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 30 of 51 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 503

Thread: Same sex marriage compromise

  1. #291
    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 Cardinal View Post
    No? Are you saying that things don't change?
    I'm clearly saying that your over-generalization lacks the specificity for it to be relevant.

    Your approach would validate puposeful global destruction and the extermination of our species and other similar ludicrous events based on "that's change!".

    Ridiculous.
    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?

  2. #292
    Guru
    Smeagol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 11:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,147

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    That's just the way it goes. Without the Federal government to validate it, any state can invalidate it.
    I'd okay with both the federal, state and any government considering marriage a private matter just like you don't get a state issued Baptism, Confirmation or Bar Mitzvah license.
    Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011

  3. #293
    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 Paschendale View Post
    Fun fact: I don't want to lose my right to legal married status just so some religious people can own a word. They have no right to take that away from me in order to cement a superior position in society that they are not constitutionally entitled to in the first place. They have no right to demand exclusive access to that status for only those they approve of. Religion and the religious have no special right to shape our society, government, or law over everyone else. The medical and psychological evidence is in. Homosexuality is not a disease or mental damage. The sociological evidence is in. Children do just as well from same sex households. The legal precedents are in. Marriage is a fundamental right in this country, protected by the constitution. No one has the right to take that away, nor to demand destruction of that right because they don't get to exclusively control it anymore. The time for compromise is long past.
    The reality that "marriage" is "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" has been such since just before the agricultural revolution over 12,000 years ago, and has, understandably, remained such to this day.

    Obviously, the reality of what marriage is -- between a man and a woman as husband and wife -- predates the Bible, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc., all religion, and was never a religious matter.

    As to the rest of your inaccuracies, both transsexulity and homosexuality are birth defects, without question, though that's neither here nor there with regard to marriage being "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

    And, it is most crystal clear as I've documented multiple times in these recent threads that SS couples damage OS children's later adult romantic relationships due to aberrant romantic role-modeling by the SS parents for OS kids, romantic role-modeling that is unconsciously inculcated and emerges dysfunctionally when those kids are adults.

    In addition, kids of SS couples have a higher suicide rate and other psychopathologies, as I referenced in the other thread about the damage SS couples do to kids, referencing the current study that validates that reality.

    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?

  4. #294
    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 rocket88 View Post
    Actually, the 14th Amendment says "privileges or immunities," not rights. As marriage is a privilege that is recognized as special by the government, I don't see how they can deprive people of this "privilege" within the 14th Amendment.

    While I understand your argument about the 10th, the 10th Amendment does not make the rest of the document irrelevant. I'm fine with certain states not allowing SSM on some level, but the Federal Government has no jurisdiction over marriage. It's also hard to jive "privileges and immunities" clause with denying that privilege to certain citizens because you don't like what they do with their genitalia.
    If you plan on commenting please read everything that person has said on this poll. As I've said before no one honestly cares if you are a man and you like penis. I do have a problem with the blatant disregard for the constitution and the boundaries it has set for the government. I have also said before that the federal government has no constitutional basis to define or legislate on marriage. DOMA and all other unconstitutional marriage laws were created by the bureaucracy and until now were left unchallenged. Hopefully the SCOTUS will make such laws unconstitutional, making all of this upheaval moot.
    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    -Benjamin Franklin

  5. #295
    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
    Fun fact: I don't want to lose my right to legal married status just so some religious people can own a word. They have no right to take that away from me in order to cement a superior position in society that they are not constitutionally entitled to in the first place. They have no right to demand exclusive access to that status for only those they approve of. Religion and the religious have no special right to shape our society, government, or law over everyone else. The medical and psychological evidence is in. Homosexuality is not a disease or mental damage. The sociological evidence is in. Children do just as well from same sex households. The legal precedents are in. Marriage is a fundamental right in this country, protected by the constitution. No one has the right to take that away, nor to demand destruction of that right because they don't get to exclusively control it anymore. The time for compromise is long past.
    For a law student, you sure do have extremely poor grammar. Just thought I'd point that out. Good day sir.
    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    -Benjamin Franklin

  6. #296
    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 disneydude View Post
    And if California tried to outlaw guns....guess what.....the Supremacy clause would prohibit it. As for marriage being a fundamental right....see Loving v. Virginia. Supreme Court.
    Wrong about Loving v. Virginia. Justice Scalia pointed this out in oral arguments on tuesday...As I've said 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.
    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    -Benjamin Franklin

  7. #297
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,140

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning View Post
    If you plan on commenting please read everything that person has said on this poll. As I've said before no one honestly cares if you are a man and you like penis. I do have a problem with the blatant disregard for the constitution and the boundaries it has set for the government. I have also said before that the federal government has no constitutional basis to define or legislate on marriage. DOMA and all other unconstitutional marriage laws were created by the bureaucracy and until now were left unchallenged. Hopefully the SCOTUS will make such laws unconstitutional, making all of this upheaval moot.
    If you're going to quote someone, respond to what they said. It's all about the 14th Amendment extending "privileges and immunities." What the SC can do is tell a state that they are bound to the 14th Amendment and cannot exclude certain people from a privilege if they are going to extend it to anyone.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  8. #298
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Locker rooms and bathrooms are more mutually agreed upon, so the same standard might not apply, but they also serve a purpose beyond mere separation, that is, protecting women from rape by giving them a safe place to do those things. It is not that discrimination is always unconstitutional, but that it is prohibited without a compelling purpose. The same is true of sports teams. Separate teams for males and females is intended to promote fairness, similar to weight classes in boxing.
    Not quite. Separate bathrooms and locker rooms are to protect one gender from the other seeing them naked. That's the basic motive involved. Sports now are not just separated to promote fairness. AND they are separated in the public arena - schools. Their sports are even funded separately. Remember Title IX? That's the definition of separate yet equal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    I'm not aware of any jobs with separate standards between genders where appearance is not a part of the job (which is why you won't find male waiters at Hooters, for example), but if they are, they would be discriminatory without some compelling purpose behind them. Separation for the mere purpose of separation is unconstitutional.
    Fire fighters, police, military and I'm sure there's more, that's just off the top of my head.

  9. #299
    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 rocket88 View Post
    If you're going to quote someone, respond to what they said. It's all about the 14th Amendment extending "privileges and immunities." What the SC can do is tell a state that they are bound to the 14th Amendment and cannot exclude certain people from a privilege if they are going to extend it to anyone.
    Ok oh wise one, how is it that marriage has become a privilege protected under the Constitution of the U.S. of A?
    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    -Benjamin Franklin

  10. #300
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning View Post
    Wrong about Loving v. Virginia. Justice Scalia pointed this out in oral arguments on tuesday...As I've said 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.
    LOL....you are relying on Scalia? Sorry...but Scalia has been wrong more often than he has been right. Loving v. Virginia, although an inter-racial marriage case recognized that the right to marry is a "Fundamental right". It then went on to say that since the right to marry is a "Fundamental right" the state must have a compelling interest in any prohbition imposed. It wasn't until this point that the court addressed the racial aspect of the case.

    It doesn't change the fact that the SCOTUS now has legal precedent to follow recognizing marriage as a fundamental right. The issue before the court is whether the government has an interest that justifies disparate treatment of same sex couples in that institution.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

Page 30 of 51 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... 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
  •