• 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: what is it really?

What is same sex marriage?

  • Total voters
    62
Blackdog said:
And it is still not recognized by the VAST majority of states or the federal government. And most law dictionary's still to this day define it as a man and woman. Any questions?

You know you can add more laughing smileys to make yourself feel better.
Click to expand...


Well I guess the ones from '96 don't. That doesn't change the fact that in some States the legal definition does include same sex marriage.
 
winston53660 said:
Well I guess the ones from '96 don't. That doesn't change the fact that in some States the legal definition does include same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

Man you just don't give up. I was correct and I am still correct. This has little or nothing to do with my post or point you tried so desperately to make fun of.

Please admit your mistake and move on.
 
Blackdog said:
Man you just don't give up. I was correct and I am still correct. This has little or nothing to do with my post or point you tried so desperately to make fun of.

Please admit your mistake and move on.
Click to expand...

You are correct in the legal definition of marriage (as far as the federal government is concerned anyway), however, that is specifically because of DOMA that the government holds that legal definition of marriage. Without DOMA, the legal definition most likely would be two consenting adults making a contractual commitment to each other (or something in these words). The distinction of a man and a woman or husband and wife would most likely not be present in the legal definition without DOMA.

Of course, this is not completely true anyway. Since, legally a man can get a sex change after he is married and be recognized as a woman by the state that she now lives in. As of right now, these types of couples would be two women married to each other legally. The federal government has yet to void such marriages because they were performed prior to the man becoming a woman. The same could be true for a woman who becomes a man, who was also married to a man (happens far less frequently, in fact, I really haven't heard of this happening ever, but I'm sure it is possible that it has happened somewhere).

On the opposite of this, it is also possible, depending on the state for a man who has already become a woman to marry another woman in certain states that do not allow a transgendered person to legally change their sex. Which would mean that they would be getting married as a woman and woman, although legally they would be a man and woman. Plus, there would be many of the other states where a woman who has become a man could legally marry another woman after the surgery because they can legally change their sex to man although they were born a woman.

These are some of the issues that currently make having gender/sex discrimination involved in marriage licensing such a mess. Without that discrimination, these people wouldn't have to worry about anything.
 
Blackdog said:
This is what I mean, I said and you missed it "some I agree with and some I don't." I am not going to break it down as it is not necessary to be honest. Your saying it will have no effect is as much speculation or a guess as my saying it will. So nothing to do but wait and see how it plays out.
Click to expand...

Well what I'm really saying is that there's no reason so suspect that allowing same sex marriage is going to have a huge impact on society. Other than giving divorce lawyers more clients.
 
Blackdog said:
Legal definition...

A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage. - Legal Definition of Marriage

Now we know.
Click to expand...

Legal definition? DOMA has been in effect since 1996, so of course that would follow the legal definition. What is your point? We are still speaking two different languages and I don't think either of us are lawyers.

Since the beginning of Christianity and the church. Accepting Jesus as Saviour and divine is what being a Christian is, hence the word "Christ-Ian."
Click to expand...

Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy. As I said, you have no monopoly on any word.

I have already given the legal definition of marriage, so no I don't have a monopoly on anything.
Click to expand...

A legal definition is simply an interpretation of present law. What does that have to do with mine or your definition? Are you suggesting the legal definition is the end all? If DOMA is struck down by the courts tomorrow and all the states are forced to legally recognize same sex marriages, will that change your definition of marriage? If not, then you can see how absurd and pointless an argument you are making.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Legal definition? DOMA has been in effect since 1996, so of course that would follow the legal definition. What is your point? We are still speaking two different languages and I don't think either of us are lawyers.
Click to expand...

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand clearly how the law sees it. I am speaking English according to US law. What are you speaking?

CriticalThought said:
Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy. As I said, you have no monopoly on any word.
Click to expand...

Who is appealing to tradition? It IS the definition of what a Christian is. By your definition a Satan worshiper must be a Christian because they also accept the Bible.

Sorry you don't want to accept the definition.

CriticalThought said:
A legal definition is simply an interpretation of present law. What does that have to do with mine or your definition?
Click to expand...

It is the accepted definition by law. I mean you can make up anything you want a word to mean. This does not make it valid or acceptable in the eyes of the law.

CriticalThought said:
Are you suggesting the legal definition is the end all?
Click to expand...

At this time, yes it is.

CriticalThought said:
If DOMA is struck down by the courts tomorrow and all the states are forced to legally recognize same sex marriages, will that change your definition of marriage?
Click to expand...

For legal purposes, yes it would.

CriticalThought said:
If not, then you can see how absurd and pointless an argument you are making.
Click to expand...

Well I guess that statement was just blown to heck.
 
Ikari said:
Well what I'm really saying is that there's no reason so suspect that allowing same sex marriage is going to have a huge impact on society. Other than giving divorce lawyers more clients.
Click to expand...

Again that is your opinion and I don't agree. I have shown ample evidence why. You may not agree with it, but that makes your argument no more valid in any way than mine.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
They are just as bad as strait parents.
Click to expand...


Yep Gay, Straight, Bi parents are basically all the same as far as a healthy up bringing good or bad. Some parents are losers some are winners, the sexuality doesnt matter. Thats been proven. Also while I think it is a solid concern its still woudnt be an argument to discriminate against gay marriage.
 
Ikari said:
Well what I'm really saying is that there's no reason so suspect that allowing same sex marriage is going to have a huge impact on society. Other than giving divorce lawyers more clients.
Click to expand...

Well define huge?
Anytime you we right the wrongs of our country and get rid of such a gross discrimination like this, there is going to be a huge change in the equality department of society. Then there will be the oppressors that try to keep their hopes of discriminating alive. It happened with minority rights, womens rights and interracial marriage. Its just the nature of the beast, but there will be way more POSITIVE effects in society than negative. Probably about 90% of all the negatives that might happen in REALITY have been brought up, we have heard all of them before with all those other movements, they were dumb then and they most certainly are dumb now. Over all they are small scale, society will once again mature and have to figure it out. Now dont get me wrong, IMO, we STILL havent figured out all the ins & outs of the other movements, they do have things about them you can argue as a negative but overall theres more positive and the alternative certainly is not the right thing to do. No real american wants to take away womens/minorities rights and interracial marriage. Eventually this will come to pass and just like the other movements to get rid of discrimination people will see the sky isnt going to fall. :D
 
Ikari said:
Well maybe if they knocked on your door and when you opened it, they kicked you in the nuts....then that would be a jerk move.
Click to expand...

That would get them shot.

Ikari said:
I'm still not convinced that knocking on the door in and of itself constitutes a jerk action.
Click to expand...

If they don't have a good reason, a good reason in my eyes, it's a jerk move. Like sexual harasement, 'being a jerk' is left entierly to the subjective opinion of the target to decide if being a jerk has even occured and to what severity. There is no objective meashure.

Ikari said:
As for the Boy Scouts, I didn't even think about that. But they are more than free to discriminate against gays; they are a private group. They may exclude anyone they want.
Click to expand...

Going back to purly subjective determination of whether or not someone is being a jerk: If I opened the door to finde a Scout, they get a pass. It doesn't matter what they want, it's all good. **** the raid, the Scouts are excused.
 
It's when two ding dongs legally smash up against each other and struggle to figure out why they are confused.
 
Blackdog said:
Again that is your opinion and I don't agree. I have shown ample evidence why. You may not agree with it, but that makes your argument no more valid in any way than mine.
Click to expand...

You showed no evidence. You showed supposition and opinion; that is not evidence. Evidence is measurable fact, and of that you really have given nothing. There's no measurement, there's nothing definitive. Instead you have things like "it will infringe upon the 1st amendment rights" or "there will be lawsuits" blah blah blah. There seriously was not one iota of "evidence" which you have shown. And evidence is what you need. Your side is the side which wishes to infringe upon the rights of another. Since you are the side wanting to use government force against the rights and liberties of another; you must have proof as to why it is necessary and just. Opinion and supposition are not a good basis for policy empowering the use of government force against others.

The thing that is annoying is that you keep wanted to say "that's your opinion"; but it's beyond that. It's that you haven't shown anything that is demonstrable, that is measurable, that is rational to excuse the force you wish to use. If you have no proof, you have no valid or just reason to infringe upon the rights of others. That's a basic building block of the Republic.
 
Blackdog said:
Who is appealing to tradition? It IS the definition of what a Christian is. By your definition a Satan worshiper must be a Christian because they also accept the Bible.
Click to expand...

So by your definition, the Westboro Baptist Church are Christians but a philanthropist who lives his life in accordance to Jesus's teachings but does not believe in the divity of Jesus would not be considered a Christian? Good definition.

For legal purposes, yes it would.
Click to expand...

Interesting.
 
CriticalThought said:
So by your definition, the Westboro Baptist Church are Christians but a philanthropist who lives his life in accordance to Jesus's teachings but does not believe in the divity of Jesus would not be considered a Christian? Good definition.
Click to expand...

Yes exactly. The Westburro people I personally don't consider good Christians, but they still go by the basic tenants of Christianity. The guy who does not accept Christ, is not a Christian, nor is he saved by the blood or Christ, period.

CriticalThought said:
Interesting.
Click to expand...

Why? I obey the law. Pretty simple.
 
Ikari said:
You showed no evidence. You showed supposition and opinion; that is not evidence. Evidence is measurable fact, and of that you really have given nothing. There's no measurement, there's nothing definitive. Instead you have things like "it will infringe upon the 1st amendment rights" or "there will be lawsuits" blah blah blah. There seriously was not one iota of "evidence" which you have shown. And evidence is what you need. Your side is the side which wishes to infringe upon the rights of another. Since you are the side wanting to use government force against the rights and liberties of another; you must have proof as to why it is necessary and just. Opinion and supposition are not a good basis for policy empowering the use of government force against others.

The thing that is annoying is that you keep wanted to say "that's your opinion"; but it's beyond that. It's that you haven't shown anything that is demonstrable, that is measurable, that is rational to excuse the force you wish to use. If you have no proof, you have no valid or just reason to infringe upon the rights of others. That's a basic building block of the Republic.
Click to expand...

Again you don't like the answers. It is not beyond anything accept maybe comprehension on your part. I don't know what to tell you, I made it clear and it is just as valid as your own supposition and speculation.
 
Blackdog said:
Again you don't like the answers. It is not beyond anything accept maybe comprehension on your part. I don't know what to tell you, I made it clear and it is just as valid as your own supposition and speculation.
Click to expand...

No, it's not really as simple as you want to make it. My desire on this issue is to abide by the rights and liberties of the individual. Yours is to use government force against the rights and liberties of the individual. Your position carries with it the necessity of proof. You have not provided proof, you have not provided evidence. You have provided nothing but supposition and opinion. While opinions can vary and people are entitled to their own view; when you talk about actual use of government force there has to be valid reason to enact that government force. That is what you are missing, valid reason. Nothing you've supplied is anything above supposition. Proper government force cannot be used against the rights and liberties of the individual without proof. Proof is what you need. You need to demonstrate this large, negative affect you think will be there. You need to show that your rights will be violated.

Everything that you posted as "evidence", I've already dismantled and you haven't addressed any of the counter arguments other than to say "that's your opinion". But what I asked for was this "proof" you went on and on about. What I didn't get was actual proof. You have no measurements.

The fact remains, if you want to justly use government force against the rights and liberties of others, you have to show proof that said action would in and of itself innately infringe upon the rights of others. You can't just say "well I think my 1st amendment rights will be trampled on" in order to excuse government force. You have to demonstrate that your 1st amendment rights would be trampled on in order for that to constitute valid proof. Supposition is not proof. It is just supposition and assumption. Those do not construct firm basis for legislation and government force.
 
Ikari said:
No, it's not really as simple as you want to make it. My desire on this issue is to abide by the rights and liberties of the individual. Yours is to use government force against the rights and liberties of the individual. Your position carries with it the necessity of proof. You have not provided proof, you have not provided evidence. You have provided nothing but supposition and opinion. While opinions can vary and people are entitled to their own view; when you talk about actual use of government force there has to be valid reason to enact that government force. That is what you are missing, valid reason. Nothing you've supplied is anything above supposition. Proper government force cannot be used against the rights and liberties of the individual without proof. Proof is what you need. You need to demonstrate this large, negative affect you think will be there. You need to show that your rights will be violated.

Everything that you posted as "evidence", I've already dismantled and you haven't addressed any of the counter arguments other than to say "that's your opinion". But what I asked for was this "proof" you went on and on about. What I didn't get was actual proof. You have no measurements.

The fact remains, if you want to justly use government force against the rights and liberties of others, you have to show proof that said action would in and of itself innately infringe upon the rights of others. You can't just say "well I think my 1st amendment rights will be trampled on" in order to excuse government force. You have to demonstrate that your 1st amendment rights would be trampled on in order for that to constitute valid proof. Supposition is not proof. It is just supposition and assumption. Those do not construct firm basis for legislation and government force.
Click to expand...

Yes I have and my argument is just as valid as yours. We have been over this before and you are at this point rattling off the same tired rhetoric. As soon as you come up with something new, we can continue.

I am not going to answer the same questions or argue the same points over and over again because you want to rattle off the same old tired jargon about" I am for liberty" you are for "forcing government" sorry.

If you read back in the thread every single thing you have just said I have replied to AND made a rebuttal. You again don't like it. Oh well.

Now if you actually have something new, great lets continue. If you don't, move on.
 
Ikari said:
No, it's not really as simple as you want to make it. My desire on this issue is to abide by the rights and liberties of the individual. Yours is to use government force against the rights and liberties of the individual. Your position carries with it the necessity of proof. You have not provided proof, you have not provided evidence. You have provided nothing but supposition and opinion. While opinions can vary and people are entitled to their own view; when you talk about actual use of government force there has to be valid reason to enact that government force. That is what you are missing, valid reason. Nothing you've supplied is anything above supposition. Proper government force cannot be used against the rights and liberties of the individual without proof. Proof is what you need. You need to demonstrate this large, negative affect you think will be there. You need to show that your rights will be violated.

Everything that you posted as "evidence", I've already dismantled and you haven't addressed any of the counter arguments other than to say "that's your opinion". But what I asked for was this "proof" you went on and on about. What I didn't get was actual proof. You have no measurements.

The fact remains, if you want to justly use government force against the rights and liberties of others, you have to show proof that said action would in and of itself innately infringe upon the rights of others. You can't just say "well I think my 1st amendment rights will be trampled on" in order to excuse government force. You have to demonstrate that your 1st amendment rights would be trampled on in order for that to constitute valid proof. Supposition is not proof. It is just supposition and assumption. Those do not construct firm basis for legislation and government force.
Click to expand...

Amen amen amen
While I like this whole post because of its factual and reality based common sense, sentence 2 and 3 are all anybody honest needs to read. Anybody that wants to stand up for the rights liberties and freedoms of their fellow Americans can see that sentence 2 and 3 are as true and to the core of the issue as it gets. The rest is just driving the point home in gold, platinum, diamonds and everything else you can think of to show it reigns TRUE.

:bravo::ind:


:beat
 
Blackdog said:
Yes I have and my argument is just as valid as yours. We have been over this before and you are at this point rattling off the same tired rhetoric. As soon as you come up with something new, we can continue.

I am not going to answer the same questions or argue the same points over and over again because you want to rattle off the same old tired jargon about" I am for liberty" you are for "forcing government" sorry.

If you read back in the thread every single thing you have just said I have replied to AND made a rebuttal. You again don't like it. Oh well.

Now if you actually have something new, great lets continue. If you don't, move on.
Click to expand...

I already went through your list and showed why each doesn't hold up to scrutiny. You merely responded by "that's your opinion". It's nothing more than dodge tactics and weak debate skills. You didn't try to defend against your supossition and assumption; you deflect and run. That's it.
 
Centrist77 said:
Amen amen amen
While I like this whole post because of its factual and reality based common sense, sentence 2 and 3 are all anybody honest needs to read. Anybody that wants to stand up for the rights liberties and freedoms of their fellow Americans can see that sentence 2 and 3 are as true and to the core of the issue as it gets. The rest is just driving the point home in gold, platinum, diamonds and everything else you can think of to show it reigns TRUE.

:bravo::ind:


:beat
Click to expand...

Well in the end, it seems to come down to resolve. Does one have the resolve to live free? Because in such a system, you're going to have to accept behavior you may not find correct, or that you cannot support, or that you may even find morally repugnant. But if your desire is to be free, to live by the consequences of freedom, to push for it as much as possible; then you have to weight everything by the rights and liberties of the individual. Because that is what matters in a free society. If one has the desire and resolve to live free, they'll always ask "is this proper use of government force?", and will be honest with themselves in trying to obtain the answer.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
I already went through your list and showed why each doesn't hold up to scrutiny. You merely responded by "that's your opinion". It's nothing more than dodge tactics and weak debate skills. You didn't try to defend against your supossition and assumption; you deflect and run. That's it.
Click to expand...

Dude that is a load. You said it will not hurt society or probably will not, I said it would and showed why. Since none of us can see into the future it is based on conjecture and supposition on your part as well.

So no dodge, just common sense.

Get over the "personal freedom" crap as well. Lot of things have been taken away by the government over the years for the sake of society, rather than the individual.
 
Last edited:
How are Civil Unions(with the same legal standing as marriage) different than marriage?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom