• 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
You lost the argument when you started opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The merits of the 1964 Civil Rights Act have already been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, your minority opinion isn't worth the paper it's not printed on.

The fact that you don't see that shows exactly what kind of a person you are.

I'm sorry, but you can ramble on about whatever nonsense fallacy you wish to lay out in front of me, but at the end of the day my good fellow it is nothing more than a fallacy. You need to either defend the law or stop posting.
 
Last edited:
You need to either defend the law or stop posting.



If you don't like the law, let's see you and your small minority try to change it.

I will watch and laugh while you waste your time on that.
 
If you don't like the law, let's see you and your small minority try to change it.

I will watch and laugh while you waste your time on that.

Kind of like how I'm wasting my time on someone that keeps repeating the same fallacy over and over again and thinks its an argument.
 
Kind of like how I'm wasting my time on someone that keeps repeating the same fallacy over and over again and thinks its an argument.

Geez, now where have we seen someone doing exactly that...

Oh wait, it's you! :roll:
 
Geez, now where have we seen someone doing exactly that...

Oh wait, it's you! :roll:

Why don't you just go play in the street like a good little boy? I'm sure all the other people will be aware of you.
 
Kind of like how I'm wasting my time on someone that keeps repeating the same fallacy over and over again and thinks its an argument.



How much success have you had with changing the law that you hate so far?

Fill us in.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cephus and Henrin - knock it off!
 
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.

I didn't know SSM couples could reproduce. Damn I spend 2 days away from my computer and now SSM couple procreate babies, according to you. How do they do it? Via asexual reproduction?

Cardinal, guessing by the lack of your ability to comprehend text, I will have to clarify my statements. No where in my posts does it say that I believe that SSM couples will be the root of our extinction. It will be the root of the eventual (if ever; this statement is being made based of the assumption that you rare born gay or lesbian") extinction of this gay gene or whatever it is, don't know don't really care. The only reason I'm on this thread is because of a specific post that was made a couple of days ago.

And my "biological argument" in fact does not fail. It might "fail" to you because you obviously like to cherry-pick around details, picking out things you think are right instead of taking facts as a whole.
 
I didn't know SSM couples could reproduce. Damn I spend 2 days away from my computer and now SSM couple procreate babies, according to you. How do they do it? Via asexual reproduction?

Cardinal, guessing by the lack of your ability to comprehend text, I will have to clarify my statements. No where in my posts does it say that I believe that SSM couples will be the root of our extinction. It will be the root of the eventual (if ever; this statement is being made based of the assumption that you rare born gay or lesbian") extinction of this gay gene or whatever it is, don't know don't really care. The only reason I'm on this thread is because of a specific post that was made a couple of days ago.

And my "biological argument" in fact does not fail. It might "fail" to you because you obviously like to cherry-pick around details, picking out things you think are right instead of taking facts as a whole.

It fails for me as well. There are heterosexual who can have children, but can marry. Homosexuals can adopt and raise kids. And people do marry for reasons other than children. He's also correct that we will keep making babies, not that a few less around the world wouldn't hurt.
 
I didn't know SSM couples could reproduce. Damn I spend 2 days away from my computer and now SSM couple procreate babies, according to you. How do they do it? Via asexual reproduction?

Cardinal, guessing by the lack of your ability to comprehend text, I will have to clarify my statements. No where in my posts does it say that I believe that SSM couples will be the root of our extinction. It will be the root of the eventual (if ever; this statement is being made based of the assumption that you rare born gay or lesbian") extinction of this gay gene or whatever it is, don't know don't really care. The only reason I'm on this thread is because of a specific post that was made a couple of days ago.

And my "biological argument" in fact does not fail. It might "fail" to you because you obviously like to cherry-pick around details, picking out things you think are right instead of taking facts as a whole.

Your further display of confusion regarding biology compounds your lack of understanding in this discussion.

1. Homosexuals can reproduce. Same sex people people cannot reproduce with each other, but they can reproduce. Of course I could go into things like in vitro fertilization and adoption, but they would still be moot to whether homosexuals can be married because neither having children nor the means for having children is a consideration for allowing heterosexuals to marry.
2. Homosexuals do not require homosexual parents, therefore they cannot breed themselves out of existence.

There is nothing about your biological argument that doesn't fail.
 
So you support discriminating against people based on marital status.

No, I support people learning how to read. I do support discriminating against nonsense.
 
Yes you do, read what you wrote:
None of the above. I support nationally recognized civil unions for any two consenting adults.
So if a man marries a bisexual woman, and they decide later to add another woman to their union, you would discriminate against them.

Religious bigotry a it's finest.
 
Yes you do, read what you wrote:

So if a man marries a bisexual woman, and they decide later to add another woman to their union, you would discriminate against them.

Religious bigotry a it's finest.

Clearly you want to have your own conversation and misread what I have to say. I said nothing about sexual orientation and I said nothing about how I would react to more than two people joining together. I also said nothing about religion.

If you have a question about what I wrote, go ahead an ask and not make things up.

Here is a start: a mother and a grown child are two consenting adults, are you saying that they should be able for have a nationally recognized civil union? My response, yes.

How do you feel about my response, Jerry from SD who likes to overly interpret what people write?
 
Clearly you want to have your own conversation and misread what I have to say. I said nothing about sexual orientation and I said nothing about how I would react to more than two people joining together. I also said nothing about religion.

If you have a question about what I wrote, go ahead an ask and not make things up.

Here is a start: a mother and a grown child are two consenting adults, are you saying that they should be able for have a nationally recognized civil union? My response, yes.

How do you feel about my response, Jerry from SD who likes to overly interpret what people write?
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

I think polygamy is a fair issue to tackle after gay marriage is settled. It contains its own points that need to be addressed independently, or else the whole topic is muddied.
 
I think polygamy is a fair issue to tackle after gay marriage is settled. It contains its own points that need to be addressed independently, or else the whole topic is muddied.
That's fine, but then same-sex marriage can't be called "marriage equality", because equality isn't what same-sex marriage accomplishes.
 
That's fine, but then same-sex marriage can't be called "marriage equality", because equality isn't what same-sex marriage accomplishes.

And as I said it's a fair point. One that can be handled after this issue has been settled.
 
What the ‘government’ provides to and for marriage is an effective contract between two people if the marriage is registered with the government by following the government’s process and rules. It is assumed by most that married people have done this. We have. What we got was from the state was a contract between us and also defined how others (private companies, governments, individuals selling us a house, etc.) deal with us. We could do the same without a government marriage contract by finding a lawyer that would develop a contract for us that would do the same. It would cost thousands and if we were honest we would have to inform many, like our banks, that we aren’t married via an effective state contract; but, rather our own contract and here it is. It would be at least a 50 page document and would cost thousands. It was great that we could take advantage of what the government is providing us at such a low cost to everyone. Why a same sex couple can’t use the same government process that they pay for via their taxes isn’t logical or fair.
 
What the ‘government’ provides to and for marriage is an effective contract between two people if the marriage is registered with the government by following the government’s process and rules. It is assumed by most that married people have done this. We have. What we got was from the state was a contract between us and also defined how others (private companies, governments, individuals selling us a house, etc.) deal with us. We could do the same without a government marriage contract by finding a lawyer that would develop a contract for us that would do the same. It would cost thousands and if we were honest we would have to inform many, like our banks, that we aren’t married via an effective state contract; but, rather our own contract and here it is. It would be at least a 50 page document and would cost thousands. It was great that we could take advantage of what the government is providing us at such a low cost to everyone. Why a same sex couple can’t use the same government process that they pay for via their taxes isn’t logical or fair.
What makes you think it would be a 50 page document that would cost thousands?

Mine is a 6 page document that cost $100; it's a living and final will, establishes a medical proxy and a power of attorney. It lays everything out. I guess if I had property or a business there would be a couple more pages and a little higher price tag to prepare it, but if I have property and/or a business then that little extra isn't going be an obstacle.

Please tell us where you're getting your information from.
 
Mine is a 6 page document that cost $100; it's a living and final will, establishes a medical proxy and a power of attorney. It lays everything out. I guess if I had property or a business there would be a couple more pages and a little higher price tag to prepare it, but if I have property and/or a business then that little extra isn't going be an obstacle



A living will is a good idea for everyone, whether you are married, living with a partner, or single.

What a living can't give unmarried gay partners is access to each others Social Security, insurance from work, and etc.

That's where marriage comes in.

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.

Denying committed gay people the right to marry is intolerant, and based on religious ideas.

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.



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

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.

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:
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:
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom