• 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!

If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do [W:72,96,331

If there was a national vote on equal rights for gays what would you do?


  • Total voters
    133
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

How does "interpretations to(of?) facts are just wrong interpretations" NOT mean that?

I read it as you saying that all interpretations of facts are wrong.

because you took what i said and tried to make it about the philosophy you stated later, im not talking philosophy

its easy

what im saying there is FACT, and you understand the fact or you dont, if you interpret the fact in a way that is not fact then they are just wrong interpretations


example

1+ 1 = 2

this is fact in general numbers

but if interpret this to mean 1 drop of water + 1 drop of water = 2 drops of water, i could then interpret 1 + 1 = 2 is wrong. Because if a put one drop of water on a table and then another drop of water on top of it, more than likely it will combine and ill still have one drop of water.

But i wouldn't be right, i would have just interpreted the fact wrong and applied incorrectly.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

because you took what i said and tried to make it about the philosophy you stated later, im not talking philosophy

its easy

what im saying there is FACT, and you understand the fact or you dont, if you interpret the fact in a way that is not fact then they are just wrong interpretations


example

1+ 1 = 2

this is fact in general numbers

but if interpret this to mean 1 drop of water + 1 drop of water = 2 drops of water, i could then interpret 1 + 1 = 2 is wrong. Because if a put one drop of water on a table and then another drop of water on top of it, more than likely it will combine and ill still have one drop of water.

But i wouldn't be right, i would have just interpreted the fact wrong and applied incorrectly.
I looked at what you said and it seemed to mean X, so I replied to that. I was not attempting to (or do not recall attempting to) force it into a half-joking philosophy I posted earlier.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

I looked at what you said and it seemed to mean X, so I replied to that. I was not attempting to (or do not recall attempting to) force it into a half-joking philosophy I posted earlier.

i guess we both misunderstood then, my mistake
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

Um hows that. Maybe you should actually read the amendment. It states in brief that if you are a citizen of the United States you have the SAME RIGHTS as anyone else who is and the government CANNOT impose laws which restrict those rights and priviledges. Also "Christianity" as quoted in the BIBLE prohibits followers of the Anointed one (CHRIST) from bearing false witness, judging others or not loving you fellow man. "Whatever you do to the least of my brethren so you do onto me." Jesus
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

I'd ban all marriages and make every one - past and present - null and void.

Everyone who is married would legally be single - instantly.

People can still marry all they want - but the government would not recognize any of them.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

I'd ban all marriages and make every one - past and present - null and void.

Everyone who is married would legally be single - instantly.

People can still marry all they want - but the government would not recognize any of them.

Would you do the same for other family relationships as well? Basically completely destroy any family relationships leaving the government to gain pretty much any and all property that the people hold when they fail to write a will? There are plenty more things that eliminating marriage in this country would do than just make everyone legally single. Marriage has existed for thousands of years as a contract of kinship (mainly). Not recognizing marriage does absolutely nothing positive for this country.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

At least we wouldn't have to listen to the gay marriage debate any more?
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

Would you do the same for other family relationships as well? Basically completely destroy any family relationships leaving the government to gain pretty much any and all property that the people hold when they fail to write a will? There are plenty more things that eliminating marriage in this country would do than just make everyone legally single. Marriage has existed for thousands of years as a contract of kinship (mainly). Not recognizing marriage does absolutely nothing positive for this country.

This is nothing to do with other family relationships. I simply suggested to ban the government recognition of marriages.

Why would it change anything for a happy family? All marital vows could still be honored by those that want to. It is just that the government would not recognize people as married.

The law has - imo - no business in people's love lives/relationships.
 
Last edited:
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

This is nothing to do with other family relationships. I simply suggested to ban the government recognition of marriages.

Why would it change anything for a happy family? All marital vows could still be honored by those that want to. It is just that the government would not recognize people as married. The law has - imo - no business in people's love lives/relationships.



So, all states have what are called "assumed parentage laws" meaning that the spouse in a legel marriage is automatically the legal parent of a child born in that marriage. Father's would not have to adopt their own children?

While in the military I did multiple tours overseas. Because I was married my wife received command sponsorship meaning that she was given long term entrance to the new country (due to Status of Forces Agreements) and transportation and additional housing was available. Do we tell out military service members "Screw you" you don't have wives and husbands anymore?

While in those foreign countries do we tell those spouses, "Sorry no medical treatment for you a military facilities - you have no relationship that is recognized." Oh and that applies to the military members children, well unless the military member has spent thousands of dollars to adopt his own kids.

No more tax free transfer of property to a spouse - spouses won't exist.

Absent a will, no inheritance for you. Property used to go (absent a will goes to the nearest next of kin) Spouse, Parent, Sibling, Aunt/Uncle, Niece/Nephew. With no spouse (absent a will) no automatic inheritance.




************************

I'm in my mid-50's and funny thing is I never heard "get the government out of marriage" until the gheys started getting it.



>>>>
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

This is nothing to do with other family relationships. I simply suggested to ban the government recognition of marriages.

Why would it change anything for a happy family? All marital vows could still be honored by those that want to. It is just that the government would not recognize people as married.

The law has - imo - no business in people's love lives/relationships.

It has everything to do with family relationships because spouse is a legal family relationship, that once established, is the closest legal relationship that a person can make. In fact, marriages establish more than just two legal relationships of spouse between the couple, but also establish other relationships between the spouses and relatives of those spouses in the form of inlaws.

Marriage now is a contract that establishes a familial relationship. It is quite similar to the birth certificate or adoption paperwork.

The most efficient governmental institution is marriage. It can establish legal kinship for many people on just a single piece of paper, the marriage license and it clears up plenty of legal issues without extra legal paperwork being made up for millions (if not more) people within the US.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

So, all states have what are called "assumed parentage laws" meaning that the spouse in a legel marriage is automatically the legal parent of a child born in that marriage. Father's would not have to adopt their own children?

While in the military I did multiple tours overseas. Because I was married my wife received command sponsorship meaning that she was given long term entrance to the new country (due to Status of Forces Agreements) and transportation and additional housing was available. Do we tell out military service members "Screw you" you don't have wives and husbands anymore?

While in those foreign countries do we tell those spouses, "Sorry no medical treatment for you a military facilities - you have no relationship that is recognized." Oh and that applies to the military members children, well unless the military member has spent thousands of dollars to adopt his own kids.

No more tax free transfer of property to a spouse - spouses won't exist.

Absent a will, no inheritance for you. Property used to go (absent a will goes to the nearest next of kin) Spouse, Parent, Sibling, Aunt/Uncle, Niece/Nephew. With no spouse (absent a will) no automatic inheritance.




************************

I'm in my mid-50's and funny thing is I never heard "get the government out of marriage" until the gheys started getting it.



>>>>

I said the government would not recognize marriages...it does not mean people could not legally designate someone (anyone...a lover, friend, brother, daughter...anyone) as a partner for benefit purposes.

Marriage tax loopholes/benefits would end. Though they could be replaced with 'designated partner'. Again, anyone you choose.

And no one would be legally bound to another through matrimony.
 
Last edited:
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

I said the government would not recognize marriages...it does not mean people could not legally designate someone (anyone...a lover, friend, brother, daughter...anyone) as a partner for benefit purposes.

But no one would be legally bound to another through matrimony.

The most efficient way for people to set up marriage, spousal recognition, benefits for spouses is through marriage. It works the same way as birth certificates.

The people would still be legally bound to each other, just by a lot more paperwork (legal documents) that they had to pay a crapload of money to arrange. Or, if they can't afford that, they would still have to have some protection from the government for abuses of such a system. We would have people getting together, where one had property in their name and worked, while the other stayed home, took care of the house, the children, possibly having a lower paying job. They break up, and now that person who did all the household work is screwed because people do not think like that, that far ahead and it is not reasonable to think that people will. Instead, the government would be forced to step in anyway and either a) force the money-making person to support/compensate the stay at home person for their efforts or b) the rest of society would take up the slack. Either option is worse than simply having marriage and legal spouses recognized by the government.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

I said the government would not recognize marriages...it does not mean people could not legally designate someone (anyone...a lover, friend, brother, daughter...anyone) as a partner for benefit purposes.

Marriage tax loopholes/benefits would end. Though they could be replaced with 'designated partner'. Again, anyone you choose.

And no one would be legally bound to another through matrimony.


You realize that being able to designate anyone off the street with no legal entanglements between then to receive all the current benefits of marriage makes no sense right?


My wife and I have been married for 27 years and she followed me around the globe putting her career on hold when we moved overseas. The idea that her ability to inherit my half of our joint property and assets tax free is not considered a "loophole" is kind of telling.



>>>>
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

You realize that being able to designate anyone off the street with no legal entanglements between then to receive all the current benefits of marriage makes no sense right?


My wife and I have been married for 27 years and she followed me around the globe putting her career on hold when we moved overseas. The idea that her ability to inherit my half of our joint property and assets tax free is not considered a "loophole" is kind of telling.



>>>>

I realize it makes no sense to you (and probably most others).

I also realize I don't much care...'cause it makes perfect sense to me.


Good day.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

I'd ban all marriages and make every one - past and present - null and void.

Everyone who is married would legally be single - instantly.

People can still marry all they want - but the government would not recognize any of them.

so instead of granting equal rights and protecting rights you would choose to further violate peoples rights.
LOL no thanks
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

How is there going to be a national vote? There is no such thing.

I think that the government has NO business in marriage. Period. Straight, gay.

For MY religion, marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God.

Since "Congress shall make no law..." it seems to me that it is a clear violation of the separation. Anyway, I do think that society has an interest in regulating contracts and everyone, should they decide could get a marriage license for that purpose. But you should be able to marry in a church without one. No government is mentioned as a ratifier of marriage in my religion.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

so instead of granting equal rights and protecting rights you would choose to further violate peoples rights.
LOL no thanks

How exactly is having the government no longer involved in marriage violating people's rights?

P.S. I am quite sure I am going to regret asking that.

People can still get married. And there would be no legal obstacle for gay marriage. And every gay marriage would have exactly the same legality as a 'straight' marriage.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

So, if someone dies and then two people claimed to be their sole spouse and thus inherit all their property, how would that get solved? At some point, there would have to have been some kind of legal designation of who is married to whom. There would need to be a court battle to enforce that one of them is the rightful spouse and the other is not. So if you want a marriage to have any legal significance whatsoever, you need them to be "recognized".

Is this necro just another "marriage should be a religious (Christian, obviously) thing and everyone else has to have something else because religion (again, Christianity) owns marriage" bit? They're getting old.

Also, I'm pleased to see that despite all of the ugly rhetoric tossed around about this subject, 75% of people would do the right thing. Civil rights still aren't up for a vote, however.
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

1.)How exactly is having the government no longer involved in marriage violating people's rights?
2.)P.S. I am quite sure I am going to regret asking that.

3.)People can still get married.
4.)And there would be no legal obstacle for gay marriage.
5.)And every gay marriage would have exactly the same legality as a 'straight' marriage.

1.) easy you said"I'd ban all marriages and make every one - past and present - null and void."

so the hell with their LEGAL contracts they have, lets just void them and have government no longer protect thier rights and thier contracts.

yes that would factually be violating their rights.

2.) never regret learning reality

3.) who protects their marriage contract?
4.) not sure how this helps your plan to violate rights
5.) what legality you want to remove government
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

1.) easy you said"I'd ban all marriages and make every one - past and present - null and void."

so the hell with their LEGAL contracts they have, lets just void them and have government no longer protect thier rights and thier contracts.

yes that would factually be violating their rights.

2.) never regret learning reality

3.) who protects their marriage contract?
4.) not sure how this helps your plan to violate rights
5.) what legality you want to remove government

Oh Jeez...null and void ONLY as far as the government is concerned.

That does not mean people cannot get married...it just means marriage no longer has any meaning to the government. Everyone would be legally single.

People are still free to get married and make any contractual arrangements they want within that marriage.

You would be able to designate another person (any person) of your choice as your partner for matters of government, military, insurance, next-of-kin...etcetera.
But you would not have to marry them, just designate them.
And you could undesignate them any time you wish...like designating a beneficiary in a will or for life insurance.

So, I will ask again, EXACTLY which Constitutional right is being violated by this?


And, to 3)...their marriage 'contract' is strictly that...contractual. It is only legal in a contractual way (like a rent agreement or a employment contract). A personal agreement between two parties.
 
Last edited:
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

1.)Oh Jeez...null and void ONLY as far as the government is concerned.
2.)That does not mean people cannot get married...
3.)it just means marriage no longer has any meaning to the government.
4.) Everyone would be legally single.
5.)People are still free to get married and make any contractual arrangements they want within that marriage.
6.)You would be able to designate another person (any person) of your choice as your partner for matters of government, military, insurance, next-of-kin...etcetera.
7.) But you would not have to marry them, just designate them.
8.) And you could undesignate them any time you wish...like designating a beneficiary in a will or for life insurance.
9.)So, I will ask again, EXACTLY which Constitutional right is being violated by this?

1.)which takes away their contract and no longer has the government protecting them which would violate their rights since theres no legal reason to do so.

what would be your valid legal reason to stop protecting these peoples legals documents?

2.) good thing I didnt claim that
3.) and again who protects their marriage contract and all the rights and privileges that come with it?
4.) so again you would ignore their legal contract. Please see #1
5.) see #3
6.) again how would these contracts be protected? who would do this?
7.) contracts besides marriage already exist. What ones do you plan to make equal to marriage, how and who protects it?
8.) see #7
9.) answered muiltiple times now see#1 bold it and highlight it next time wont change the fact it was answered. Trying to add constitutional to it doesnt help either lol

why do peoples rights not matter to you? what possible justification do you have to violate peoples rights and void their legal contracts?
 
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

1.)which takes away their contract and no longer has the government protecting them which would violate their rights since theres no legal reason to do so.

what would be your valid legal reason to stop protecting these peoples legals documents?

2.) good thing I didnt claim that
3.) and again who protects their marriage contract and all the rights and privileges that come with it?
4.) so again you would ignore their legal contract. Please see #1
5.) see #3
6.) again how would these contracts be protected? who would do this?
7.) contracts besides marriage already exist. What ones do you plan to make equal to marriage, how and who protects it?
8.) see #7
9.) answered muiltiple times now see#1 bold it and hilight it next time wont change the fact it was answered.

why do peoples rights not matter to you? what possible justification do you have to violate peoples rights and void their legal contracts?

You did not answer the question.

Which specific right that is in the Constitution/Bill of Rights would be violated.

Here is the Constitution:

U.S. Constitution | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Now please tell me EXACTLY which right would be violated/denied under my plan?


And who would protect these contracts? The same people that protect any personal contracts between two or more people...civil court.
You make a contract, set the terms and sign it. If one or both parties violate the contract, take them to civil court.
 
Last edited:
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

You did not answer the question.

Which specific right that is in the Constitution/Bill of Rights would be violated.

Here is the Constitution:

U.S. Constitution | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Now please tell me EXACTLY which right would be violated/denied under my plan?
thats what i thought, facts win again

YOUR posts are the only ones not answering questions lol

let us know when you can post answers and let us know when you post support for your strawman.

already answered you, you have no right to violate their legal contract, ZERO, NONE. If you disagree simply tell us why you can.
Until you can do his you have nothing.
can I say your will is void just cause i dont like it? why not?
cause it violates rights you have no legality to discriminate against them based on your feelings

your posts can keep dodging this fact but nobody honest and educated will buy it.

again if you disagree simply teach me a lesson. Prove my statements wrong. Simply point out why you have the right to void their legal contracts and violate their rights.
 
Last edited:
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

And who would protect these contracts? The same people that protect any personal contracts between two or more people...civil court.
You make a contract, set the terms and sign it. If one or both parties violate the contract, take them to civil court.

so you want to use the GOVERNMENT in this case but not the government in other cases? why?

that "solution" is mentally retarded and has no justification or logic to support it. It would create more problems then solve it.

how do you make a new contract equal to marriage? and why is it ok for GOVERNMENT to be involved in that? lol


the bottom line is, and everybody sees it, your solution that wouldn't solve anything is just a hidden way to deny gays equal rights.

Your solution is the adult version of "im taking my ball and going home"
 
Last edited:
Re: If there was a National Vote on Equal rights for gays, what would you do. [W:72]

thats what i thought, facts win again

YOUR posts are the only one not answering questions lol

let us know when you are ready to answer and let us know when you can support your strawman.

already answered you, you have no right to violate their legal contract, ZERO, NONE. If you disagree simply tell us why you can.
Until you can do his you have nothing.
can I say you will is void just cause i dont like it? why not? LMAO
cause it violated their rights you have no legality to discriminate against them based on your feelings

your posts can keep dodging this fact but nobody honest and educated will buy it.

again if you disagree simply teach me a lesson. Prove my statements wrong. Simply point out why you have the right to void their legal contracts and violate their rights.
You typed:

'so instead of granting equal rights and protecting rights you would choose to further violate peoples rights.'

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...d-you-do-w-72-96-331-a-52.html#post1063409194. (Post #515)

Yet, when pressed, you fail to point out exactly which right from the US Constitution that my idea violates.

So, your statement is totally baseless and will be treated (by me) accordingly until such time as you find this right that my idea would supposedly violate.

Please let me know when/if you do.

Until then, we are done as I have not nearly enough respect for your (IMO) childish debating style to waste my time with you on this...no offense intended.


Good day.
 
Back
Top Bottom