don't see why the state has to be the middle man until a decision is made.
    People outside of marriage have more problems dealing with these issues. A judge won't freeze liquid assets, block sale of property and prevent a parent from fleeing with their children until standing has been established. Not just any ole person can show up at the courthouse and demand any of that. Under a marriage, the relationship is established and rights are already granted. It's plainly obvious what is different under marriage. Certainly to the state.

    So, you advocate taking no responsibility to protect one's self? Via a contract? How does the state establish who is what to whom and how long a relationship has been a relationship and then judge what is appropriate without there being a piece of paper? Hundreds of not thousands of pieces of paper, that's how. If you don't agree with marriage, don't do it. Then you can spend time and money settling up with your relationship if it dissolves.

  5. #95
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    People outside of marriage have more problems dealing with these issues. A judge won't freeze liquid assets, block sale of property and prevent a parent from fleeing with their children until standing has been established. Not just any ole person can show up at the courthouse and demand any of that. Under a marriage, the relationship is established and rights are already granted. It's plainly obvious what is different under marriage. Certainly to the state.

    So, you advocate taking no responsibility to protect one's self? Via a contract? How does the state establish who is what to whom and how long a relationship has been a relationship and then judge what is appropriate without there being a piece of paper? Hundreds of not thousands of pieces of paper, that's how. If you don't agree with marriage, don't do it. Then you can spend time and money settling up with your relationship if it dissolves.
    That's not a problem in states like California that already have civil unions.

  6. #96
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,892

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    That's not a problem in states like California that already have civil unions.
    Fine and dandy as long as the same rights as a marriage are conferred.

  7. #97
    Professor
    zstep18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Somewhere
    Last Seen
    02-24-14 @ 02:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,770

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    In fact the courts even ruled the benefits of marriage are not rights. I do however enjoy how people keep saying that getting rid of the benefits are somehow violating their rights.
    It violates the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.

  8. #98
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    Fine and dandy as long as the same rights as a marriage are conferred.
    They are. The problem is federal (portability, the IRS, etc.). Had the pro-SSM folk not been so set on the title all this time, DOMA may never have passed. I think it's a good possibility we would have had a federal civil union legislation by now.

  9. #99
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,892

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    They are. The problem is federal (portability, the IRS, etc.). Had the pro-SSM folk not been so set on the title all this time, DOMA may never have passed. I think it's a good possibility we would have had a federal civil union legislation by now.
    I understand, SSM felt it would be separate but equal. As long as a couple can have one or the other, I don't have a problem.

  10. #100
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    People outside of marriage have more problems dealing with these issues. A judge won't freeze liquid assets, block sale of property and prevent a parent from fleeing with their children until standing has been established. Not just any ole person can show up at the courthouse and demand any of that.
    All true and I have no problem with any of it.

    Under a marriage, the relationship is established and rights are already granted. It's plainly obvious what is different under marriage. Certainly to the state.
    So your argument is only that it is easier? Hmm..

    So, you advocate taking no responsibility to protect one's self? Via a contract? How does the state establish who is what to whom and how long a relationship has been a relationship and then judge what is appropriate without there being a piece of paper?
    They don't. They deal with established claims of property and other matters they are already involved in. Other items they would have no reason to care about.

    Hundreds of not thousands of pieces of paper, that's how.
    So basically you are saying people can't do anything on their own? Argh..so silly. If people can't even deal with a TV they need to fall off a cliff on accident.

    If you don't agree with marriage, don't do it. Then you can spend time and money settling up with your relationship if it dissolves.
    Well when you go through the government to get your benefits it becomes my business. If you don't like my opinion, then consider taking your life out of the public eye. Just a thought.

    Btw, I have no problem with people wanting to form their own contracts if they desire to do so. That however has very little to do with how it is now.
    Last edited by Henrin; 03-26-13 at 08:30 PM.

Page 10 of 51 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •