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 12 of 51 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 503

Thread: Same sex marriage compromise

  1. #111
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    I am fine either way to be honest as far as the government is concerned probably because there is no way in hell they would ever outlaw all marriage. I don't think marriage is a right by any stretch of the imagination, but I have no problem with states allowing it or disallowing SSM.

    I believe that is what will happen...The SCOTUS will throw it back to the states where it belongs.
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  2. #112
    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 Navy Pride View Post

    I believe that is what will happen...The SCOTUS will throw it back to the states where it belongs.
    Not according to the 14th Amendment.

    Marriage isn't solely a religious institution.

  3. #113
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by zstep18 View Post
    Saying that same-sex couples can have a civil union but not a 'marriage' still perpetuates the idea that same-sex couples are different and can be treated differently.
    It portrays that all opposite sex marriages are blessed by God and all gay marriages aren't. That is the distinction.

  4. #114
    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 joko104 View Post
    It portrays that all opposite sex marriages are blessed by God and all gay marriages aren't. That is the distinction.
    Are all 'atheist' marriages blessed by God? What about all Jewish marriages? Muslim? Hindu?

  5. #115
    Tavern Bartender
    Pussy Grabbin' Beaver
    Middleground's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Canada's Capital
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,452
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    What must be considered, however, is that if the Supreme Court determines that same sex marriage is constitutional because it's a civil rights abuse otherwise, what's to stop single people from claiming the same civil rights abuse because they are being discriminated against based on their marital status?
    Interesting point. Being single myself, there never seems to be any government benefit to me, yet I support other people's kids education (amongst other things) through my taxes.

    On the flipside, I never have to deal with the toilet seat left up.
    No men are anywhere, and Im allowed to go in, because Im the owner of the pageant and therefore Im inspecting it, Trump said... Is everyone OK? You know, theyre standing there with no clothes. Is everybody OK? And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.

  6. #116
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    The US Supreme Court is presently considering a ruling that could lift opposite gender requirements for marriage in the US. Most people have firm opinions on this matter but I'm curious could our positions on the subject leave room for a compromise all could accept. If your perspective on same sex marriage is not constitutionally validated, could you accept government not recognizing any marriage as a compromise, assuming of course this wouldn't necessarily be your preferred option?
    The best compromise is to create a civil union domestic partnership for SS like marriage, the one OS couples already have.

    Both types of civil union domestic partnerships would have the same recognition by government and private enterprise.

    The compromise?

    The SS couples civil union domestic partnership would be call homarriage, not marriage.

    I think that's a compromise where everyone wins.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-an...post1061593200
    ... I have no problem with SS couples in a committed monogamous romantic relationship stating thusly in ceremony and then receiving all the federal, state, and local government treatment afforded to OS committed monogamous romantic couples who've stated thusly in ceremony.

    The latter, however, is marriage.

    The former, is not.

    Thus the former, SS couples, need to come up with a different name, a name for their relationship other than "marriage", because, by definition, "marriage" is "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

    It's simply illiterate to refer to such SS couples as "married", and doing so just dumbs us all down.

    My suggestion is that SS couples coin the phrase "homarrige" to apply to their relationship. That's similar to the difference between "man" and "woman".

    By keeping the two separate with appropriate and different words, we maintain intelligent literacy, and, we maintain respect for the time-honored cultural tradition that belongs to OS couples by definition: marriage.

    And, we do so without any government discrimination against SS committed monogamous romantic couples, which is really the bottom-line of the matter from the beginning.

    SS activist agitators, who disrespectfully attempt to hijack marriage from the vast majority (OS couples in the time-honored cultural tradition), rather than take a more respectful albeit longer approach to solving the problem, have caused animosity between SS and OS couples .. which will not end well if vote-pandering politicians acquiesce to statutes allowing SS couples to be "married".

    Had SS activists taken the "homarriage" route from the get-go, stumping for federal, state, and local changes in statutes to create a domestic partnership civil union on the books that's just like marriage but appropriately different only in name -- calling that domestic partnership civil union between SS couples "homarriage" -- this problem would have been solved long ago.

    Instead SS activist agitators riled up SS couples with the ludicrous notion they should be allowed to claim the term "marriage".

    Now there's simply a lot of hurt feelings on both sides .. and the real bottom-line solution -- to get government recognition of all couples in a domestic partnership civil union -- is now a struggle that, if it continues with SS couples hijacking the term "marriage", will create a win-lose situation instead of the win-win scenario the creating of the "homarriage" domestic partnership civil union would have created.

    SS couples would do well to accept reality, that they are not "a man and a woman as husband and wife", and stop trying to pretend that they are, stop ludicrously immagining that they should be afforded the same designation as OS couples that, by definition, simply does not apply to them.

    It is simply wrong to steal from one group to satisfy another.

    I mean, what if cat owners wanted to enter their cats in a dog show? And they ludicrously got legal approval to do so? It really wouldn't be a dog show anymore, and dog owners would be understandbly and justifiably pissed.

    A cat is not a dog.

    A SS couple is not a OS couple.

    A cat does not belong in a dog show.

    A SS couple does not belong in a marriage.

    We need to be intelligent first, and if that means we can't be emotionally irrational, well then, so be it, I would say.

    Acceptance is really for the best. ...
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  7. #117
    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 Ontologuy View Post
    The best compromise is to create a civil union domestic partnership for SS like marriage, the one OS couples already have.

    Both types of civil union domestic partnerships would have the same recognition by government and private enterprise.

    The compromise?

    The SS couples civil union domestic partnership would be call homarriage, not marriage.

    I think that's a compromise where everyone wins.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-an...post1061593200
    Why should it be separate but equal to "marriage"? Marriage is not solely a religious institution.

  8. #118
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by zstep18 View Post
    Why should it be separate but equal to "marriage"?
    I clearly explained why in the quote part of my post.

    They should be separate and separately named because they are similar but not identical.


    Quote Originally Posted by zstep18 View Post
    Marriage is not solely a religious institution.
    Religion or the lack thereof in the matter is irrelevant.
    Last edited by Ontologuy; 03-26-13 at 10:38 PM.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  9. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 12:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    203

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    What must be considered, however, is that if the Supreme Court determines that same sex marriage is constitutional because it's a civil rights abuse otherwise, what's to stop single people from claiming the same civil rights abuse because they are being discriminated against based on their marital status?
    Interesting issue ...

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the premier antidiscrimination employment law in the United States, does not prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of their marital status. Although some employees or applicants have attempted to make indirect marital status discrimination claims under Title VII by arguing, for example, that adverse action was taken against them because of their sex, federal law does not prohibit marital status discrimination by private sector employers.

    Private sector employees seeking a remedy for such discrimination must pursue state remedies. Nearly half of the states in the union forbid at least some form of marital status discrimination in the workplace. Although these laws generally forbid directly adverse employment actions like terminations on the basis of marital status, they generally do not prevent employers from providing full family benefits to married employees, while providing only single benefits to single employees.

  10. #120
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,955

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Damn it all, I had a post and the computer ate it. I'll try again, but some of the good stuff is just gone. :pout: Also some of what I had said has been said by others now so I won't bother to repeat it.

    I'm also going to go backwards this time.

    Quote Originally Posted by zstep18 View Post
    It violates the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.
    Equal protection of what? I can argue that everyone is equally protected in their right of marrying a member of the opposite gender. Or that everyone is protected in their right to marry a member of their same race (going back a few years). It's depending on how you're defining the right as to whether it's protected or not. Personally I say that the right is to be able to marry ANYONE who is legally an adult, and is able to give consent, regardless of anything. Others, like Objective J if I am remembering and reading correctly, argue that the right to marry any race/skin color is seperate from a right to marry any gender. Therefore allowing SSM is not granting equal rights but estabishing a new right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Though there are logical arguments against people of very close relation getting it on given the understanding of science and genetics.
    Those arguments are not applied consistantly though, especially in the light of the SSM arguments. What does our undersatnding of the genetic interaction of consangous(sp) couples have to do with couples where one or both are sterile or with couples who are the same gender? Your argument now fails.

    And there's arguments against polygamy given that almost every instance of polygamous society in the modern world has been one built on oppression, sexism, subjugation, and exile. Also Utah wasn't allowed into the Republic till it denounced polygamy; so there's precedent for that one.
    Only the ones that make the news. If there is no conflict then why should they report on it? However, let's now look at those marriages as shown on Sister Wives. Do those marriages look like they are built on oppression? Subjugation? Exile? Not unless you have definitions of these things that are way out there. Sexism? Well that one is open to a little more subjectiveness than the others, but is nowhere near what you see out of the religious whackos in Arizonia. I have no doubt that we could find families to be on Brother Husbands, but somehow I don't think the ratings would be enough to maintain it even through one season. Now there's sexism for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Polygamy actually has a much more straight-forward counter-argument: it often involves force. It should be illegal in any democracy for the same reason rape and slavery are.
    Polyamory is polygamy where the partners are equal.
    Do NOT even try this. You cannot take the example of a small group of people who are using the practice of polygamy, specifically polygyny, as an excuse to engage in reprehensible behavior as an indicator of the practice in and of itself. By that basis I can argue that marriage is equally bad based upon domestic violence.
    Polyamory is the practice of holding multiple relationships, some or all of which may or may not be marriage also. Polygamy is the practice of holding multiple marriages. Excluding any play partners/swinging partners I may have I could have a polygamous marriage to two wives and another husband and also have polyamorous relationships with yet another woman and another man. The marriage, which is obviously only social/religious in nature, is the key difference.

    There are many polygamous marriages among the polyamorous community. Granted some will only call it a polyamorous marriage, but they are still, by definition, polygamous. And personally find it offensive that you would use such a small group to paint the rest of us by. That is no better than calling all Muslims terrorist based on Al Qaeda.


    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    However, I oppose the reason for this compromise. No one in their right mind compromises with the losing party, they take their win and everything they can with it.
    Bad reasoning. Of course it can be better to compromise with the losing party:

    "Hey we're winning, but they are a compromise over the land."
    "No one in their right mind compromises with the losing party! We will take our win and everything we can with it."
    Later
    "Well we won. There is nothing left here that is usable and the land is ruined for decades. But we won!"

    Sometimes in trying to win it all you can destroy the very thing you are trying to win. Now is that what will/would happen in this case? Irrelavant to my point that you are making a bad argument in applying an absolute to a situational argument

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    Technically I could fly to whever you live now and probably marry you without any sort of romantic relationship. When SSM is allowed I could technically marry my best friend even though we don't have a non-romantic relationship.
    Did you mean to write it this way? The way I read it I would think that you meant either "...even though we have a non-romantic relationship." or "...even though we don't have a romantic relationship." Otherwise I don't see the point of the word "technically".

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    The state did not always recognize marriage as an institution. The reason they started to was in order to discriminate against people. And they're still doing it now.
    Incorrect. Governments throughout history, even the US's, have long since recognized marriages as an institution. They have not always tried to regulate it and issue licenses for it, but other laws were certainly in place since the early history of the US. So it has always been recognized.

    It's very similar to how the Church reconized marriage, but didn't try to regulate it until the 13th century under Pope Innocent III. Reconizing something and trying to control or place stricter controls on it are two seperate things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    The unrealistic rarely do.
    Nor do they provide answers when asked.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    Which is why SSM is in court. It's not legitimate to bar same sex and earlier, interracial couples from marriage. I have a problem with polygamous relationships. I don't believe it is in society's best interest to support them.
    I have a problem with interacial relationships. I don't believe it is in society's best interest to support them.

    I have a problem with same sex relationships. I don't believe it is in society's best interest to support them.

    Why is your argument any more valid for polygamous relationships that it is for interracial or same sex? Now if you want to argue that is logistically detremental to just up and eliminate the ban against outright it at this time, I can agree with you. A lot more would need to be done and figured out on a logistic legal basis before we could allow polygamy again. But your argument just falls flat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    There is no legal or social precedent to gut the whole idea of marriage merely to prevent gays from having access to it. Marriage has always been a legal status. Laws about property, inheritance, and sex have been affected my legal marital status for thousands of years. If someone wants to have a relationship with all of those legal elements, without marriage, they're welcome to fill out the paperwork. You can have a relationship and call yourself whatever you want. Marriage is a legal status, and destroying that status over some people's desire to keep the label for themselves is absurd.
    Not sure here. Are you arguing that marriage is only a legal status?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    No compromise. Firstly, the State has an interest in fostering a stable family life and stable relationships. Second of all, if the institution of marriage was fine for government intervention for this long, it should retain its existence with inclusion of homosexuals. There's no danger to it with their inclusion. Third, doing the second will send a signal to homosexuals everywhere that given the option between including them into the fold, not doing so, or endorsing a scorched earth policy, the United States was more willing to deny the existence of marriage than have homosexuals in their midst.

    Edit: It's also telling that those who oppose same sex marriage are the ones who are most in favor of not having marriage for anyone. It's the reckless policy choice answered in that cliche screenplay script from a madman: "If I can't have it, NO ONE CAN!"
    The state at best is only paying lip service to the concept of a stable family life and stable relationship. In a world of 55 hour marriages, can we really say that the state actually cares?

    As to the "scorched earth" policy, the "If I can't have it, NO ONE CAN!" stance would actually be the proponents of SSM and the opponents would be more like "If I can't have it as I define it, NO ONE CAN!"

    And the stuff posted after I started my responses:

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Interesting. Never been in the military? Separate standards for gender. Have you ever seen the entrance requirements for your local fire personnel - there are two separate but equal standards, one for men, one for women. Rinse and repeat for police.
    Hell we can go as simple as restrooms for "seperate but equal". Although given some of the nice stuff I've seen in women's restrooms, they seem a little more equal than men.

    However, I will say that if the wording and the weight of the two laws were exact except for one being titled "marriage" and the other being titled "civil union" then we don't have "seperate but equal". We have a difference of label.

Page 12 of 51 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... 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
  •