View Poll Results: Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

Voters
232. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes,-- everybody should be treated equal

    95 40.95%
  • No--some people should recieve preferential treatment

    137 59.05%
Page 9 of 85 FirstFirst ... 78910111959 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 847

Thread: Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

  1. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    If they want to call their relationships marriages, there's nothing that prevents them from doing so.
    Well there's nothing that prevents them today...so I guess there's nothing to go to court over.

  2. #82
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Yeah so what?
    That's what I'm asking.

    It's your turn to dream up an answer.

    So...what?

  3. #83
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,974

    Re: Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Daydreaming is fun isn't it?
    No, I was just matching mindless one liners that add nothing to the discussion with a parody in kind.

    Still waiting on an actual REASON you believe marriage under the law should not have its definition changed and instead we need to create an entirely new law doing the exact same thing but with a different name.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Oh, wait, we forgot about polygamists...1st. Amendment and all....damn I guess gays are just as bigoted as the rest of us
    Not at all. The change from allowing a consenting male and female to two consenting adults in regards to the law is mostly negligible. There is few, if any, issues within the law that such a change will cause any trouble that would need to fix.

    Or in other words, changing it from 1 man 1 woman to 2 people would not create many ripples through the law. Tax law regarding marriage would still function the same way. Ownership rights regarding marriage would still function the same way. End of life decisions regarding marriage would still function the same way. Custody and divorce laws regarding marriage would still function in basically the same way.

    Such is not the case with polygamist relationships. Polygamist relationships would need not a minor tweak to the law but a complete overhaul to a large portion of the legal code in just about every facet that marriage touches. Additionally, logistically, there are a number of pitfalls of allowing polygamist marriage under the law that there is little help with. For example an individual marriage to one person, who is married to a seperate person, who in turn is married to another seperate person but not connected in any way to the first cause a large quagmire in regards to legal powers, amongst others. If you'd like I could probably pull up some older threads where the pitfalls and reasons for why it would be impossible from a government stand point.

    Now, if two couples "married" or "unioned" or whatever else under the law want to join together in a polyigamous marriage through their relationship and all live under the same house...so be it, I don't care what they do in private. But legally there is far, far to many potential issues, problems, and pitfalls from allowing them benefits outside of that of a standard 2 person marriage.

    These pitfalls do not exist in a two person marriage, regardless if its man and woman or woman and woman. The change to the law is extremely minor. It has very few ripples. The ONLY tangable consequences to allowing it is that a LEGAL word has its definition changed, something that is far from uncommon within our country.

    I'm EAGERLY awaiting your in depth response as I'm sure you were wanting to actually debate and weren't just coming in to throw a trollish sarcastic one liner with a half assed thought out point that you wouldn't bother to actually back up if someone actually mistook it for an attempt to debate.

  4. #84
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    No, I was just matching mindless one liners that add nothing to the discussion with a parody in kind.

    Still waiting on an actual REASON you believe marriage under the law should not have its definition changed and instead we need to create an entirely new law doing the exact same thing but with a different name.



    Not at all. The change from allowing a consenting male and female to two consenting adults in regards to the law is mostly negligible. There is few, if any, issues within the law that such a change will cause any trouble that would need to fix.

    Or in other words, changing it from 1 man 1 woman to 2 people would not create many ripples through the law. Tax law regarding marriage would still function the same way. Ownership rights regarding marriage would still function the same way. End of life decisions regarding marriage would still function the same way. Custody and divorce laws regarding marriage would still function in basically the same way.

    Such is not the case with polygamist relationships. Polygamist relationships would need not a minor tweak to the law but a complete overhaul to a large portion of the legal code in just about every facet that marriage touches. Additionally, logistically, there are a number of pitfalls of allowing polygamist marriage under the law that there is little help with. For example an individual marriage to one person, who is married to a seperate person, who in turn is married to another seperate person but not connected in any way to the first cause a large quagmire in regards to legal powers, amongst others. If you'd like I could probably pull up some older threads where the pitfalls and reasons for why it would be impossible from a government stand point.

    Now, if two couples "married" or "unioned" or whatever else under the law want to join together in a polyigamous marriage through their relationship and all live under the same house...so be it, I don't care what they do in private. But legally there is far, far to many potential issues, problems, and pitfalls from allowing them benefits outside of that of a standard 2 person marriage.

    These pitfalls do not exist in a two person marriage, regardless if its man and woman or woman and woman. The change to the law is extremely minor. It has very few ripples. The ONLY tangable consequences to allowing it is that a LEGAL word has its definition changed, something that is far from uncommon within our country.

    I'm EAGERLY awaiting your in depth response as I'm sure you were wanting to actually debate and weren't just coming in to throw a trollish sarcastic one liner with a half assed thought out point that you wouldn't bother to actually back up if someone actually mistook it for an attempt to debate.
    Did you just try using the law to justify bigotry?

    Yeah you did.

    Wow.

  5. #85
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,974

    Re: Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Did you just try using the law to justify bigotry?

    Yeah you did.

    Wow.
    Ahh...so apparently my assumption at the end of my post was incorrect.

    Surprising

  6. #86
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Nice logical fallacy - so if one word cannot change, then no words can change - especially as quickly as you want them to. So you've gone from ad hominem to now logical fallacy.
    But it's not. The point is that you deny the ability of a word to change to meet the necessities for a continually evolving society. Fact is that it does change, and just because you think your word shouldn't change doesn't mean it cannot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Apparently you and a minority of people think so. Government does not and nor do I.
    For now, still in rightful government the rights of the minority cannot be infringed upon by the majority. But seeing as you have admitted a few times that you would infringe upon rights, you have shown a penchant for treason and tyranny against the minority. But rest assured, same sex marriage will be realized nationwide in our lifetimes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    In fact, traditions are EXACTLY how humans do things. If what you say was true, traditions would not exist, and people would drop things as quickly as they adopt new things. That doesn't happen in real life.
    Oh yeah? So we're the same as say ancient Greece? I mean, lots of traditions, right? No, humans hold on to certain traditions for some amount of time because some are unable to deal with change. But even those "traditions" will change. How many religious traditions did we used to have which do not exist anymore?

    Humanity advances and marches on, we do not stagnate. Stagnation is slow death. Everything we've done has been done by not adhering to tradition but rather pushing forward. Notice we no longer declare people witches and instead understand science. A continual push for evolution, that is humanity. So too with our "traditions" and societies. Marriage is expanding whether you like it or not. And regardless of personal bigotry and tyranny it will come about. Humans always push forward even if some try to hold the rest back.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Wow, pulling out the "tyranny" now? LOL
    When you move against the rights and liberties of the individual you engage in tyranny. That simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Tell you what, just pass a law then to abolish marriage for everyone. Sure, that'll work.
    It's one of the proper ways, abolishing of the marriage license. It's probably the best solution as the government has no real purpose in the institution of marriage. But so long as the marriage license exist, marriage is a completely legal tool and contract. And the people have the right to contract, government may not properly infringe upon that. Any defense of infringement upon the individual's right to contract is defense of tyranny and support of treason against the People. Plain and simple. Don't be so hate filled and maybe you can begin to understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Ignorance like the opinion you have is a joke. Pick a new word.
    Weren't you bitching about ad hominem, try to be consistent. Yet my opinion is not a joke. It's firmly rooted in the rights and liberties of the individual which is the basis for the Republic. I'm not the one out of tune with the purpose of this country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Sure fascist works - Like I care what you call me. Look, it's not going to change. Just because you don't find value in traditions, history and society doesn't mean everyone else has to jump on the "what's new" bandwagon... marriage is between a man and woman. Obama says so, I say so, most local governments say so as do the states. You want something new, go call it whatever you want, officially it stays as is. And if evolving requires me to be what you think it should be, I'd much rather be dead and miss the abortion that is your viewpoint.
    I find value in the traditions of upholding freedom and liberty. That's that. Slavery was once legal, why did we change the "tradition". I mean, it's tradition right? We changed it because we began to understand the infringement of freedom and liberty it posed. We stopped thinking of the slaves as second class and acknowledged their humanity. Upon doing so, we expanded our definitions, broke improper tradition, and created more freedom and liberty. Same is the case here. People want to treat homosexuals as second class so they can infringe upon their right to contract. But we're breaking out of that archaic, ignorant, dark age thinking. We will break improper tradition and expand freedom once again. If you can't handle it, well too bad. But this Republic was founded upon the notions of freedom and liberty and the ideals to promote and proliferate the blessings of such.
    Last edited by Ikari; 01-14-10 at 03:43 PM.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  7. #87
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Well there's nothing that prevents them today...so I guess there's nothing to go to court over.
    They can go to court to try and have the governemnt recognize any social contracts they enter into.

    But once they have the same rights to enter into social contracts, the the semantics issue is pretty much a moot point.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  8. #88
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Ahh...so apparently my assumption at the end of my post was incorrect.

    Surprising
    Um, did you notice the poll options?

    This is a bait thread, therefore as long as I remain civil I'm free to bait...because that is the point of this thread.

    My position on gay marriage is not reflected in the poll options...in fact there's not even an "other" option...so if I were discuss my actual view of gay 'marriage I would actually be way off topic.

    Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry
    No, they're already equal.

    -or-

    Yes, if a significant number of them are raising children.

    But again, this is a bait thread.
    Last edited by Jerry; 01-14-10 at 03:44 PM.

  9. #89
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    They can go to court to try and have the governemnt recognize any social contracts they enter into.
    It's actually a municipal contract.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    But once they have the same rights to enter into social contracts, the the semantics issue is pretty much a moot point.
    You're dismissing the entire social reason and history behind wanting to marry for there to even be a complimentary "contract".

  10. #90
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,974

    Re: Should Same Sex People be allowed to Marry

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Did you just try using the law to justify bigotry?

    Yeah you did.

    Wow.
    But we'll forgive you're pathetic attempt.

    Marriage, at its core, is "bigoted" in the way you're ignorantly using the word in your (poor) attempt to be a smart ass. You're allowing people that are in a couple (or in your case Jerry a polygamist relationship) a bonus over single people. So, in and of itself, marriage as it is under the government already establishes that discrimination based on the amount of people is allowed. Mind you, this is not descrimination based on sex, ethnicity, color, etc but one simply based on number which would be arguable in and of itself as a potential "civil right".

    Now, the reason benefits that are given to marriage aren't given to single people is that tthere's no government interest in simplifying things both for them, and the couple, in giving the breaks to an individual. Similarly, its not in the governments interest to give it to more than 2 people because it overly complicates the law and makes MORE work, not less, for the government and costs MORE money to deal with, not less. This, again, is not the case with a homosexual couple as the interest in simplifying is as present there as it is with a heterosexual couple.

    So, given that "number of people" is not a civil rights issue and not a constitutional thing under equal protection. And given that there's no compelling state interest to give marriage benefits to multiple person groups. And given that the government has already long established that it can deny marriage benefits to individuals based on the number of people due to government interest.....yes, I'm saying its perfectly fine.

    I actually have legitimate reasons for mine.

    I'm actually saying them instead of throwing out trollish one liners.

    What about your defense for you stance? Going to actually say it, or just going to make sarcastic comments again and show your true worth to this thread?

Page 9 of 85 FirstFirst ... 78910111959 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •