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 43 of 51 FirstFirst ... 334142434445 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 430 of 503

Thread: Same sex marriage compromise

  1. #421
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,383

    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.
    Again, you are overreaching and attempting to characterize what I said. I made statement and you immediately jump to what YOU think I am against. I make no statement about polygamy or any other group arrangement because I haven't given it a thought. Just because you may feel persecuted because you can't have a football team as partners, don't assume that I'm in the group persecuting you. Even if I think you are just trolling the subject nothing I have written gives you the right to give me opinions that I've never made. You've stated your opinion about groups, I choose not to address it.

    Care meter=0.

  2. #422
    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 shrubnose View Post
    What a living can't give unmarried gay partners is access to each others Social Security, insurance from work, and etc.
    SS, no, but the SS program shouldn't exist in the first place, so that's not a point that matters. You should be providing for your own retirement and that you absolutely can give to anyone you want, married or no.

    As for insurance, marriage doesn't guarantee that either. Your spouse can still be denied, or an outrageous premium applied, despite your being married. Your spouse having a pre-existing condition being a prime example. Your marriage license doesn't have any magic pixy dust to force the insurance company to cover most pre-existing conditions. The only exception I can think of is pregnancy, or if there's a carry-over clause honored with a prior policy. Usually COBRA will facilitate carry-over clauses.

    Quote Originally Posted by shrubnose View Post
    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.
    I would only deny a gay couple for the exact same reason I would deny every other couple: belonging to a high-risk-of-divorce demographic. If your coupling belongs to one of these demographics, that can be resolved with pre-marital counseling, then you're not in a high-risk demographic anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by shrubnose View Post
    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.
    The US Supreme Court considers Secular Humanism a religion, fyi, because it's an established philosophical outlook with common basic rules shared by all Secular Humanists. It's a non-deistic religion, like Buddhism. In that way, your view here is a religious one, so walk softly when condemning religious beliefs.

    I don't relate to people on either side who give religious views any weight on the topic of legal marriage. Religion is separate from the law and as such cannot be part of our considerations of what the law should be. If your relationship is not otherwise harmful, then you should be able to attain a marriage license from the State, because marriage is about commerce and the state needs a compelling reason to deny your right to engage in commerce. I think having a high likelihood of failing is a compelling reason to deny you any kind of license. Even with a small business license you can only operate in the red for a couple years before the government pulls the plug; and if you demonstrate that you are likely to fail again, you may not be issued another license until you improve your situation.
    Last edited by Jerry; 03-29-13 at 06:51 PM.

  3. #423
    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
    I make no statement about polygamy or any other group arrangement because I haven't given it a thought.
    Again, yes you did, right here:
    Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
    None of the above. I support nationally recognized civil unions for any two consenting adults.
    You specified "two". You went out of your way to include an arbitrary limit on the number of consenting adults in the union. That's bigoted and very intolerant.

  4. #424
    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=Jerry;1061628356]
    SS, no, but the SS program shouldn't exist in the first place, so that's not a point that matters. You should be providing for your own retirement and that you absolutely can give to anyone you want, married or no.

    I agree that people should try to provide for their own retirement, but most retired Americans depend on Social Security for a good bit of their income. That is a fact now, and I see no reason to think that it won't be a fact in the future.

    The US Supreme Court considers Secular Humanism a religion, fyi, because it's an established philosophical outlook with common basic rules shared by all Secular Humanists. It's a non-deistic religion, like Buddhism. In that way, your view here is a religious one, so walk softly when condemning religious beliefs.

    Yes and no.

    As far as the Supreme Court is concerned Secular Humanism is a religion "for free exercise clause purposes," and it is not a religion "for establishment clause purposes."

    That is an important distinction which you can read about here: Secular Humanism is a Religion

    Just trying to be clear here. It appears to me that you and I pretty much agree on this issue.

    Have a good day




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

  5. #425
    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 shrubnose View Post
    I agree that people should try to provide for their own retirement, but most retired Americans depend on Social Security for a good bit of their income. That is a fact now, and I see no reason to think that it won't be a fact in the future.
    With the current birth rates it won't matter much what people "need" from it.

  6. #426
    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 Henrin View Post
    With the current birth rates it won't matter much what people "need" from it.


    Maybe you could elaborate a little on what you mean here, it's not clear to me.

  7. #427
    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 shrubnose View Post
    Maybe you could elaborate a little on what you mean here, it's not clear to me.
    The current system was built around the assumption that birth rates would stay above a certain threshold. With this in mind it was assumed that the amount paying in would always be greater than the amount taking out. That worked out pretty well actually, but then the feminist movement came, conception, abortion was legalized, and well, things changed and people were having less children as time went on. Today many people from my generation are deciding to simply not have kids at all and others are having one and then calling the entire thing done lowering the average even more than the baby boomers generation did. With people living longer than ever and people having less children than ever the system is screwed royally.

  8. #428
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    We have marriage. We have to have some form of protection for legal kinship between two unrelated or not closely enough related people. We don't need to take it away just because some idiots don't want to share the term with couples they don't feel deserve it.

    No compromise. I will continue to support same sex marriage being completely legally recognized throughout the US and nothing less. It will happen.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #429
    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 Henrin View Post
    The current system was built around the assumption that birth rates would stay above a certain threshold. With this in mind it was assumed that the amount paying in would always be greater than the amount taking out. That worked out pretty well actually, but then the feminist movement came, conception, abortion was legalized, and well, things changed and people were having less children as time went on. Today many people from my generation are deciding to simply not have kids at all and others are having one and then calling the entire thing done lowering the average even more than the baby boomers generation did. With people living longer than ever and people having less children than ever the system is screwed royally.


    For sure Social Security has some problems.

    The sooner it's dealt with, the better.

    But it looks like the pols are all afraid to touch it.

    But, like gay marriage, sooner or later it will have to be dealt with. I don't believe that it will fix itself.

  10. #430
    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 shrubnose View Post
    For sure Social Security has some problems.

    The sooner it's dealt with, the better.

    But it looks like the pols are all afraid to touch it.
    I don't think there is that much that can be done about it. You either treat it like any other entitlement which isn't going to work for long or you invest the money and hope it grows.

Page 43 of 51 FirstFirst ... 334142434445 ... 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
  •