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 17 of 51 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 503

Thread: Same sex marriage compromise

  1. #161
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,010

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    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.
    First off what you are having issue with is polygyny; one man many wives. Polyandry, BTW is one woman, many husbands and polygamy is simply many marriages, with no emphasis on either gender/role.

    Secondly, well instead of reyping it I'll quote myself. (with reference to what I responded to):
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    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 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning View Post
    Well actually it was (religious) 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.
    The one word marriage covers three seperate institutions; religious, civil and societal, although it could be argued that religious is a subset of societal. You can have any one without the other two, or even any two with out the third. The normative is to have all three, with note that there are more people who are religious, with a range from Wicca to Christianity to whatever, then atheist. While religion as a general idea has been interwoven with marriage throughout history, not all the instituions have dealt with marriage at all times. As I noted earlier, the Christian Church didn't make marriage a part of its overview until the 13th century. In China, where ancestor worship vice any religion per se' was practiced, they had a tradition of ghost marriages whereby the one spouse was married to a person already deceased. Sorry but marriage has its origins as all three institutions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    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".
    Marriage has long been about power and property. It is only recently, historically speaking that marriage has been about love. Yes typically marriage is between a man and a woman because that is what also produced heirs. But there have been occasions in our history when a marriage was granted between members of the same gender or even members of the same family, not for the purpose of producing heirs, but to designate the heir and transfer money and power.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning View Post
    You just proved my point.....if the mob, in this case the LGBT community wants things to be a certain way, than the rights of over 4/5 of the country's state which currently do not support the LEGALIZATION of gay marriage will be chucked out the window just because you do not want it to be that way. "To hell with the Constitution" is all I see coming from your posts.
    So then if 4/5 of the country want to say that blacks are not considered citizens, and thus are not afforded the protections of the Constitution then that is what should be?

  2. #162
    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
    Marriage began a long time ago, tracing its roots to before the agrarian revolution during which it really spread everywhere on the globe, long before religion, long before the Greeks.

    From then, through now, "marriage" was created specifically being only between a man and a woman as husband and wife, and for understandable reasons.

    The Greeks, what they allegedly did and likely didn't do, are irrelevant.

    The Bible, with regard to what marriage was before and after the Biblical writers, is also irrelevant.

    You continue to bring up irrelevancies, likely as subterfuge, to obfuscate by focusing on these irrelvancies, for the purpose of supporting your pre-conceived ideology's mindset on SS committed romantic relationships.
    What I am saying is I really don't care what was "tradition" for so many years. Slavery was "tradition", violence against women was "tradition", so what? Saying that SSM should be outlawed because it's "tradition" is rather ridiculous. There were many "traditions" which were outright wrong.

  3. #163
    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
    The same is to be said of you... in fact most of the world would probably disagree with your distaste of western law. Just goes to show who really is right... I mean unless you're calling over half of the inhabitants on this planet complete idiots who got everything wrong. Western principles have shortfalls, but they're leagues and light years away from anything else this world has been able to muster.
    Don't underestimate the harshness of my judgements towards " over half of the inhabitants on this planet"..................

  4. #164
    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 Lightning View Post
    Master zstep18 says "Denying same-marriage is prohibited under the 14th Amendment, and therefore, does not fall under the 10th Amendment.... and its that way because I say so!!!"..... all while offering no valid reasoning behind his statements.
    How about because the 14th Amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    The 10th Amendment says those rights not prohibited by the Constitution to the states, are reserved to the states. The rights under the 14th Amendment are not reserved to the states.

  5. #165
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    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.
    Which is exactly what separate but equal means. And that is an unconstitutional approach.

    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! I would like for you to point where in the constitution it explicitly talks about marriage. Didn't think so.
    Oh look, a complete lack of understanding of constitutional jurisprudence.

    It is a religious institution by the way.
    Your religion is not grounds to control my ability to marry. Marriage is older than your religion and is not shaped by it. What Christians think of marriage has no standing in American law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning View Post
    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.
    So keep your nose and your state government out of my business and my rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning View Post
    You're allowed to do whatever the hell you please. You are not and should not be allowed to shove your will and the will of the LGBT down the throats of regions around the country that do not support it.
    And yet you think that Christians can shove their will down the throats of their neighbors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning View Post
    Master zstep18 says "Denying same-marriage is prohibited under the 14th Amendment, and therefore, does not fall under the 10th Amendment.... and its that way because I say so!!!"..... all while offering no valid reasoning behind his statements.
    Loving v. Virginia, Lawrence v. Texas, Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, and Romer v. Evans. Now you cite some precedent that supports your 10th amendment claims and your view that the federal government cannot protect SSM.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  6. #166
    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 maquiscat View Post
    The one word marriage covers three seperate institutions; religious, civil and societal, although it could be argued that religious is a subset of societal. You can have any one without the other two, or even any two with out the third. The normative is to have all three, with note that there are more people who are religious, with a range from Wicca to Christianity to whatever, then atheist. While religion as a general idea has been interwoven with marriage throughout history, not all the instituions have dealt with marriage at all times. As I noted earlier, the Christian Church didn't make marriage a part of its overview until the 13th century. In China, where ancestor worship vice any religion per se' was practiced, they had a tradition of ghost marriages whereby the one spouse was married to a person already deceased. Sorry but marriage has its origins as all three institutions.


    So then if 4/5 of the country want to say that blacks are not considered citizens, and thus are not afforded the protections of the Constitution then that is what should be?
    Well for one, Christianity has been around since the 1st century, with the later coming of Catholicism further instituting the practices of Christianity. Marriage has been part of Christianity since the bible was written.

    Secondly, you are confusing the right to codify sexual preference which is what we are talking about here, to the elimination of racism in this country. Two completely different things.
    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    -Benjamin Franklin

  7. #167
    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
    How about because the 14th Amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    The 10th Amendment says those rights not prohibited by the Constitution to the states, are reserved to the states. The rights under the 14th Amendment are not reserved to the states.
    Yeah because like I and others have said for about 4 million times now, the 14th amendment CLEARLY includes marriage.
    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    -Benjamin Franklin

  8. #168
    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
    Well for one, Christianity has been around since the 1st century, with the later coming of Catholicism further instituting the practices of Christianity. Marriage has been part of Christianity since the bible was written.

    Secondly, you are confusing the right to codify sexual preference which is what we are talking about here, to the elimination of racism in this country. Two completely different things.
    You're just arguing FOR mob rule.................If it's ok in one case, than it's cool all the time.....................

  9. #169
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning View Post
    Well for one, Christianity has been around since the 1st century, with the later coming of Catholicism further instituting the practices of Christianity. Marriage has been part of Christianity since the bible was written.

    Secondly, you are confusing the right to codify sexual preference which is what we are talking about here, to the elimination of racism in this country. Two completely different things.
    Not that large a difference. Choosing to marry someone of a different race isn't that. Much different than choosing someone of the same gender. Discrimination against both has largely been unjust, unfair, and oppressive.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  10. #170
    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 Lightning View Post
    Well for one, Christianity has been around since the 1st century, with the later coming of Catholicism further instituting the practices of Christianity. Marriage has been part of Christianity since the bible was written.
    We probably shouldn't go by what marriage means in the Bible.


    Or should we not get into the fact that the Bible says that a virgin who is raped must marry the rapist?

Page 17 of 51 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... 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
  •