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 42 of 51 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 503

Thread: Same sex marriage compromise

  1. #411
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,376

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    So you support discriminating against people based on marital status.
    No, I support people learning how to read. I do support discriminating against nonsense.

  2. #412
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
    No....
    Yes you do, read what you wrote:
    Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
    None of the above. I support nationally recognized civil unions for any two consenting adults.
    So if a man marries a bisexual woman, and they decide later to add another woman to their union, you would discriminate against them.

    Religious bigotry a it's finest.

  3. #413
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,376

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Yes you do, read what you wrote:

    So if a man marries a bisexual woman, and they decide later to add another woman to their union, you would discriminate against them.

    Religious bigotry a it's finest.
    Clearly you want to have your own conversation and misread what I have to say. I said nothing about sexual orientation and I said nothing about how I would react to more than two people joining together. I also said nothing about religion.

    If you have a question about what I wrote, go ahead an ask and not make things up.

    Here is a start: a mother and a grown child are two consenting adults, are you saying that they should be able for have a nationally recognized civil union? My response, yes.

    How do you feel about my response, Jerry from SD who likes to overly interpret what people write?

  4. #414
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
    Clearly you want to have your own conversation and misread what I have to say. I said nothing about sexual orientation and I said nothing about how I would react to more than two people joining together. I also said nothing about religion.

    If you have a question about what I wrote, go ahead an ask and not make things up.

    Here is a start: a mother and a grown child are two consenting adults, are you saying that they should be able for have a nationally recognized civil union? My response, yes.

    How do you feel about my response, Jerry from SD who likes to overly interpret what people write?
    You want to limit marriage to 2 people: that's discrimination against marital status and against religion, since Native Americans and Muslims regularly practice polygamy.

    Instead of focusing on gays only, we should go ahead and allow every kind of marriage which isn't otherwise harmful. Focusing on gay marriage is like going back to Loving v. Virginia and allowing whites to only marry blacks but not any other race. That's bigoted. If we need to set some reasonable limits, that's fine, but the limit of '2' isn't reasonable. A minimum age is reasonable. Being of sound mind is reasonable. Completing pre-marital counseling is reasonable. Pre-marital blood tests and sharing the results with your partner is reasonable. The limit of '2' is arbitrary and unfounded.
    Last edited by Jerry; 03-29-13 at 01:21 PM.

  5. #415
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,017

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    You want to limit marriage to 2 people: that's discrimination against marital status and against religion, since Native Americans and Muslims regularly practice polygamy.

    Instead of focusing on gays only, we should go ahead and allow every kind of marriage which isn't otherwise harmful. Focusing on gay marriage is like going back to Loving v. Virginia and allowing whites to only marry blacks but not any other race. That's bigoted. If we need to set some reasonable limits, that's fine, but the limit of '2' isn't reasonable. A minimum age is reasonable. Being of sound mind is reasonable. Completing pre-marital counseling is reasonable. Pre-marital blood tests and sharing the results with your partner is reasonable. The limit of '2' is arbitrary and unfounded.
    I think polygamy is a fair issue to tackle after gay marriage is settled. It contains its own points that need to be addressed independently, or else the whole topic is muddied.

  6. #416
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    I think polygamy is a fair issue to tackle after gay marriage is settled. It contains its own points that need to be addressed independently, or else the whole topic is muddied.
    That's fine, but then same-sex marriage can't be called "marriage equality", because equality isn't what same-sex marriage accomplishes.

  7. #417
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,017

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    That's fine, but then same-sex marriage can't be called "marriage equality", because equality isn't what same-sex marriage accomplishes.
    And as I said it's a fair point. One that can be handled after this issue has been settled.

  8. #418
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    MI and AZ
    Last Seen
    03-15-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,581

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    What the ‘government’ provides to and for marriage is an effective contract between two people if the marriage is registered with the government by following the government’s process and rules. It is assumed by most that married people have done this. We have. What we got was from the state was a contract between us and also defined how others (private companies, governments, individuals selling us a house, etc.) deal with us. We could do the same without a government marriage contract by finding a lawyer that would develop a contract for us that would do the same. It would cost thousands and if we were honest we would have to inform many, like our banks, that we aren’t married via an effective state contract; but, rather our own contract and here it is. It would be at least a 50 page document and would cost thousands. It was great that we could take advantage of what the government is providing us at such a low cost to everyone. Why a same sex couple can’t use the same government process that they pay for via their taxes isn’t logical or fair.

  9. #419
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by OhIsee.Then View Post
    What the ‘government’ provides to and for marriage is an effective contract between two people if the marriage is registered with the government by following the government’s process and rules. It is assumed by most that married people have done this. We have. What we got was from the state was a contract between us and also defined how others (private companies, governments, individuals selling us a house, etc.) deal with us. We could do the same without a government marriage contract by finding a lawyer that would develop a contract for us that would do the same. It would cost thousands and if we were honest we would have to inform many, like our banks, that we aren’t married via an effective state contract; but, rather our own contract and here it is. It would be at least a 50 page document and would cost thousands. It was great that we could take advantage of what the government is providing us at such a low cost to everyone. Why a same sex couple can’t use the same government process that they pay for via their taxes isn’t logical or fair.
    What makes you think it would be a 50 page document that would cost thousands?

    Mine is a 6 page document that cost $100; it's a living and final will, establishes a medical proxy and a power of attorney. It lays everything out. I guess if I had property or a business there would be a couple more pages and a little higher price tag to prepare it, but if I have property and/or a business then that little extra isn't going be an obstacle.

    Please tell us where you're getting your information from.

  10. #420
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Mine is a 6 page document that cost $100; it's a living and final will, establishes a medical proxy and a power of attorney. It lays everything out. I guess if I had property or a business there would be a couple more pages and a little higher price tag to prepare it, but if I have property and/or a business then that little extra isn't going be an obstacle


    A living will is a good idea for everyone, whether you are married, living with a partner, or single.

    What a living can't give unmarried gay partners is access to each others Social Security, insurance from work, and etc.

    That's where marriage comes in.

    I don't see any non-religious reason to deny gay people the right to marry. Especially when you consider the 1st Amendment, looks like a slam dunk to me.

    Denying committed gay people the right to marry is intolerant, and based on religious ideas.

    That's the way I see it, and I've been happily (Most of the time) married to my female wife for about 20 years. I see no reason to deny anyone the same rights that I have. Of course the fact that I'm a Secular Humanist has a lot to do with my attitude, I don't have some guy in the sky telling me what I should or shouldn't do.



    "Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

Page 42 of 51 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... 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
  •