• 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
With the current birth rates it won't matter much what people "need" from it.



Maybe you could elaborate a little on what you mean here, it's not clear to me.
 
Maybe you could elaborate a little on what you mean here, it's not clear to me.

The current system was built around the assumption that birth rates would stay above a certain threshold. With this in mind it was assumed that the amount paying in would always be greater than the amount taking out. That worked out pretty well actually, but then the feminist movement came, conception, abortion was legalized, and well, things changed and people were having less children as time went on. Today many people from my generation are deciding to simply not have kids at all and others are having one and then calling the entire thing done lowering the average even more than the baby boomers generation did. With people living longer than ever and people having less children than ever the system is screwed royally.
 
We have marriage. We have to have some form of protection for legal kinship between two unrelated or not closely enough related people. We don't need to take it away just because some idiots don't want to share the term with couples they don't feel deserve it.

No compromise. I will continue to support same sex marriage being completely legally recognized throughout the US and nothing less. It will happen.
 
The current system was built around the assumption that birth rates would stay above a certain threshold. With this in mind it was assumed that the amount paying in would always be greater than the amount taking out. That worked out pretty well actually, but then the feminist movement came, conception, abortion was legalized, and well, things changed and people were having less children as time went on. Today many people from my generation are deciding to simply not have kids at all and others are having one and then calling the entire thing done lowering the average even more than the baby boomers generation did. With people living longer than ever and people having less children than ever the system is screwed royally.



For sure Social Security has some problems.

The sooner it's dealt with, the better.

But it looks like the pols are all afraid to touch it.

But, like gay marriage, sooner or later it will have to be dealt with. I don't believe that it will fix itself.
 
For sure Social Security has some problems.

The sooner it's dealt with, the better.

But it looks like the pols are all afraid to touch it.

I don't think there is that much that can be done about it. You either treat it like any other entitlement which isn't going to work for long or you invest the money and hope it grows.
 
I don't think there is that much that can be done about it. You either treat it like any other entitlement which isn't going to work for long or you invest the money and hope it grows.

Less than 10% of SS going out is to spouses and in order for a person to get spousal SS they must give up their own entitlement. While SS may need to be changed, it is not really significant in anyway to the issue of same sex marriage because any paid to same sex spouses would be so small it is easily made up for by other considerations such as less people on Medicaid/Medicare due to being on a spouse's private insurance.
 
image.jpg
 
We have marriage. We have to have some form of protection for legal kinship between two unrelated or not closely enough related people. We don't need to take it away just because some idiots don't want to share the term with couples they don't feel deserve it.

No compromise. I will continue to support same sex marriage being completely legally recognized throughout the US and nothing less. It will happen.


Guess what?

On his radio program Wednesday, the 27th of March, Rush Limbaugh said, "I think that the inertia is clearly moving in the direction that there is going to be gay marriage at some point nationwide."

WOW!

Well, I never thought that I would find myself agreeing with Rush Limbaugh, but there it is. Never say never.

It looks like Mr. Limbaugh isn't totally out of touch with reality after all.

This will definitely change the political landscape in the USA in ways that we can only guess about now, because this is uncharted territory.

Read more from Limbaugh here: Rush Limbaugh: Same-sex marriage will be legal nationwide



"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
So if you don't reserve for yourself the right to marry someone of the same-sex, you're not intolerant when you deny that right to anyone else.
 
Guess what?

On his radio program Wednesday, the 27th of March, Rush Limbaugh said, "I think that the inertia is clearly moving in the direction that there is going to be gay marriage at some point nationwide."

WOW!

Well, I never thought that I would find myself agreeing with Rush Limbaugh, but there it is. Never say never.
He's been saying that for years. Saying something is inevitable is not supporting it. If you tell someone you're going to die from cancer, that doesn't cure your cancer.
 
He's been saying that for years. Saying something is inevitable is not supporting it.




Where did I say that he supported gay marriage?

Those are your words, not mine.
 
So if you don't reserve for yourself the right to marry someone of the same-sex, you're not intolerant when you deny that right to anyone else.



Again, that last phrase is your words, not mine.

You can be as intolerant as you want to be, won't cost me a nickle.

Don't try to put your words in my mouth again, OK?

I don't play that game.
 
Marriage has always been about a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Anything else has never been marriage.

Your spin is irrelevent.

Your historical re-writing is irrelevant. Simply because you do not wish to recognize what people in the past have done, does not mean it has not happened.

I'd say marriage is/was about two things" Sex when your young and putting up with the old bag when you grow old.

Again, look back at history. Marriages were arranged more often than they weren't. Sex was a duty within the marriage and was also an activity sought out outside of it for pleasure. I mean not always, as the lower on the economic/social ladder you were the less time you had for any such "extra curricular" activities. But it was not uncommon for the well off to have lovers on the side. In some of the eastren cultures it was even expected and the wife might even help her husband to select his mistress.

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.

Biologically speaking, according to natural selection, marriage with one or both partners being sterile would not be worth a damn to the evolution of our species.

Marriage to "the person you love" is not a basic fundamental right.

Or it is and it just hasn't caught up through the legal system yet. Similar to how freedom from slavery is a basic fundamental right yet for the blacks it wasn't there till much later.

No, everything I said is correct. It is private property, everyone does have a right to control access to their property, and therefore they have a right to deny whoever they want from having access and use of their property. This comes from understanding property.

I saw several other posts on this so this is just the one I'm using to reference to the sub-topic.

If a country's government controls the media and tells them what they can and can not write, we claim that the people are denied their right to freedom of press. I can't even begin to count the number of times that I hear of this country or that denying people their rights. So obviously these rights exist regardless of what the law states. Therefore noting that what Henrin claims as a right runs contrary to law is not an argument, unless you want to argue that in mid east countries women are not being denied rights because the law there says they have none. Therefore, you need to come up with a compelling argument as to why is it not a property's owner's right to run a business and deny whoever they wish access to the business other than it's the law.

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.

Did you mean "There are heterosexual who can't have children, but can marry."?

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.

It really depends upon how the law is set up and how you read what Ali is saying. It could be set up that each marriage/civil union is only between two consenting adults, but that a given person may simultaneously possess multiple marriages/civil unions. Therefore, he's not discriminating against group families. Or he could be simply be limiting with in the current scope of events and saving the multi-spouse issue for later when it is more feasible. After all the current topic is in regards to two person only relationships.

And when did Ali bring in religion to the topic? Seems like you're assigning.
 
Again, look back at history. Marriages were arranged more often than they weren't. Sex was a duty within the marriage and was also an activity sought out outside of it for pleasure. I mean not always, as the lower on the economic/social ladder you were the less time you had for any such "extra curricular" activities. But it was not uncommon for the well off to have lovers on the side. In some of the eastren cultures it was even expected and the wife might even help her husband to select his mistress.


Yeah, the Romans were famous for visiting the brothels. So was I when I was stationed In Bangkok. The papasan of my apartment complex had five wives, so I doubt he needed to visit too many brothels.
 
Less than 10% of SS going out is to spouses and in order for a person to get spousal SS they must give up their own entitlement. While SS may need to be changed, it is not really significant in anyway to the issue of same sex marriage because any paid to same sex spouses would be so small it is easily made up for by other considerations such as less people on Medicaid/Medicare due to being on a spouse's private insurance.

Marriage rates are falling right off the charts with more and more people deciding to not get marriage and while legalizing gay marriage will raise the rates some most gay individuals to my understanding aren't interested in marriage either. In fact, this entire debate coming up now is just weird if you really think about it. We are as a society are growing out of favor with the idea of marriage and at the same time trying to invite another group to the party. It kind of reminds me of those people that show up to a party that is dieing down and half of the people already left.
 
Therefore, you need to come up with a compelling argument as to why is it not a property's owner's right to run a business and deny whoever they wish access to the business other than it's the law.



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.
 
Marriage rates are falling right off the charts with more and more people deciding to not get marriage and while legalizing gay marriage will raise the rates some most gay individuals to my understanding aren't interested in marriage either. In fact, this entire debate coming up now is just weird if you really think about it. We are as a society are growing out of favor with the idea of marriage and at the same time trying to invite another group to the party. It kind of reminds me of those people that show up to a party that is dieing down and half of the people already left.

Which has what to do with spousal SS? In fact, divorce and remarriage has a bigger, more negative affect on spousal SS than allowing same sex marriage.

Plus, why do you care? If fewer people are getting married, then that is less people you have to shell out that little extra SS money for as a spouse who made less than 1/2 of what their spouse made so they qualify for spousal SS.
 
Therefore, you need to come up with a compelling argument as to why is it not a property's owner's right to run a business and deny whoever they wish access to the business other than it's the law.




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.
 
Which has what to do with spousal SS? In fact, divorce and remarriage has a bigger, more negative affect on spousal SS than allowing same sex marriage.

Plus, why do you care? If fewer people are getting married, then that is less people you have to shell out that little extra SS money for as a spouse who made less than 1/2 of what their spouse made so they qualify for spousal SS.

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.
 
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.

It's one thing to protect peoples rights, but this idea that you combat social problems like racism by abridging the rights of people is not acceptable. I'm sorry, but who ever said people had to accept you into their property? Well? Who?
 
It's one thing to protect peoples rights, but this idea that you combat social problems like racism by abridging the rights of people is not acceptable. I'm sorry, but who ever said people had to accept you into their property? Well? Who?

You sure are a one trick pony in favor of discrimination.
 
It's one thing to protect peoples rights, but this idea that you combat social problems like racism by abridging the rights of people is not acceptable. I'm sorry, but who ever said people had to accept you into their property? Well? Who?



The U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court. Don't like the law? Try breaking it and see how that works out.

You are way out of touch with the vast majority of Americans. I suggest that you adjust your attitude.

I have zero sympathy for you and anyone who 'thinks' like you.
 
It's one thing to protect peoples rights, but this idea that you combat social problems like racism by abridging the rights of people is not acceptable. I'm sorry, but who ever said people had to accept you into their property? Well? Who?





It might have been this guy:

jesus-christ-jesus-.jpg

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

no colored.jpghate.jpgsigns.jpg


Think about it.
 
Back
Top Bottom