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 18 of 51 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 503

Thread: Same sex marriage compromise

  1. #171
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,125

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by penn1954 View Post
    I'm thinking civil union? All the tax bennies etc.but no marriage certificate!

    The govt probably has no business in it anyway.As a christian I do not

    believe in gay marriage-but I don't make it my business.

    Hate the sin but love the sinner!
    .....and, of course, as a Christian, you and I do not believe in divorce. Hate the sin love the sinner.

    As homosexuality and divorce/re-marriage are both explicitly called out as wrong within the Bible, I'm not sure there is any more Biblical argument for (or against) one than the other. In other words, from a strictly Biblical perspective, our laws are inconsistent with regard to marriage.
    Last edited by upsideguy; 03-27-13 at 12:41 AM.

  2. #172
    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 Paschendale View Post
    Which is exactly what separate but equal means. And that is an unconstitutional approach.



    Oh look, a complete lack of understanding of constitutional jurisprudence.
    Oh yeah that's right because including marriage under the 14th is the benign wisdom of the universe and displays complete understanding of reality. It is also ridiculous for the "SOCIALIST" to even mention the constitution.

    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.
    OK???? I have made no mention of MY religion, or anything dealing with? Can you read? DO you have your glasses on?


    So keep your nose and your state government out of my business and my rights.
    My nose is out of your business. If you like to smoke poles, by all means brother go ahead. I really don't care. State government?? I really don't understand you're argument here? In fact, there is no argument, it sounds like you're a zealous high school student who has no understanding of debate or the Constitution, which is kind of a DUH since you are a "Socialist". It is becoming clearer that you either cannot read or you do not have your glasses on because I am advocating complete dissolution of government from marriage. It's obvious you're cherry-picking and not taking the argument as a whole.



    And yet you think that Christians can shove their will down the throats of their neighbors.
    And why should it be the reverse. Look the facts don't lie, 41 states still disapprove and you are naive to believe that th reason behind that is Christianity and its followers

    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.
    You obviously have no constitutional understanding as I've stated before, 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.

    Stop cherry picking and become informed before you become an inflamed zealot please.
    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    -Benjamin Franklin

  3. #173
    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 Bonzai View Post
    You're just arguing FOR mob rule.................If it's ok in one case, than it's cool all the time.....................
    Holy sheep **** batman we've been through this before bonzai in earlier posts. How is it any different in the reverse??
    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    -Benjamin Franklin

  4. #174
    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 Boo Radley View Post
    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.
    It is in fact extremely different Boo Radley. We're talking about racism vs. sexual taste/preference.
    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    -Benjamin Franklin

  5. #175
    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
    Oh yeah that's right because including marriage under the 14th is the benign wisdom of the universe and displays complete understanding of reality. It is also ridiculous for the "SOCIALIST" to even mention the constitution.



    OK???? I have made no mention of MY religion, or anything dealing with? Can you read? DO you have your glasses on?




    My nose is out of your business. If you like to smoke poles, by all means brother go ahead. I really don't care. State government?? I really don't understand you're argument here? In fact, there is no argument, it sounds like you're a zealous high school student who has no understanding of debate or the Constitution, which is kind of a DUH since you are a "Socialist". It is becoming clearer that you either cannot read or you do not have your glasses on because I am advocating complete dissolution of government from marriage. It's obvious you're cherry-picking and not taking the argument as a whole.





    And why should it be the reverse. Look the facts don't lie, 41 states still disapprove and you are naive to believe that th reason behind that is Christianity and its followers



    You obviously have no constitutional understanding as I've stated before, 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.

    Stop cherry picking and become informed before you become an inflamed zealot please.
    Gee, I wonder who else's "rights" should be thrown to the discretion of the mob ?.......................

  6. #176
    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
    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?
    Nor did I say that we should. Again you are butting into a conversation you don't understand...

    In relation to the emboldened quote, I would like for you provide that text for me please, since I have never ran across that.
    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    -Benjamin Franklin

  7. #177
    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 Bonzai View Post
    Gee, I wonder who else's "rights" should be thrown to the discretion of the mob ?.......................
    HAHA I'm trying to understand whether you're intentionally ignoring every time I point out the flaws in your logic and if you're intentionally trying to annoy me or not? Because clearly Paschendale was not in any way wrong about anything he said....
    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    -Benjamin Franklin

  8. #178
    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 Lightning View Post
    My nose is out of your business. If you like to smoke poles, by all means brother go ahead. I really don't care. State government?? I really don't understand you're argument here? In fact, there is no argument, it sounds like you're a zealous high school student who has no understanding of debate or the Constitution, which is kind of a DUH since you are a "Socialist".

    You obviously have no constitutional understanding as I've stated before, 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.
    Actually, I'm a third year law student (graduating in 6 weeks), who will be published in the upcoming law review and has written legislation that was enacted into law in the District of Columbia. What's your extensive legal and judicial experience again? Have you even read Lawrence or Griswold? Do you plan to cite some precedent to support your 10th amendment claim?
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  9. #179
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,010

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Which is exactly what separate but equal means. And that is an unconstitutional approach.
    Sorry but I will have to disagree with you here. If I have two books that are exactly the same in content but one is titled "Marriage" and the other is titled "Civil Union" they are still exactly the same book. If I give you an orange and I have an orange, but my orange is called "Civil Union" while yours is called "Marriage", but otherwise they are are exactly the same right down to weight, size, color, etc. Then they are still the same

    Now I will agree with you that pretty much anything that occurred during the Jim Crow era was unconstitutional, and despite being labeled "separate but equal", they were anything but. I am NOT talking about doing anything like that. I'm talking about taking marriage law, photocopying it, and then taking whiteout to the top of one and relabeling it "Civil Union". Not separate but equal. Same with a different cover.

    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.
    And Judaism has been around a lot longer than the 1st century as have other religions/spiritual beliefs. Your point? Marriage has been a part of multiple religions throughout history and has NOT always been just man and woman. Mainly, yes; always no. Marriage was around BEFORE Christianity in civil, religious (non-specific) and societal forms. Christianity did not have marriage as part of their doctrine UNTIL the 13th century. They allowed people to marry, but it wasn't part of their oversight.

    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.
    I am noting that your argument of one group pushing a belief set (and I'm not talking religiously) on another larger one is invalid UNLESS you can maintain that argument across the board. By your argument, then if 4/5 of the country wants blacks enslaved as non-citizens, who are the other 1/5 to push freedom and citizenship of the blacks on the rest? And then by that same argument, what happens when the amount of people wanted SSM becomes 51%? Do you accede then that it is time to allow SSM?

  10. #180
    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
    HAHA I'm trying to understand whether you're intentionally ignoring every time I point out the flaws in your logic and if you're intentionally trying to annoy me or not? Because clearly Paschendale was not in any way wrong about anything he said....
    You really don't get it.................If it's ok to commit a crime against me, then it's ok to commit a crime against anyone.......................

Page 18 of 51 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... 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
  •