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

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

AGENT J said:

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"

Click to expand...

For the record, I am 100% for gay marriage (under the present system).

Gays are equal in every way to 'straight' people...why not in marriage?

And my idea instantly grants them that equality.


Now....we are done here, for now.


Good day.

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

DA60 said:

You typed:
1.)'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)

2.)Yet, when pressed, you fail to point out exactly which right from the US Constitution that my idea violates.
3.)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.
4.)Please let me know when/if you do.
5.)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.
6.)Good day.

Click to expand...

1.) yep i sure did and that fact stands
2.) because nobody is dumb enough to fall for your strawmen. Quote me saying its in the constitution.
according to your failed logic and starwman women have no right to not be rapes. I mean I dont read it in the constitution where it sayd women have the right to be free from rape LOL
Keep trying but the dishonesty in your post will continue to fail and be destroyed lol
3.) sorry this lie and deflection wont be bought by anybody honest and educated, continuing to dodge the fact will only further expose the failure of your solution and posts
4.) already did this fact wont change neither will posting lies about it help
5.) another failed deflection and failed insult instead of supporting your failed claim with any facts
6.) its a great day because facts win again

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

DA60 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The problem is that government has reason to encourage marriage, which is why they added tax breaks for married persons in the first place.

Eliminating the legal part of it doesn't account for that.

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

DA60 said:

1.)For the record, I am 100% for gay marriage (under the present system).
2.)Gays are equal in every way to 'straight' people...why not in marriage?
3.)and my idea instantly grants them that equality.
4.)Now....we are done here, for now.
5.)Good day.

Click to expand...

1.) NOTHING in your posts supports this statements
2.) correct this is why they are being granted equal rights
3.) factually false as already proven. your "idea" would violate their rights and others
4.) this will always be the case until you can support your failed idea of violating rights
5.) yes in deed because equality is winning and failed ideas like in your posts are losing.

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

One of the biggest arguments against gay marriage is that marriage is a sacred tradition that is supposed to only be between a man and a woman.

First off, even if that's how marriage was intended to work, it sure as hell isn't sacred any more. Half of all marriages end in divorce, and half of all couples living together are unmarried. Also, there are countless different variations of marriages, with the only common characteristic between them being a government-recognized contract. As marriage can be based on any religion, or even be a purely secular contract, I really don't see the big deal in letting gender no longer apply to the terms.

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

DA60 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Absolutely would not trust this to result in equal enforcement of rights for everyone. First, those 1000 rights would go down the toilet once the govt got out of marriage, only some of which a civil court would manage to reinstate by simple contract. This would also create an impractical burden on the courts as you'd have probably millions of new lawsuits over things that are currently routine.

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

Jesse Booth said:

At least we wouldn't have to listen to the gay marriage debate any more?

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, poor you. You wouldn't have to if it would just become legal either, think of that?

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

chromium said:

Quote Originally Posted by Jesse Booth
At least we wouldn't have to listen to the gay marriage debate any more?

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, poor you. You wouldn't have to if it would just become legal either, think of that?

Click to expand...

There's this fancy new invention called a "joke." I was just debuting one so that people like you might hear about it, along with the other revolutionalry concepts of "bullsh*t apologies" and "sarcasm." My bad. I'll definitely make this mistake again, regardless of your dry, flavorless personality.

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

BrianBoroihme said:

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.

Click to expand...

Your religion does not own marriage. In fact, since no religion owns marriage then it is not a violation in any way for the government to use the word marriage to set up family relationships, spouses and inlaws. You are completely free to get just a religious marriage if you wish, but that does not mean that others should be prevented from getting a civil marriage.

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

DA60 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Family relationships have meaning to the government, and spouses that are established via marriage are family relationships. So yes, marriage is needed for this.

Marriage licenses are the most efficient contract in the US government. One single piece of paper takes care of thousands of things for most people. And since everyone would have to file their paperwork that designates their spouse with the government anyway, then it is stupid to replace the marriage license with spousal designation forms that cover less.

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

AGENT J said:

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.

Click to expand...

For the record, you are now on my ignore list.

Your ideas maybe decent (more freedom), but your approach to 'non-believers' is troll-like.

You use personal attacks, muddy the waters and refuse to answer direct questions.

You are a complete waste of time to 'debate' with, IMO (and I have tried several times with you).

I would have PM'd you this...but your box is full.


Good day.

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

DA60 said:

1.)For the record, you are now on my ignore list.
2.)Your ideas maybe decent (more freedom), but your approach to 'non-believers' is troll-like.
3.)You use personal attacks, muddy the waters and refuse to answer direct questions.
4.)You are a complete waste of time to 'debate' with, IMO (and I have tried several times with you).

I would have PM'd you this...but your box is full.


5.)Good day.

Click to expand...

1.) meaningless to your failed suggestion and the fact that it will violate more rights
2.) this deflection also doesnt change anything, also what is a nonbeliever lol
3.) posting lies like this wont help your failed arguments please stay on topic, i posted ZERO person attacks to you
4.) you are going to have this issue often when your arguments fail and facts prove them wrong. The solution is easy though, simply dont argue against fact and be able to support your posts

when you can support your failed arguments please let us know whe'd love to hear why your idea of further infringing on rights is the better move and why its acceptable

5.) its a great day thank you

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

The only flaw in a national referendum is that amendment cannot be made for possible loopholes in the text. Provided that the initiative being voted on is worded correctly and does not allow for loopholes, I would vote for the initiative; assuming there is a hypothetical national initiative for this referendum to take place, I would also have petitioned for the initiative to get on the ballot. However, if the initiative was worded poorly, I would have to vote in the negative.

There are numerous reasons backing the argument for legal gay marriage, the most convincing being that firstly, we have a separation of church and state, meaning that religious beliefs should not be imposed on all people by the government. That includes the religious belief that gays are inferior to others and don't deserve legal marriage. The other is non-discrimination, and the government does not have the right to treat certain citizens as inferior to others.

This referendum does not just address marriage, however. It also mentions equal rights, which I assume refers to non-discrimination in the workplace, evictions, and being served at a business, among other things. The same basic principles apply here as to marriage. This issue is remarkably similar to the civil rights movement, and arguing for businesses to have the right to discriminate is very analogous to the argument presented by those against civil rights in the 1960's.

I also hope transgender rights were addressed in the hypothetical referendum, although by the looks of the OP, that doesn't seemed to be addressed by the OP.

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

roguenuke said:

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.

Click to expand...

How would it destroy family relationships if the 'govt.' didnt recognize them?

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

WorldWatcher said:

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?

Click to expand...

While I see no need for govt recognized & subsidized marriage, one reason I support it is because it does provide protection for children.

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

roguenuke said:

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.

Click to expand...

I disagree. While what you say about the legal side may be true....it's certainly not necessary at all for solid positive family relationships.

Those have existed forever with or without legal recognition.

What it does provide is protection for children in the event the family breaks up due to divorce, death, etc. And that is important and valid IMO.

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

Jesse Booth said:

There's this fancy new invention called a "joke." I was just debuting one so that people like you might hear about it, along with the other revolutionalry concepts of "bullsh*t apologies" and "sarcasm." My bad. I'll definitely make this mistake again, regardless of your dry, flavorless personality.

Click to expand...

Yes because sarcasm translates perfectly in type and no one on this forum ever says the exact same thing you did with 100% seriousness (this was sarcasm just fyi)

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

AGENT J said:

Ok for some fantasy reason there's going to be a national vote on equal rights for gays.

Save me all the failed arguments that its not equal rights or it should be left to the states or the government should be out of it all together blah blah blah nonsense, thats in other threads. This is simply about how YOU would vote if this happened.

and yes for the conspiracy theorist out there we will waste time and double down on the first amendment and say of course churches cant be forced to do these legal marriages, even though it has nothing to do with them anyway and this already cant happen.

so there it is, its voting time, what do you do.

Yes - you think gays should have equal rights and the right to legal marriage
No - you dont think they should have equal rights and you want them banned from getting legal marriage.
No vote - you stay home and dont vote at all

Click to expand...

Without knowing more precisely what was in the bill, I can't even make the decision to not even vote. While the brief description sounds good, too many times the actual contents suck such as Patriot Act and ACA.

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

Lursa said:

How would it destroy family relationships if the 'govt.' didnt recognize them?

Click to expand...

The government is where legal family recognition comes from. I was not referring to the emotional relationships being destroyed, but rather the legal strength of the relationships. Inheritance, hospital visitation, notification of kin, decision making, and many other things are based on legal recognition of familial relationships.

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

Lursa said:

I disagree. While what you say about the legal side may be true....it's certainly not necessary at all for solid positive family relationships.

Those have existed forever with or without legal recognition.

What it does provide is protection for children in the event the family breaks up due to divorce, death, etc. And that is important and valid IMO.

Click to expand...

You are assuming I am speaking about the emotional relationship between families, but I'm not. I'm speaking about the legal relationship families have. That is what is going to be the problem if we had no more legal/government recognition of family relationships.

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

maquiscat said:

Without knowing more precisely what was in the bill, I can't even make the decision to not even vote. While the brief description sounds good, too many times the actual contents suck such as Patriot Act and ACA.

Click to expand...

LOL thats a very good reality based point

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

chromium said:

Quote Originally Posted by Jesse Booth
There's this fancy new invention called a "joke." I was just debuting one so that people like you might hear about it, along with the other revolutionalry concepts of "bullsh*t apologies" and "sarcasm." My bad. I'll definitely make this mistake again, regardless of your dry, flavorless personality.

Click to expand...

Yes because sarcasm translates perfectly in type and no one on this forum ever says the exact same thing you did with 100% seriousness (this was sarcasm just fyi)

Click to expand...

I wasn't being sarcastic that first time. My response to your misinterpretation was definitely sarcasm, however. But thinks for pointing out your own sarcasm so blatantly. I am clearly your intellectual inferior, and would otherwise be unable to use my tiny, underdeveloped brain to figure out that you're being sarcastic.

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

Marriage is not a right. So your poll is skewed.

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

CRUE CAB said:

Marriage is not a right. So your poll is skewed.

Click to expand...

Interesting opinion. Care to explain your reasoning for that statement?

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

Jesse Booth said:

I wasn't being sarcastic that first time. My response to your misinterpretation was definitely sarcasm, however. But thinks for pointing out your own sarcasm so blatantly. I am clearly your intellectual inferior, and would otherwise be unable to use my tiny, underdeveloped brain to figure out that you're being sarcastic.

Click to expand...

any time