• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Same sex marriage compromise

Could you accept no government recognized marriages as a compromise?

  • I oppose SSM but could accept no government recognized marriage as a compromise.

    Votes: 6 9.0%

  • I support SSM but could accept no government reconized marriage as a compromise

    Votes: 19 28.4%

  • I oppose SSM It's a function of government to recognize legitimate marriages. No compromise.

    Votes: 6 9.0%

  • I support SSM. It's a function of government to recognize legitimate marriages. No compromise.

    Votes: 36 53.7%
  • Total voters
    67
Gina said:
Only you haven't specified what you offer instead.
It's the governments business when it ends and dissolution of accumulated assets have to be divvied up and one side, isn't so keen to share equally. Then a court (the state) becomes involved.
Click to expand...

When it comes to property disputes, there's already all kinds of laws about how to go about it with cohabitators, as well as platonic straight-forward property disputes. For people who opted for the "standard marriage bundle," use the laws that apply to that.

Honestly, all of these things could use an overhaul in their CURRENT state, but that's a whole different issue.

I don't see why it's a huge deal to re-purpose existing laws.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
That is because we as a society decided to stop challenging marriage as a gold standard of contracts. No other reason. But if too many more people like me pop up, that won't last long. ;)

People do it, but the problem is that it's not very flexible and it doesn't really allow for complex legal assignment. It also leaves a lot of people with perfectly valid rights or tax claims completely out in the cold. It's better to simply remove it from that context completely, because then there is no reason to keep denying people customization for their legal needs.
Click to expand...

sorry S&M i just cant get on board

it screws to many people over and it seems like taking 3 steps backwards to MAYBE, HOPEFULLY take some steps forward.
 
AGENT J said:
sorry S&M i just cant get on board

it screws to many people over and it seems like taking 3 steps backwards to MAYBE, HOPEFULLY take some steps forward.
Click to expand...

How does it screw anyone at all?
 
Fiddytree said:
No compromise. Firstly, the State has an interest in fostering a stable family life and stable relationships. Second of all, if the institution of marriage was fine for government intervention for this long, it should retain its existence with inclusion of homosexuals. There's no danger to it with their inclusion. Third, doing the second will send a signal to homosexuals everywhere that given the option between including them into the fold, not doing so, or endorsing a scorched earth policy, the United States was more willing to deny the existence of marriage than have homosexuals in their midst.

Edit: It's also telling that those who oppose same sex marriage are the ones who are most in favor of not having marriage for anyone. It's the reckless policy choice answered in that cliche screenplay script from a madman: "If I can't have it, NO ONE CAN!"
Click to expand...

Agreed with the first premise and not the second. It is precisely because the government has a vested interest in the creation of a stable-family society that they should not alter the definition of marriage from one oriented in that direction to something completely disconnected from family orientation of the "two people who happen to really like each other at this particular point in time" approach that precedes SSM.
 
No compromise. Marriage existed long before the "nuclear family" concept sprang into existence and will long exist after it has faded from the picture-book of social forms of organization. I disagree that the State has a vested "interest in fostering a stable family life and stable relationships"; more, I deny that the needs of the State are particularly relevant on this issue one way or the other. States do not have "interests" outside of the interests of their citizens.

What is relevant is the individual desire to enter into a marriage contract and to have it recorded by the State, so long as the State sees fit to maintain its role as a recorder of occasions. So long as the government continues to function in such a way, it must abide by the right of individuals to determine their own self-selected forms of organization.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
How does it screw anyone at all?
Click to expand...

easy
all the past marriages that will now be made weaker unless you plan on just grand fathering them in and all the future new contracts what ever they are that will also be weaker, more complicated etc etc until the bugs are ironed out, if they ever are.

I mean honestly, you think our government could abolish marriage and replace it with 1200 other contracts or rights etc and get it right even with in say 10 years?
 
cpwill said:
Agreed with the first premise and not the second. It is precisely because the government has a vested interest in the creation of a stable-family society that they should not alter the definition of marriage from one oriented in that direction to something completely disconnected from family orientation of the "two people who happen to really like each other at this particular point in time" approach that precedes SSM.
Click to expand...

WOW! talk about flawed premise. I'm sorry what does the Hollywood style of heterosexual relationships/marriages have to do with the portion of the homosexual community who want legal recognition and benefits of their already long term relationship? To make such a statement you have to ignore:
Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries - 72 days
Kid Rock and Pam Anderson: 4 months
Britney Spears and Jason Alexander: 2 days
Sophia Bush and Chad Michael Murray: 5 months
Carmen Electra and Dennis Rodman: 6 Days
Mario Lopez and Ali Landry: 2 weeks
Charlie Sheen and Donna Peele: 5 months
Chris Kattan and Sunshine Tutt: 8 weeks
Colin Farrell and Amelia Warner: 4 months
Jennifer Lopez and Cris Judd: 4 months
Drew Barrymore and Tom Green: 5 months
Eddie Murphy and Tracey Edmonds: 2 weeks
Helen Hunt and Hank Azaria: 11 Months
Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Esposito: 4 months
Lisa Marie Presley and Nicolas Cage: 3 months
Renée Zellweger and Kenny Chesney: 4 months
Ethel Merman and Ernest Borgnine: 4 weeks
Shannen Doherty and Ashley Hamilton: 5 months

All of these are heterosexual marriages, and while granted they make the news more because they are famous, they are also the indicators of society at large. All the above look to me as an indicator of something completely disconnected from family orientation of the "two people who happen to really like each other at this particular point in time" approach that precedes OSM.
 
Navy Pride said:

I believe that is what will happen...The SCOTUS will throw it back to the states where it belongs.
Click to expand...

Should YOUR marriage be thrown back to the states "where it belongs" NP? Or are you OK with the SCOTUS changing the definition of marriage when it fits you beliefs?
 
maquiscat said:
WOW! talk about flawed premise. I'm sorry what does the Hollywood style of heterosexual relationships/marriages have to do with the portion of the homosexual community who want legal recognition and benefits of their already long term relationship? To make such a statement you have to ignore:
Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries - 72 days
Kid Rock and Pam Anderson: 4 months
Britney Spears and Jason Alexander: 2 days
Sophia Bush and Chad Michael Murray: 5 months
Carmen Electra and Dennis Rodman: 6 Days
Mario Lopez and Ali Landry: 2 weeks
Charlie Sheen and Donna Peele: 5 months
Chris Kattan and Sunshine Tutt: 8 weeks
Colin Farrell and Amelia Warner: 4 months
Jennifer Lopez and Cris Judd: 4 months
Drew Barrymore and Tom Green: 5 months
Eddie Murphy and Tracey Edmonds: 2 weeks
Helen Hunt and Hank Azaria: 11 Months
Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Esposito: 4 months
Lisa Marie Presley and Nicolas Cage: 3 months
Renée Zellweger and Kenny Chesney: 4 months
Ethel Merman and Ernest Borgnine: 4 weeks
Shannen Doherty and Ashley Hamilton: 5 months

All of these are heterosexual marriages, and while granted they make the news more because they are famous, they are also the indicators of society at large. All the above look to me as an indicator of something completely disconnected from family orientation of the "two people who happen to really like each other at this particular point in time" approach that precedes OSM.
Click to expand...


1. I agree, these things are indicative that our wholehearted embrace of no-fault divorce has done horrible things to marriage.

2. In no way does that invalidate my point. Having already done lots of damage does not justify doing more.
 
disneydude said:
Should YOUR marriage be thrown back to the states "where it belongs" NP? Or are you OK with the SCOTUS changing the definition of marriage when it fits you beliefs?
Click to expand...

1. It belongs at the states
2. If it comes to my state I will vote to keep our current definition of marriage
3. If I then lose I will be disappointed and continue to do what I can to figure out how to help the human wreckage caused by our disastrous social assumptions.
 
Lightning said:
It is in fact extremely different Boo Radley. We're talking about racism vs. sexual taste/preference.
Click to expand...

No, we're talking about being discriminated based on differences. Whether that difference is skin color or sexual orientation makes little difference.
 
disneydude said:
Should YOUR marriage be thrown back to the states "where it belongs" NP? Or are you OK with the SCOTUS changing the definition of marriage when it fits you beliefs?
Click to expand...

Diseydude, this is what politics is all about.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, we're talking about being discriminated based on differences. Whether that difference is skin color or sexual orientation makes little difference.
Click to expand...

Boo Radley, you and I more than likely share the same opinion on this. I am not arguing against gay marriage, I'm arguing for the respect of the constitution and of its fulfillment.
 
Smeagol said:
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?
Click to expand...

Butt Buddies - Video Clips - South Park Studios
 
Lightning said:
Boo Radley, you and I more than likely share the same opinion on this. I am not arguing against gay marriage, I'm arguing for the respect of the constitution and of its fulfillment.
Click to expand...

I argue the same thing. The Constitution is opposed to such discrimination. This isn't equal to discriminating against law breakers, or anything proper discrimination would cover. This is unjust discrimination, and that is what links the two you were discussing.
 
Boo Radley said:
I argue the same thing. The Constitution is opposed to such discrimination. This isn't equal to discriminating against law breakers, or anything proper discrimination would cover. This is unjust discrimination, and that is what links the two you were discussing.
Click to expand...

So the 10th amendment is chucked out the window because of your belief that the 14th somehow gives the federal government the right to regulate and dictate marriage?
 
Lightning said:
So the 10th amendment is chucked out the window because of your belief that the 14th somehow gives the federal government the right to regulate and dictate marriage?
Click to expand...

And the 14th is chucked out because of the 10th? This is why we have courts. But by the nature of the dispute here, I do believe it is more important that we have equality, fairness. If two people of the same sex marry, no one else is effected in any real way. Marriage is a personal decision. As has been said many times by many people, if you oppose same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.
 
Boo Radley said:
And the 14th is chucked out because of the 10th? This is why we have courts. But by the nature of the dispute here, I do believe it is more important that we have equality, fairness. If two people of the same sex marry, no one else is effected in any real way. ..

Marriage is a personal decision.

... As has been said many times by many people, if you oppose same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.
Click to expand...

Than why in the hell is everyone making it an issue for the federal government to decide on?????

I agree equality and fairness is important, but why should the Constitution and freedom be trampled over in order to provide someone else with a tax break or a legal status. The 14th was written to provide all citizens with equal civil and political rights. Marriage is not a right! I still have yet to hear a real rational argument that explains to me how marriage is a constitutional right.
 
Lightning said:
Than why in the hell is everyone making it an issue for the federal government to decide on?????

I agree equality and fairness is important, but why should the Constitution and freedom be trampled over in order to provide someone else with a tax break or a legal status. The 14th was written to provide all citizens with equal civil and political rights. Marriage is not a right! I still have yet to hear a real rational argument that explains to me how marriage is a constitutional right.
Click to expand...

Because the government recognizes marriage, much like it does other things. Benefits are connected to it. But they do not govern the who with no justification required.

You're looking at it wrong. It is not that marriage is a constitutional right. Equality is.
 
Cephus said:
There's a difference between simply claiming something is right and demonstrating it is actually so. Let me know when you're able to do the latter.
Click to expand...

Do you think as a country we should be giving benefits to certain groups of people that take part in certain activity? Besides, all the arguments you guys appear to have is based on weakness and trying to counterbalance the stupidity of collectively owning something with other people and it coming around to its perdictable ends. I think people should have to deal with their own situations and all the government should deal with is claims to property that can be changed at any point they desire if they go back to the government and desire a change once a decision is made.
 
Henrin said:
Do you think as a country we should be giving benefits to certain groups of people that take part in certain activity? Besides, all the arguments you guys appear to have is based on weakness and trying to counterbalance the stupidity of collectively owning something with other people and it coming around to its perdictable ends. I think people should have to deal with their own situations and all the government should deal with is claims to property that can be changed at any point they desire if they go back to the government and desire a change once a decision is made.
Click to expand...

If that activity benefits society, then absolutely. Benefits exist in order to encourage beneficial actions. That's why people who own homes get to write off the interest in their taxes. It encourages people to buy homes. Marriages increase the tax base and encourage social stability, married people have had a traditionally higher incidence of home ownership, etc. It is better for society to encourage stable marriages, that's why they get benefits for legally entanglement.

I'm surprised you didn't realize that's why it was done.
 
Cephus said:
If that activity benefits society, then absolutely. Benefits exist in order to encourage beneficial actions. That's why people who own homes get to write off the interest in their taxes. It encourages people to buy homes. Marriages increase the tax base and encourage social stability, married people have had a traditionally higher incidence of home ownership, etc. It is better for society to encourage stable marriages, that's why they get benefits for legally entanglement.

I'm surprised you didn't realize that's why it was done.
Click to expand...

I get plenty of excuses on just why it is done and the two popular ones are this one you have provided and the one Gina provided earlier and neither of them I accept in order to create or maintain a government authority. I honestly don't care if a certain activity benefits society. It makes no difference to me when talking about government authority. I don't care to provide tax breaks for people to stimulate economic growth and I don't feel the desire to support a government contract due to it making peoples lives easier. That is not the job of the government.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
I get plenty of excuses on just why it is done and the two popular ones are this one you have provided and the one Gina provided earlier and neither of them I accept in order to create or maintain a government authority. I honestly don't care if a certain activity benefits society. It makes no difference to me when talking about government authority.
Click to expand...

However, many do, which is why your way loses a lot. Many see real benefits in promoting what helps all of us.
 
Boo Radley said:
However, many do, which is why your way loses a lot. Many see real benefits in promoting what helps all of us.
Click to expand...

I'm all for promoting the protection of rights and liberties which helps all of us, but I'm not in favor of just supporting something because it benefits society. There is no end to such logic and no amount of ability to tie it down. The government could do all sorts of things and it could bring a return to society, but that doesn't just make it fine for them to do.
 
Henrin said:
I'm all for promoting the protection of rights and liberties which promotes all of us, but I'm not in favor of just supporting something because it benefits society. There is no end to such logic and no amount of ability to tie it down.
Click to expand...

Sure there is. Supporting marriage in no way infringes on your rights, but does promote stability for society. It's largely a win win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom