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 13 of 51 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 503

Thread: Same sex marriage compromise

  1. #121
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    07-25-13 @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,328

    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.
    But, "God" doesn't **** anyways, so what does he know about sex ?....................

  2. #122
    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
    I clearly explained why in the quote part of my post.
    So, we shouldn't consider a civil union a marriage because we should quote "maintain respect for the time-honored cultural tradition that belongs to OS couples"

    Should we have maintained "respect for the time-honored cultural tradition" of prohibition of interracial marriages?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    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".
    Should we have coined the phrase "intermarriage" between interracial couples since those marriage clearly showed a difference between the status quo?

  3. #123
    Advisor Lightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    07-14-13 @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    342

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Never, ever, ever, ever going to happen, nobody is going to vote to give up the benefits they get from being married.
    Thats what they said back in the 1800's and early 1900's about lifting a ban on segregation and interracial marriages. Hell, I would give up those benefits. The federal government has no legal basis whatsoever to decided what marriage is and what marriage is not. That's why I am willing to bet that DOMA will fall.
    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    -Benjamin Franklin

  4. #124
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,915

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post

    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.
    I didn't want to go into the reasons and derail my discussion with SmokeandMirrors.

    Polygamy is demonstrably bad for society and the women and children of polygamus unions, while SS and interracial marriage are not. Polygamy puts pressure on females to marry younger and to older men. Often more than one of the wives and her children are on welfare because the husband's salary is insufficient. Very often in Mormon compounds, young men are kicked out because they compete with older men for young wives.

  5. #125
    Advisor Lightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    07-14-13 @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    342

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by zstep18 View Post
    Not according to the 14th Amendment.

    Marriage isn't solely a religious institution.
    I don't recall the 14th saying anything about same-sex marriage....oh wait that's right it doesn't! It is a religious institution by the way. I would like for you to point where in the constitution it explicitly talks about marriage. Didn't think so.

    The 10th however, does say that each state retains the ability to cover portions of law that are not covered by the Constitution. I agree with Perotista, where he says that states will retain the ability to make their own decisions, and as SSM slowly becomes more accepted and adopted by states, the federal government will that decide that all states have to recognize these unions as such.
    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    -Benjamin Franklin

  6. #126
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by zstep18 View Post
    So, we shouldn't consider a civil union a marriage because we should quote "maintain respect for the time-honored cultural tradition that belongs to OS couples"
    Your question is erroneous in its assumption that a marriage isn't already a civil union domestic partnership from government's codified perspective.

    As codified by government, marriage, to government, historically is a civil union domestic partnership that is for "a man and a woman as husband and wife".


    Quote Originally Posted by zstep18 View Post
    Should we have maintained "respect for the time-honored cultural tradition" of prohibition of interracial marriages?
    Your question contains an oxymoron that invalidates it -- there never was a time-honored cultural tradition of prohibition of interracial marriage.

    The prohibition of interracial marriages occurred in small isolated pockets throughout humanity's global history and were never part of the definition of marriage.

    Regardless, at no time was the fundamental "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" ever anything but that in a marriage, and isolated pockets of violations did not have any meaning in the matter.


    Quote Originally Posted by zstep18 View Post
    Should we have coined the phrase "intermarriage" between interracial couples since those marriage clearly showed a difference between the status quo?
    Again, meaningless.

    You simply don't understand the origin of marriage in humanity throughout the globe, that it was foundationally and remains "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

    As long as the participants are "a man and a woman as husband and wife", whether inter-racially or not, it's a marriage.

    When the participants are no longer a man and a woman, but two men or two women, it's simply no longer a marriage.

    Thus, in the interest of making everyone happy, the latter should be called a homarriage, and afforded the same recognition/treatment by government and private enterprise as any form of civil union domestic partnership.
    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. #127
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    07-25-13 @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,328

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning View Post
    I don't recall the 14th saying anything about same-sex marriage....oh wait that's right it doesn't! It is a religious institution by the way. I would like for you to point where in the constitution it explicitly talks about marriage. Didn't think so.

    The 10th however, does say that each state retains the ability to cover portions of law that are not covered by the Constitution. I agree with Perotista, where he says that states will retain the ability to make their own decisions, and as SSM slowly becomes more accepted and adopted by states, the federal government will that decide that all states have to recognize these unions as such.
    And what ? Wait for Christians to "evolve" ? After 2013 years that can designated as a "pipe dream"................

  8. #128
    Advisor Lightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    07-14-13 @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    342

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by zstep18 View Post
    Why should it be separate but equal to "marriage"? Marriage is not solely a religious institution.
    Well actually it was and should be. The reason it is not today is because of the freaking inclination for humans to stick their noses on others business. Otherwise we would not be having this conversation today.
    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    -Benjamin Franklin

  9. #129
    Advisor Lightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    07-14-13 @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    342

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by zstep18 View Post
    So, we shouldn't consider a civil union a marriage because we should quote "maintain respect for the time-honored cultural tradition that belongs to OS couples"

    Should we have maintained "respect for the time-honored cultural tradition" of prohibition of interracial marriages?



    Should we have coined the phrase "intermarriage" between interracial couples since those marriage clearly showed a difference between the status quo?
    The thing is you're using the same argument that Mr. Olson was using at the hearings held by the SCOTUS, where he was using Loving v. Virginia as support. And like Justice Scalia said, they are completely different issues which do not entail the same things. You're trying to use a limited precedent set by the SCOTUS to eliminate racism and to eliminate the constant labeling of people who are not white inferior to society, to sexual preference by certain individuals.
    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    -Benjamin Franklin

  10. #130
    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
    Your question is erroneous in its assumption that a marriage isn't already a civil union domestic partnership from government's codified perspective.

    As codified by government, marriage, to government, historically is a civil union domestic partnership that is for "a man and a woman as husband and wife".



    Your question contains an oxymoron that invalidates it -- there never was a time-honored cultural tradition of prohibition of interracial marriage.

    The prohibition of interracial marriages occurred in small isolated pockets throughout humanity's global history and were never part of the definition of marriage.

    Regardless, at no time was the fundamental "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" ever anything but that in a marriage, and isolated pockets of violations did not have any meaning in the matter.



    Again, meaningless.

    You simply don't understand the origin of marriage in humanity throughout the globe, that it was foundationally and remains "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

    As long as the participants are "a man and a woman as husband and wife", whether inter-racially or not, it's a marriage.

    When the participants are no longer a man and a woman, but two men or two women, it's simply no longer a marriage.

    Thus, in the interest of making everyone happy, the latter should be called a homarriage, and afforded the same recognition/treatment by government and private enterprise as any form of civil union domestic partnership.
    So, when did this "origin of marriage in humanity throughout the globe" originate?

    The Greeks had homosexual relations.

    If you want to go into the Bible, we can definitely talk about what the Bible has said about marriage.

Page 13 of 51 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... 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
  •