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 46 of 51 FirstFirst ... 364445464748 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 460 of 503

Thread: Same sex marriage compromise

  1. #451
    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 shrubnose View Post
    Congress passed a law, the Supreme Court approves of it, and that's good enough for me.

    If you want to find an argument more compelling than combating racism, get after it.
    So if I am reading this correctly, you are of the opinion that one only has a right if it is codified and defined by law. Otherwise that right doesn't exist. Is this correct. If not, please explain what your belief on rights is.

    Quote Originally Posted by shrubnose View Post
    Here's an idea: Open up a public restaurant and put a sign on the door saying: NO (Pick your least favorite ethnic or religious group.) ALLOWED, and you will learn some very compelling reasons to obey the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    Try it and tell us how it works out.
    You argument works on the premise of what the law is. However you are arguing against the wrong premise. If the law states that the media shall only print what the government tells it or allows it to, do you then agree that freedom of press is not a right? The principle holds true across the board. The argument here is not what the law says, but what the right is. Either the law defines rights or rights are and the law may indeed restrict or deny that right.

    Quote Originally Posted by captainawesome View Post
    You sure are a one trick pony in favor of discrimination.
    One does not have to favor discrimination to support the freedom to discriminate. It's very similar to the way that there are people who do not support abortion (and in fact abhor it) but still support the freedom for a woman to choose whether or not to get one. We accept that with free speech comes the requirement to allow people to say things that we will find abhorrent. This is another example of where the principle need to remain consistent across the board.

    Quote Originally Posted by shrubnose View Post
    It might have been this guy:

    <Jesus pic>

    Do you believe that Jesus Christ would approve of these signs:

    <No Colored signs pic>

    Think about it.
    At any point did you ever find Jesus trying to get the law changed? In all my reading and studying, the only thing I saw him try to do was to get people to change. Think about it.

    Yes we should be trying to stop things like racism, sexism, homophobia, abortion and all kinds of other ills, but not at the expense of freedom and liberty. It is better to change them socially, not legally.

    Edit add on: Think on this: Why are you willing to force a person to sell/provide a service for a person even if they don't want to (because of skin color) but you are not willing to force a person to buy/use a service from a person even if they don't want to (because of skin color). And just to prevent the obvious argument of forcing a person to buy when they don't want at all. Use the example of the person who gets a product and gets in line and is standing there through 5 people. Then the cashiers change out and the new cashier is black (the customer white, although feel free to substitute any two different races as the point holds true regardless). The customer now gets out of line rather than conduct a business transaction with a black person. RACISM! Yet you won't combat that by law, will you?
    Last edited by maquiscat; 03-30-13 at 08:29 AM.

  2. #452
    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 maquiscat View Post
    Yet you won't combat that by law, will you?


    What I won't do is waste my time responding to your incoherent drivel point by point.

    You and a few others who 'think' like you are the ones who are wasting their time, shoveling sand against the overwhelming tide. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was approved by the U.S. Congress, signed by President Johnson and tested and approved by the U.S. Supreme Court. You are out of touch with the vast majority of Americans on the left and right.

    Anyone who, like you, doesn't like this law, can try to change it through the ballot box, and ultimately by amending the U.S. Constitution. I see very little chance of that ever happening. Only a small minority of Americans are opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, so I choose to ignore them.

    I don't see a bit of difference between a person who supports racism because of their Libertarian personal property beliefs and a full-blown racist.

    The effect is the same.

    You and those on your side lost this argument back in 1964. The USA will not be going back to Jim Crow laws, no matter how much those in your small minority scream and moan.

    Believe what you want to believe. That's your 1st Amendment right (Which I support.), but no one is required to buy into your, or anyone's, minority beliefs.



    "At the heart of racism is the religious assertion that God made a creative mistake when He brought some people into being." ~ Friedrich Otto Hertz
    Last edited by shrubnose; 03-30-13 at 10:46 AM.

  3. #453
    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
    What I won't do is waste my time responding to your incoherent drivel point by point.

    You and a few others who 'think' like you are the ones who are wasting their time, shoveling sand against the overwhelming tide. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was approved by the U.S. Congress, signed by President Johnson and tested and approved by the U.S. Supreme Court. You are out of touch with the vast majority of Americans on the left and right.

    Anyone who, like you, doesn't like this law, can try to change it through the ballot box, and ultimately by amending the U.S. Constitution. I see very little chance of that ever happening. Only a small minority of Americans are opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, so I choose to ignore them.

    I don't see a bit of difference between a person who supports racism because of their Libertarian personal property beliefs and a full-blown racist.

    The effect is the same.

    You and those on your side lost this argument back in 1964. The USA will not be going back to Jim Crow laws, no matter how much those in your small minority scream and moan.

    Believe what you want to believe. That's your 1st Amendment right (Which I support.), but no one is required to buy into your, or anyone's, minority beliefs.

    Time for some education, again.

    Jim Crow Laws where laws by the state that discriminated against people, which has nothing to do with conversion we are having here. No one in this conversion is opposed to the entire 1964 Civil rights bill, but only the parts that infringe on the peoples right to control access and use of their property. If we are indeed to protect property we must understand that the foundation of property, be it your body, your home, your business, your land, etc is the right to control access and use of such property. This has nothing to do with supporting racism or being racist, but fighting for the right to control access and use of your property from the arm of the government. I don't happen to find your fallacies worth my time to deal with again, so I will end there.
    Last edited by Henrin; 03-30-13 at 12:07 PM.

  4. #454
    Advisor TML's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    09-23-15 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    520

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    The US Supreme Court is presently considering a ruling that could lift opposite gender requirements for marriage in the US. Most people have firm opinions on this matter but I'm curious could our positions on the subject leave room for a compromise all could accept. If your perspective on same sex marriage is not constitutionally validated, could you accept government not recognizing any marriage as a compromise, assuming of course this wouldn't necessarily be your preferred option?
    It is an essential role of government to recognize and uphold contracts. I think the nature of marriage is that of a civil contract of sorts, and because the legitimate powers of government reach only actions which injure others either physically or financially, same-sex marriage between consenting adults could not constitutionally be restricted. Of course the other side of this is that marriage is widely accepted as religious, and there should be no laws which respect religious doctrine or morality in this area, but government also has no constitutional authority to require churches to accept or perform such marriages. The government should only be compelled to recognize marriages as legitimate, and not establish the rules for which a marriage may be made.
    In matters of style, swim with the current; In matters of principle, stand like a rock.

  5. #455
    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
    Time for some education, again.


    When you and your extremely small minority manage to change well established law we'll have something to have 'conversions' . about.

    Until then, I have no more time to waste on those who want to return to the dark ages in the USA.

    Have a nice millisecond.
    Last edited by shrubnose; 03-30-13 at 12:44 PM.

  6. #456
    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
    When you and your small minority manage to change well established law we'll have something to talk about.

    Until then, I have no more time to waste on those who want to return to the dark ages in the USA.

    Have a nice millisecond.
    Is respect for property honestly something you consider similar to the state of affairs in the dark ages?

  7. #457
    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
    Is respect for property honestly something you consider similar to the state of affairs in the dark ages?


    Did you repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act already?

    How did you do that?

  8. #458
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Your historical re-writing is irrelevant.
    Your projection is what's irrelevant.

    I simply told the historical truth.

    Your revisionism, that also is irrelevant.



    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Simply because you do not wish to recognize what people in the past have done, does not mean it has not happened.
    Simply because you want to call a cat a dog and enter it in a dog show does not make the cat a dog .. or the dog show a cat show.

    Since before the agricultural revolution, over 12,000 years ago, marriage has been between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

    Simply because some people might have engaged in a completely different civil union domestic partnership does not make them a man and a woman .. or the partnership a marriage.

    Playing ludicrous oxymoronic brainwashing games also has no effect in changing reality, even if it might seduce the lower IQ/EQ or synonymous ideologues among us.
    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?

  9. #459
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    With marriage falling off and with most gay individuals also not interested in marriage assuming the trend in interest continues to go down towards marriage this line of argument will over time mean less and less towards SS.
    Marriage and SS aren't really big together now. Each individual adult earns their own SS. The majority of US adults have held a job sometime in their lives. With divorce and a decline in marriage, it means that spousal SS is so insignificant of an issue it should not even come up in the same sex marriage debate at all.
    "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.

  10. #460
    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 TML View Post
    It is an essential role of government to recognize and uphold contracts. I think the nature of marriage is that of a civil contract of sorts, and because the legitimate powers of government reach only actions which injure others either physically or financially, same-sex marriage between consenting adults could not constitutionally be restricted. Of course the other side of this is that marriage is widely accepted as religious, and there should be no laws which respect religious doctrine or morality in this area, but government also has no constitutional authority to require churches to accept or perform such marriages. The government should only be compelled to recognize marriages as legitimate, and not establish the rules for which a marriage may be made.
    Really? I thought it was the role of the parties to a contract to recognize and uphold their contractual agreements. To my understanding the government only gets involved usually if a party to a contract breaches their obligations and courts are asked to compell the party who has not upheld their agreement either through force of law of order some other adequate remedy. That is unless the government is itself a party to the contract then the government must recognize and uphold their obligations. I could be wrong. I always learn new things here.
    Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011

Page 46 of 51 FirstFirst ... 364445464748 ... 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
  •