View Poll Results: What is same sex marriage?

Voters
192. You may not vote on this poll
  • A special right

    109 56.77%
  • Equal protection

    62 32.29%
  • Other

    21 10.94%
Page 90 of 98 FirstFirst ... 40808889909192 ... LastLast
Results 891 to 900 of 976

Thread: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

  1. #891
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Why? Because it will be a little more complicated? Many Mormons and Muslims would disagree.
    It isn't just a little more complicated, it is generally harmful to society. You only have to look at the polygamous sects that do exist to understand why.

  2. #892
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,516

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    It isn't just a little more complicated, it is generally harmful to society. You only have to look at the polygamous sects that do exist to understand why.
    So you are saying Muslims and Mormons are generally harmfull to society how? I mean you did say the "sects" to undersyand why? Polygamy would not have to be any more complicated. At leat no one has shown any real proof.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  3. #893
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    So you are saying Muslims and Mormons are generally harmfull to society how? I mean you did say the "sects" to undersyand why? Polygamy would not have to be any more complicated. At leat no one has shown any real proof.
    Why wouldn't it have to be more complicated? I gave you several examples as to how just the contract and legal responsibilities/rights that come with it are not adequate for a more-than-2-people marriage.

    Plus, there is only two places on a marriage license for signatures/info. The license would need to be changed to "accomodate" polygamy, to ensure that it is big enough to account for as many "partners" as possible. The only change needed to add same sex couples is change bride and groom to either bride/bride and groom/groom or partner/person 1 and partner/person 2.

    Unless you think it should just be opened for a person to have multiple marriages. Although this also has several downsides. First the rights and responsibilities issues. Second, would current spouse/spouses have to sign for the marriage? Because if not, there would be serious issues with inheritance rights and in any state that still does have laws about adultery.

    Either scenario has the potential to actually lead to huge multiple marriage situations in order to cheat others out of benefits and/or privileges that come with marriage.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  4. #894
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    So you are saying Muslims and Mormons are generally harmfull to society how? I mean you did say the "sects" to undersyand why? Polygamy would not have to be any more complicated. At leat no one has shown any real proof.
    Really? It wouldn't have to be any more complicated than a two person marriage?

    Man is married to woman A and woman B. Woman A and Woman B are not married to each other. Man has a child with Woman A while married to both.

    If Man goes to the hospital unexpectedly and is unconscious, who has power over medical decisions...spouse A or spouse b?

    If man divorces woman B, does she get half of all his and woman a's belongings since the two of them are considered married and thus shared income?

    If man divorces woman A instead, does the child support that he can pay come based off simply his salary or the combined income of both Man and Woman B? Does woman B, being the wife of the Man when child was born, have any rights to the child?

    For tax purposes is man able to claim woman A, woman B, and child as part of their taxes? What if woman B marries Man 2 who has two wives of his own. Can Man 2 AND Man 1 both claim woman B as part of their tax return? Could Man 2 actually claim Man 1 and Woman 1, along with the child, on his since he's connected to them through Woman B?

    What about issues within the court? What if Man 1 marries Woman A who is married to Man 2, and man 2 then begins to essentially neglect Woman A with regards to finances, living off her income that she gets from Man 1...does Man 1 have any basis in court against Man 2? Does Woman A?

    Seriously, are you honestly attempting to suggest that the issues presented by allowing individuals to engage in multiple marriages would not be any more complicated? Multiple ways have been suggested...rather than showing "no real proof" that nothing would be complicated, I've instead seen "no real answer" to the multiple issues that have been put forth over the years on here.

    Seriously, if you're going for the devil's advocate or the "Stephen Colbert" Parody style argument, it may actually help if you actually could pull it off...your last few posts in this thread shows that rather than pulling it off you're failing at it massively.

  5. #895
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Which is not what I said at all. I stated that the changes required to meet the legal needs for a two person same sex partnership are not nearly the same as those required to meet the legal needs for any marriage partnership with more than two people. The contract already adequately covers a two person arrangement. It does not adequately cover an arrangement with more than two people, legally speaking.
    It what way(s) is the current license inadequate? Specific examples of regulation would be appreciated.

  6. #896
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    It isn't just a little more complicated, it is generally harmful to society. You only have to look at the polygamous sects that do exist to understand why.
    Right, just like all we have to do is look at a gay-pride paraid to see that homosexuality is harmful to society.

  7. #897
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,516

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Why wouldn't it have to be more complicated? I gave you several examples as to how just the contract and legal responsibilities/rights that come with it are not adequate for a more-than-2-people marriage.

    Plus, there is only two places on a marriage license for signatures/info. The license would need to be changed to "accomodate" polygamy, to ensure that it is big enough to account for as many "partners" as possible. The only change needed to add same sex couples is change bride and groom to either bride/bride and groom/groom or partner/person 1 and partner/person 2.

    Unless you think it should just be opened for a person to have multiple marriages. Although this also has several downsides. First the rights and responsibilities issues. Second, would current spouse/spouses have to sign for the marriage? Because if not, there would be serious issues with inheritance rights and in any state that still does have laws about adultery.

    Either scenario has the potential to actually lead to huge multiple marriage situations in order to cheat others out of benefits and/or privileges that come with marriage.
    No legitimate reason exist to deny it. So an increase in paperwork is a legitimate reason? Common.

    I am not even going to give the "only two lines" an answer as it is just ridicules.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 01-18-11 at 09:11 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  8. #898
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,516

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Really? It wouldn't have to be any more complicated than a two person marriage?

    Man is married to woman A and woman B. Woman A and Woman B are not married to each other. Man has a child with Woman A while married to both.

    If Man goes to the hospital unexpectedly and is unconscious, who has power over medical decisions...spouse A or spouse b? <---- The first wife has power of atturny. That's how they do it in places where it is legal.

    If man divorces woman B, does she get half of all his and woman a's belongings since the two of them are considered married and thus shared income? <---- Look up the law in other country's where is is legal. If other countries can handle it I am certain we can.

    If man divorces woman A instead, does the child support that he can pay come based off simply his salary or the combined income of both Man and Woman B? Does woman B, being the wife of the Man when child was born, have any rights to the child?

    For tax purposes is man able to claim woman A, woman B, and child as part of their taxes? What if woman B marries Man 2 who has two wives of his own. Can Man 2 AND Man 1 both claim woman B as part of their tax return? Could Man 2 actually claim Man 1 and Woman 1, along with the child, on his since he's connected to them through Woman B?

    What about issues within the court? What if Man 1 marries Woman A who is married to Man 2, and man 2 then begins to essentially neglect Woman A with regards to finances, living off her income that she gets from Man 1...does Man 1 have any basis in court against Man 2? Does Woman A?

    Seriously, are you honestly attempting to suggest that the issues presented by allowing individuals to engage in multiple marriages would not be any more complicated? Multiple ways have been suggested...rather than showing "no real proof" that nothing would be complicated, I've instead seen "no real answer" to the multiple issues that have been put forth over the years on here.

    Seriously, if you're going for the devil's advocate or the "Stephen Colbert" Parody style argument, it may actually help if you actually could pull it off...your last few posts in this thread shows that rather than pulling it off you're failing at it massively.
    I only answered the first one because it is legal in other country's. They have laws governing all those situations. A little more complicated legally is not an excuse to deny equality under the law, period. I mean look at our tax laws now for an example.

    Failing because you have no real reason do deny it? The only failure here is not applying common sense to your argument.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 01-18-11 at 09:13 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  9. #899
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Why wouldn't it have to be more complicated? I gave you several examples as to how just the contract and legal responsibilities/rights that come with it are not adequate for a more-than-2-people marriage.
    I apologize for having missed these examples. Would you mind re-posting them?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Plus, there is only two places on a marriage license for signatures/info.
    Just as "husband" and "wife" were replaced with "person 1" and "person 2", all we have to do is add "person 3". Anyone with basic Microsoft Office Word 2011 skills can so alter a form.


    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    The license would need to be changed to "accomodate" polygamy, to ensure that it is big enough to account for as many "partners" as possible.
    I apologize but this sounds a lot like anti-SSM when they say if you let men mary men then you have to let men marry dogs. I think a limit of 4 spouses is reasonable AND established in "the traditions, history and culture of the people"; thus establishing polygamy as a basic human right.

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    The only change needed to add same sex couples is change bride and groom to either bride/bride and groom/groom or partner/person 1 and partner/person 2.
    Just add "person 3".

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Unless you think it should just be opened for a person to have multiple marriages. Although this also has several downsides. First the rights and responsibilities issues.
    Present regulation regarding "Community Property" require equal shares for each spouse unless there are special considerations which require a hearing.

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Second, would current spouse/spouses have to sign for the marriage?
    Yes.

    if you were business partners and your partner wanted to add someone as an equal, they would require your consent. This is no different.

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Either scenario has the potential to actually lead to huge multiple marriage situations in order to cheat others out of benefits and/or privileges that come with marriage.
    2 men rob a bank, are caught, and ordered to testify against each other or get a longer sentence. According to you, we shouldn't allow gay marriage otherwise these 2 men could marry each other to take advantage of Spousal Privilege.

  10. #900
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    I only answered the first one because it is legal in other country's. They have laws governing all those situations. A little more complicated legally is not an excuse to deny equality under the law, period. I mean look at our tax laws now for an example.
    First, It would take a significant rework of our laws regarding marriage, from tax code to court precedence and onwards. "Other countries" having it does not in any way negate the difficulty and amount of time spent in changing THIS countries laws. The vast majority of laws would require a mere tweaking to go from allowing only opposite sex to allowing any two people. An entire rework would be needed to allow for joining of 3 or more people. Minor rewrites for something that is discriminating as a Middle Tier category, sex, is far less of an argument against EPC than major rewrites applying to discrimination that would be questionable if it even registered as a group that could be considered under the lowest tier.

    Secondly, yes...the difficulties in changing a law is certainly a feasible argument for discriminating against people under the law. Especially something, such as "number of people", which would fall under the least strict tier of the EPC if it would even reach that level. It is a "rational" basis in suggesting this discrimination serves a legitimate government interest, that of spending time and money on issues at a reasonable level of importance compared to cost. Seeing as how there is no strict constitutional protection towards "Numbers of people" that can enter into a government, the amount of time and effort to go into reworking an entire section of our legal, tax, and court systems to accommodate this is not reasonable. And such is all that would be required to constitutionally allow such discrimination.

    Thirdly, this is not even toughing upon the other potential issues which I'm sure others who have studied those things more would be better apt to speak on, for example regarding family units and other such matters.

    Now on another note with regards to your tactics here.Seriously, you're Colbert act is rather worthless and tired and since you don't even throw random references to bears into it, it doesn't even have worth as being at least a mild form of entertainment. Your attempts to, poorly, mimic the criticisms of your own critics into a debate that is similar...but yet still remarkably different as well...are so transparently poor that you may as well be sitting around with a fisher-price toy trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. The entire thing is made even more redundant since most of the arguments which people throw against your attempts of pushing your religion through the law are in no way shape or form the same arguments I actually make, and as thus ring all the more hollow.

    Your "I don't give a **** what the constitution says, all I care about is the bible and god and my interpretation of it which is infallible and thus by god the government should do what I want it to do" shtick at least came off as sincere and honest and allowed you to passionately defend it, as ridiculous as I and others may view it. At least you could put together an actual argument for it based on your actual thoughts that, while perhaps made no sense legally or constitutionally, at least made sense from the point you were arguing from. This? This is just ridiculous attempts at parroting someone elses argument in an attempt to be ironic or to show how poorly their argument is, when in reality its just showing how poor you are at this form of debating tactic while shedding absolutely no negative light upon the side you're hoping to make look bad in this.

    Seriously, stop. Stick to what you actually believe is, for bringer of truthiness, you are not.

Page 90 of 98 FirstFirst ... 40808889909192 ... 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
  •