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 7 of 51 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 503

Thread: Same sex marriage compromise

  1. #61
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,850

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    People make all sorts of choices on what they will do for those they love. Why do you need protected from your choices?
    I don't need protection from my choices. Any person needs protection for the choices they make because you can't trust people to do the right thing. Especially as a relationship is dissolved.

  2. #62
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,141

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    I used polygamy because we are discussing marriage. Polyamory, I have no opinion. They might as well be single people living together. There is nothing for the government to say about people in a relationship without benefit of marriage.

    I guess I'm not in a position to hand out rights, but as a polygamy costs society, I might have some standing. More to the point, I didn't want it to be assumed I would support polygamy.
    Polygamy actually has a much more straight-forward counter-argument: it often involves force. It should be illegal in any democracy for the same reason rape and slavery are.

    Polyamory is polygamy where the partners are equal.

    You have not explained what it is that you cannot now have. I'm really confused about what it is that you want to separate from a person's relationship status.

    A person does have a choice not to give rights to their 401k. Don't marry. But the person who would put their partner through school or take a lesser paying position in order to support their spouse without marriage to protect their rights, is a fool. You haven't recognized that either. Doesn't the lesser earning spouse in a marriage deserve their portion?
    By not marrying, that means they are not allowed to control other rights of theirs without huge expense and time -- and sometimes not at all, no matter what they do. That's the issue. That's why it's bribery.

    I have recognized your point, and in fact, EVERY point. ANY reason why a person may feel like their rights ought to be designated in a certain way is valid.

    Ok, then. Again, what ability is it that you don't have that you want?
    Straight-forward designation of ones own rights without huge expense.

    A pre-nup does not allow you to change anything you want. Aquiring some rights a marriage affords is actually impossible. Getting others is sometimes extremely difficult.

  3. #63
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    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?
    I would support the abolition of the Marriage License. But so long as the Marriage License exists as it does, a government recognized and issued contract, they cannot discriminate against same sex couples wishing to engage in that contract.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  4. #64
    Professor
    Mathematician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    09-22-17 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    2,147

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    I'll support gay marriage being recognized in the closet.
    "With me everything turns into mathematics."
    "It is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well."
    "It is truth very certain that, when it is not in one's power to determine what is true, we ought to follow what is more probable." -- Rene Descartes

  5. #65
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    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?
    No because this wouldnt be a "compromise" at all. instead of letting woman vote nobody votes, would that be a compromise?

    legally and legislatively its totally illogical and would be much harder,there about 1200 rights and protections granted through marriage some that can be granted another way, none that are as binding as history proves and nothing that can accomplish it it in ONE contract.

    it screws people already married

    and its a cop out.

    The easiest solution is equal rights
    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

  6. #66
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,242
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Yes. This is actually my preferred outcome.

    I don't see why the government is in the business of rubber-stamping people's personal romantic relationships. What business is it of theirs?

    I think the legal rights that are assigned to marriage (medical rights, childcare rights, etc) should be opened up to allow anyone to assign them to whomever they like. Only an individual can decide which people are the best to assign their own rights to, and a spouse may not be right for all of them.

    I think "marriage" should only be a social ceremony, or a name someone chooses to assign to whatever collection of rights they have traded with their spouse. But the rights themselves should be completely separated from a person's relationship status.
    I think it has to be more than that. I believe that courts must recognize an "official marriage" in order to legally confer those rights onto another person. Our court system would be in a freakin' shambles without that. "We lived together three months! I want all the rights conferred on . . . " On what? The Shack-Up Contract?

    Marriage, and the rights that pass to a spouse because of marriage, needs to be in the form of a legal contract...a contract that can change with societal norms, court challenges and custom. I completely support SSM, by the way.

    Edit: I'd just like to add that neither a civil ceremony or a religious one actually marries two people. It's the marriage license. Once the marriage license is issued? You're married. Just thought I'd point that out. A minister told me that just the other day -- I'm assuming he knew what he was talking about.
    Last edited by MaggieD; 03-26-13 at 07:09 PM.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  7. #67
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,850

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Polygamy actually has a much more straight-forward counter-argument: it often involves force. It should be illegal in any democracy for the same reason rape and slavery are.

    Polyamory is polygamy where the partners are equal.



    By not marrying, that means they are not allowed to control other rights of theirs without huge expense and time -- and sometimes not at all, no matter what they do. That's the issue. That's why it's bribery.

    I have recognized your point, and in fact, EVERY point. ANY reason why a person may feel like their rights ought to be designated in a certain way is valid.



    Straight-forward designation of ones own rights without huge expense.

    A pre-nup does not allow you to change anything you want. Aquiring some rights a marriage affords is actually impossible. Getting others is sometimes extremely difficult.
    There is a bribe because it benefits society to have people marry and when they decide not to be married, it solves a lot of issues quickly. As a single person, you can designate who is the beneficiary of your bank, savings and investment accounts and life insurance. Via a will, you can say who gets your property. You have to state who gets to make medical and end of life decisions, because as a single person, there is no obvious person to go to for that, unless it might be your parents. Such is the case with my unmarried father. Why is that so onerous? What rights can you not assign no matter what you do?

    Does a spouse not have a right to their fair share of the martial assets under the scenario I have laid out? Do you think a married person should be able to cut out their spouse? Again, no marriage, no problem though.

    Ok, I agree, it should be made easier, but leave marriage alone.

    Exactly, a pre-nup protects what you own, by yourself, before the marriage. It prevents you from cutting out your spouse's share of the marital assets. Don't want to share, don't get married.

    Which are impossible and which are difficult? Could you be specific?

  8. #68
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,141

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    I think it has to be more than that. I believe that courts must recognize an "official marriage" in order to legally confer those rights onto another person. Our court system would be in a freakin' shambles without that. "We lived together three months! I want all the rights conferred on . . . " On what? The Shack-Up Contract?

    Marriage, and the rights that pass to a spouse because of marriage, needs to be in the form of a legal contract...a contract that can change with societal norms, court challenges and custom. I completely support SSM, by the way.
    Sure, have a legal contract. Just stop making it contingent on a romantic relationship and whether the government thinks yours is good enough.

  9. #69
    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
    I don't need protection from my choices. Any person needs protection for the choices they make because you can't trust people to do the right thing. Especially as a relationship is dissolved.
    So why is that the governments concern? Everything these two parties are fighting over the state can protect without having to involve themselves in their dispute. If the two parties ever come to terms then at that point the state can deal with any property claim changes. I don't see the problem.

  10. #70
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,141

    Re: Same sex marriage compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    There is a bribe because it benefits society to have people marry and when they decide not to be married, it solves a lot of issues quickly. As a single person, you can designate who is the beneficiary of your bank, savings and investment accounts and life insurance. Via a will, you can say who gets your assets. You have to state who gets to make medical and end of life decisions, because as a single person, there is no obvious person to go to for that. Such is the case with my unmarried father. Why is that so onerous? What rights can you not assign no matter what you do?
    What comes immediately to mind is some tax rights (some of which I don't feel should exist). Also co-parenting rights. Some people parent with a non-romantic partner (and rarity is not a good argument against legality).

    Also, while it's *possible* to designate a lot of these rights, it is sometimes time-consuming and expensive when it doesn't need to be.

    What parts of a marriage contract can be altered by pre-nup varies by state, but most won't let you change whatever you want. Even if they did, though, it's still expensive and time-consuming.

    Does a spouse not have a right to their fair share of the martial assets under the scenario I have laid out? Do you think a married person should be able to cut out their spouse? Again, no marriage, no problem though.

    Ok, I agree, it should be made easier, but leave marriage alone.

    Exactly, a pre-nup protects what you own, by yourself, before the marriage. It prevents you from cutting out your spouse's share of the marital assets. Don't want to share, don't get married.

    Which are impossible and which are difficult? Could you be specific?
    A spouse has a right to whatever they agree on. Like I said, I'm not out to take anything from anyone. I'm out to allow everyone to have equal and un-coerced access to their rights.

    I don't understand why it's so important to you to keep it as an institution that applies only to romantic relationships of the type you approve.

Page 7 of 51 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •