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 27 of 51 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 503

Thread: Same sex marriage compromise

  1. #261
    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 disneydude View Post
    No it isnt. That has always been my argument.
    If you say so.

  2. #262
    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 Cyrylek View Post
    Now, there are plenty of people who think of "marriage" as somethng entirely different: a sacrament. Not a contract between two people, but a communion between two people and a deity. Let them think whatever they think, and let them have the word, for crying out loud! What's the damage?
    So why can't it be both? It's both right now. It's very difficult not to hear this "government out of marriage" answer as wanting to change what marriage is so gays can't join the party. You say let the religious have the word marriage, but why do they deserve it more than the secular or gays? It's still asserting special treatment for one group other another.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  3. #263
    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 Henrin View Post
    What do you mean no authority? The contract is the governments contract and their terms are the ones that must be followed. If that is not authority then exactly what is? If I write a contract for my employees do I not come up with the terms of that contract? Yes, and by doing so that does give me a certain level of authority.
    The contract is between individuals, not the government. It is filed so as to affirm the contract, not to give the government anything. I may get a break on my taxes, again for encouragement, but the government doesn't control it in any real way. In fact, you don't even have to register it, or officially marry. But you may, and are encouraged to have stable relationships that build family and community. Horrible stuff, I know, but hardly heavy handed government interference.

    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.

  4. #264
    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 Boo Radley View Post
    The contract is between individuals, not the government. It is filed so as to affirm the contract, not to give the government anything. I may get a break on my taxes, again for encouragement, but the government doesn't control it in any real way. In fact, you don't even have to register it, or officially marry. But you may, and are encouraged to have stable relationships that build family and community. Horrible stuff, I know, but hardly heavy handed government interference.
    You really can't be serious. They are the party that has complete control on the terms of the contract and is the arbiter of all things contained in that contract. How is that not authority and control over marriage? You can't really cover any more angles of the contract, sorry.

  5. #265
    Guru
    Cyrylek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Boston
    Last Seen
    02-05-17 @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    So why can't it be both? It's both right now. It's very difficult not to hear this "government out of marriage" answer as wanting to change what marriage is so gays can't join the party. You say let the religious have the word marriage, but why do they deserve it more than the secular or gays? It's still asserting special treatment for one group other another.
    What "party"? There's no party to join.

    I am married for a long time now. We (two atheists coming from dramatically different cultural backgrounds) never had bothered to register our relationship with any government or church. She doesn't need a sanction from the Japanese consulate or any Shinto temple to be what she is to me; and I don't need a certificate from Uncle Sam (or any Sam's mini-mes on the municipal level), or from the RCC - despite being ("genetically, historically") as Catholic as they get.

    If at some point we decide to formalize our union, for whatever reason, why should we insist on the uniform semantics?

    (Not that I can imagine any such necessity: my will and all corollary papers are in good order, and the rest of our de facto family is taken care of).

  6. #266
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    Only you haven't specified what you offer instead.
    It's the governments business when it ends and dissolution of accumulated assets have to be divvied up and one side, isn't so keen to share equally. Then a court (the state) becomes involved.
    This is a nonsensical "debate" topic. Courts have to decide divisions of property and parental rights towards children of parents and legal guardians who aren't married all the time. The existence of a marriage license rarely is relevant, but when it is then statutes explain what the relevancy is.

    Divisions of property and issues of children should be exactly the same - whether the parents are married or not, straight or gay, and in terms of property however many people are in the failed relationship.

    Courts decide all manners of civil disputes without specific statutes, and if there are no specific statutes then the principles of "common law" is the relevant law for the court to use.

    Courts involving in the economics and parentage issues in relationship break ups is NO reason for government to be involved in deciding what relationships are allowed, rewarded, punished or will be recognized by government - no more than the government has any reason to involve in private contracts - though will decide contract disputes later if brought to court.

  7. #267
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,945
    Blog Entries
    25

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    So why can't it be both? It's both right now. It's very difficult not to hear this "government out of marriage" answer as wanting to change what marriage is so gays can't join the party. You say let the religious have the word marriage, but why do they deserve it more than the secular or gays? It's still asserting special treatment for one group other another.
    In the western world marriage was a church affair for thousands of years. Here in the U.S. the state or states didn’t really get involved in marriage or begin keeping records until the mid 1800’s. Marriages were recorded in the family bible and the church in which the ceremony was performed. The state of Kentucky was the last state to start keeping track or recording who was married around 1916. Until that time, this a church function.

    It was the 16th amendment which allowed the income tax to become legal where being married actually resulted in a benefit. The amendment was ratified in 1913. As for inheritance, wills ruled the day and still do. There are still many very religious people and some churches who will not recognize you ware married unless it was in a church ceremony.

    So in reality, those who are not married in a church ceremony with the churches blessing are still viewed as living in sin. Those of us married outside of the church one could say we have a civil union. A civil union recognized by the states and the federal government for income tax purposes. But we have continued to use the term marriage.
    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.

  8. #268
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Why would they be weaker? Is the law all of a sudden going to mean less?

    Your second line is just... you know, you should try reading what I post.
    1.) because if marriage is abolished they will have to use the new system that is currently factually weaker, has already discussed those other contracts are not as binding in court has marriage has been in history
    2.) that doesnt answer the question

    do you honestly think goverment can abolish marriage, replace it with other contracts nd get it right even in 10 years?
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  9. #269
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,170

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) because if marriage is abolished they will have to use the new system that is currently factually weaker, has already discussed those other contracts are not as binding in court has marriage has been in history
    2.) that doesnt answer the question

    do you honestly think goverment can abolish marriage, replace it with other contracts nd get it right even in 10 years?
    You have some kind of legal apocalypse going on in your head that has nothing to do with what I proposed.

    There is no reason it would or needs to be weaker. And you haven't even explained what that means.

    All it has to do is remove all of the qualifiers on getting married, as a start.

    And by the way, when the hell did "it's too haaard" become a good argument, even assuming it actually was that hard?

  10. #270
    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
    1. Ok.
    2. It's easier to dissolve than co-habitating.
    3. What? No they don't in messy divorces. In order for a judge to properly dispense a settlement, they have to know when a relationship was established in order to determine the fair share each litigant is entitled. As in the example I was gave that you responded to. If spouse A agreed to put Spouse B through school with the understanding they would then share in the increased earning power of Spouse B and then is offered a settlement much less, it goes to court. If they aren't married, then A will have one whopper of a time establishing claim to those shared assets to the court (state).
    4. No. The court will be forced to review the paper. I can't believe you are being this obtuse. Have you never had to or know someone who had to provide proof of ownership or share in property? The judge doesn't take your word for it. A marriage certificate cuts to the chase.
    5. Marriage confers government benefits, in and of itself? Like the marriage penalty tax? Is that what you mean?
    All your arguments amount to "it's hard". All the things you mentioned happen all the time outside of a marriage contract and to the most part its not really all that much harder. Sure, certain parts are harder, but its still is something courts do all the time and are perfectly capable of handling without a government issued marriage contract.

Page 27 of 51 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... 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
  •