• 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
Cardinal said:
I have to say that if DOMA is overturned this is going to be sort of a bizarre victory. Sure, gays can get married and that's great, but what do those who opposed gay marriage lose? Nothing. It's really anticlimactic, I tell you, so I propose that if gay marriage is recognized in all fifty states, all heterosexual marriages are rendered null and void immediately. Let's make this interesting: raise the stakes so that both parties have something concrete to lose.
Click to expand...
While we're at it, then, let's also overturn dog-owners' also legitimate exlusion from allowing cat-owners to enter their cats in the dog-owners' dog shows.

Dog-owners have nothing "concrete to lose".

They won't be pissed.

:roll:

I'm constantly amazed at how pre-conceived ideologues just can't bring themselves to admit the obvious reality about the intelligence, value, and legitimate grievance their opposition would most certainly suffer the loss of if the pre-conceived ideologues got their way.

It's the height of arrogance for pre-conceived ideologues to completely dismiss the very real losses suffered by their opposition as nothing "concrete to lose".

:roll:

SS couples committed romantic relationships should be call homarriage, because, by virtue of them being SS couples, it simply isn't a marriage.

Homarriage civil union domestic partnerships, like all types of these, will be fully recognized by the government and private enterprise.

The OS and SS distinction, a valid and necessary distinction, would be in the name -- marriage v homarriage -- as each type of civil unioin domestic partnership needs a name to accurately identify it, both for accurate usage now and modifications later that may only apply to one of them.

It's the right win-win thing to do.
 
disneydude said:
LOL....you are relying on Scalia? Sorry...but Scalia has been wrong more often than he has been right.
Click to expand...

Im sorry... are you a supreme court judge? Didn't think so.

Loving v. Virginia, although an inter-racial marriage case recognized that the right to marry is a "Fundamental right". It then went on to say that since the right to marry is a "Fundamental right" the state must have a compelling interest in any prohbition imposed. It wasn't until this point that the court addressed the racial aspect of the case.

It doesn't change the fact that the SCOTUS now has legal precedent to follow recognizing marriage as a fundamental right. The issue before the court is whether the government has an interest that justifies disparate treatment of same sex couples in that institution.
Click to expand...

When you can point out that "precedent" to me, we can talk.
 
Henrin said:
Expanding the scope of government like people desire here is not evolution. Stop using the term.
Click to expand...

It's resulting in a person's right to marry the parter of their choice being recognized in all fifty states. It's absolutely evolution.
 
Ontologuy said:
I'm clearly saying that your over-generalization lacks the specificity for it to be relevant.

Your approach would validate puposeful global destruction and the extermination of our species and other similar ludicrous events based on "that's change!".

Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Yes. Gay marriage will be used to exterminate the species. Very good.
 
disneydude said:
You really need to study some ConLaw.
Click to expand...

Says the one who is trying to apply Loving v. Virginia to SSM.... laughable.... That fact that you study Con Law also explains your lack of knowledge on the matter. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Smeagol said:
I'd okay with both the federal, state and any government considering marriage a private matter just like you don't get a state issued Baptism, Confirmation or Bar Mitzvah license.
Click to expand...

Then go ahead and get married without the government. If you feel it should be personal, make it personal.
 
Cardinal said:
It's resulting in a person's right to marry the parter of their choice being recognized in all fifty states. It's absolutely evolution.
Click to expand...

No, what is happening is the domain of government is expanding in the arena of marriage to include one more group. Government growth into our personal affairs is not evolution. It never was and it never will be.
 
Henrin said:
No, what is happening is the domain of government is expanding in the arena of marriage to include one more group.
Click to expand...

And as with Loving vs. Virginia, that can clearly be a good thing.
 
Cardinal said:
It's resulting in a person's right to marry the parter of their choice being recognized in all fifty states. It's absolutely evolution.
Click to expand...

Biologically speaking, according to natural selection, gay marriage would not be worth a damn to the evolution of our species, besides the obvious extinction of people who want to cohabit with others of the same sex.
 
Cardinal said:
Yes. Gay marriage will be used to exterminate the species. Very good.
Click to expand...
Your debate-tactic tendency to feign erroneous comprehension and a jump to conclusion as an M.O. of making a derision makes an intelligent discussion with you on a matter extremely difficult.

If that's the best you can do then I'll leave you to it.
 
Ontologuy said:
Your debate-tactic tendency to feign erroneous comprehension and a jump to conclusion as an M.O. of making a derision makes an intelligent discussion with you on a matter extremely difficult.

If that's the best you can do then I'll leave you to it.
Click to expand...

This is how I feel when I debate with Paschendale... :doh :werd
 
Henrin said:
You really can't be serious. They are the party that has complete control on the terms of the contract and is the arbiter of all things contained in that contract. How is that not authority and control over marriage? You can't really cover any more angles of the contract, sorry.
Click to expand...

That is not the case. I can structure the contract almost any way I want. Only the courts are arbiters of that contract.
 
Lightning said:
You do realize that the government recognition of marriage is illegal, since the government is given boundaries by the constitution, which has nothing about marriage. Hopefully when DOMA goes to court the justices will rescind unconsitutional marriage laws.
Click to expand...

Precedence makes that moot. The document has a history, and going backwards is much harder than going forward. I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you.
 
Boo Radley said:
Precedence makes that moot. The document has a history, and going backwards is much harder than going forward. I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you.
Click to expand...

Slavery and discrimination against minorities had history in the country, that was changed by the civil rights act and the 14th. I realize that it is a long shot, thus explaining the use of the word "hopefully". But I can only hope that the SCOTUS will do it right and rule according to the constitution.
 
Cardinal said:
And as with Loving vs. Virginia, that can clearly be a good thing.
Click to expand...

Declaring marriage is a right has nothing at all to do with the government involvement in marriage. Why is this so hard for some people on the left to understand?
 
Lightning said:
Slavery and discrimination against minorities had history in the country, that was changed by the civil rights act and the 14th. I realize that it is a long shot, thus explaining the use of the word "hopefully". But I can only hope that the SCOTUS will do it right and rule according to the constitution.
Click to expand...

yes, they moved forward. Going back to slavery and past discrminations would be difficult.
 
Cardinal said:
It's resulting in a person's right to marry the parter of their choice being recognized in all fifty states. It's absolutely evolution.
Click to expand...

Well, if you're going down that route - since all systems move toward entropy, it's more a journey towards chaos.
 
Cardinal said:
And as with Loving vs. Virginia, that can clearly be a good thing.
Click to expand...

Time for yet another reminder. Read up on the events and motives that made the 14th necessary. It was all about making post Civil War legislation constitutional. So the 14th applied perfectly to the issue at hand in Loving vs. Virginia.
 
Ontologuy said:
Your debate-tactic tendency to feign erroneous comprehension and a jump to conclusion as an M.O. of making a derision makes an intelligent discussion with you on a matter extremely difficult.

If that's the best you can do then I'll leave you to it.
Click to expand...

Your debate tactic in this thread is to conclude a worst case scenario that is in no way supported by past evidence. It's a sloppy method and I'm not sure what good you think can come of it.
 
clownboy said:
Well, if you're going down that route - since all systems move toward entropy, it's more a journey towards chaos.
Click to expand...

Like, Ontologuy, you're concluding a worst case scenario that has no relation to past comparisons. If you think that increased civil liberties results in chaos, then I'd certainly be happy to hear of any examples you have to support this theory.
 
Lightning said:
Biologically speaking, according to natural selection, gay marriage would not be worth a damn to the evolution of our species, besides the obvious extinction of people who want to cohabit with others of the same sex.
Click to expand...

And the third one to conclude a worst case scenario not related to history.

1.Since gay people account for no more than around 15%, the survival of our species will be fine, which is moot anyway because
2.Gay people can have children, none of which really has anything to do with marriage because
3.Marriage doesn't make people have children, it just happens to be a healthier environment for the raising of children.

So this biological argument fails in every conceivable way.
 
clownboy said:
Time for yet another reminder. Read up on the events and motives that made the 14th necessary. It was all about making post Civil War legislation constitutional. So the 14th applied perfectly to the issue at hand in Loving vs. Virginia.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to this discussion. The point is that various states had laws forbidding interracial marriage, and the Supreme court ruled those laws unconstitutional. Which is why you can marry a Korean or a black woman, and your marriage will be recognized as you drive cross country. Thanks increased government for that.
 
Cardinal said:
Irrelevant to this discussion. The point is that various states had laws forbidding interracial marriage, and the Supreme court ruled those laws unconstitutional. Which is why you can marry a Korean or a black woman, and your marriage will be recognized as you drive cross country. Thanks increased government for that.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that SCOTUS also ruled that women did not in fact have the right to vote.

SCOTUS isn't the last word on anything.
 
Jerry said:
Keep in mind that SCOTUS also ruled that women did not in fact have the right to vote.

SCOTUS isn't the last word on anything.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that if DOMA is ruled unconstitutional that the SC decision could itself be overturned later?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom