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 91 of 98 FirstFirst ... 41818990919293 ... LastLast
Results 901 to 910 of 976

Thread: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

  1. #901
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,512

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    So no equality under US law if someone thinks it too complicated. Got ya the first time. Still makes no sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    It's not like we did it with Obama care, Oh wait.

    No excuse for discrimination. Or equal protection for people who's only crime is loving each other. It is not really any of your business how many wifes or husbands a person has anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    Still waiting for proof on that as well since the larger the family as in extended family, seems to be better for rearing children according to gay marriage proponents.

    The rest was pretty much nothing but off topic personal attacks so I ignored them.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 01-18-11 at 09:45 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.

  2. #902
    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?

    Well I'm sure it was a lot of work to end slavery and give women the right to vote, too. So much work, in fact, it required constitutional amendments, and then a lot of regulation had to be redone so as to comply. Gosh darn it sometimes life just isn't easy.

  3. #903
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,950

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Well I'm sure it was a lot of work to end slavery and give women the right to vote, too. So much work, in fact, it required constitutional amendments, and then a lot of regulation had to be redone so as to comply. Gosh darn it sometimes life just isn't easy.
    Hey, if you and Blackdog wish to push for constitutional change, I applaud your efforts to do so.

    Till that point, I'll be the one here actually dealing with reality and arguments based on actual constitutional law rather than poorly done satire or sarcastic antagonizing. The chances of getting any sort of constitutional change to recognize sexual orientation by itself as a higher tiered protected status under the EP is substantial, getting polygamy on there is astronomically higher. I'm not going to base a current modern argument concerning legality and constitutionality on a hypothetical that may or may not ever be constitutional.

    Fact is, constitutionally, "number of people" nor "polygamst" are a protected group anywhere near the same level as sex nor race. Seriously, take your tired "Hur hur, we're trying to use the evil sinful gayz arguments against them" tactics to someone that is actually making those arguments. Cause right now they're nothing but foolish when debating my point, which is why Blackdog has to keep reuttering the same tired Colbert spin rather than actually addressing my points...because he can't, because he doesn't believe the **** that he's spewing, so can't actually think of an answer other than what he can regurgitate out of his stereotyped gay marriage supporter.

  4. #904
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,950

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    So no equality under US law if someone thinks it too complicated. Got ya the first time. Still makes no sense.
    Care to actually address my constitutional point? Or just wish to keep uttering your fallacy of appeal to emotion and expect me to give a damn?

    Oh, by the way, constitutional point may be best dealt with by actually speaking with regards to constitutional law...so while I do suggest you go back to your actual honest beliefs, please remember, your opinion that what the bible says according to Blackdog does not, in this country, supersede the constitution.

    It's not like we did it with Obama care, Oh wait.
    Yes, because Obama care was all about the the EPC-...

    Oh wait, no it isn't. So appeal to emotion, and then a red hearing.

    Seriously, you're making Colbert look bad with this sad impersonation of style.

    No excuse for discrimination. Or equal protection for people who's only crime is loving each other. It is not really any of your business how many wifes or husbands a person has anyway.
    See, there you go again, making your comments directed at me showing your apparent ignorance, or inability to counter, what my actual argument is.

    Let me spell it out for you once more.

    I don't give two ****s about love with regards to marriage as a legal structure.

    And when they're getting government benefits, you're damn right its my business. They're receiving perks, perks provided to them on the backs of tax payers, thus making them "my business". And they're "my business" as long as what I, and those I vote in, do to them stays within the realms of constitutional. And, on one hand, I've actually made a constitutional argument why its perfectly suitable and legitimate to discriminate against them. You on the other hand have done nothing but your poor imitation of a gay marriage supporter attempting to "appeal to emotion", hoping and begging as you hold onto it that it will somehow prove your point, and realizing sadly as you grasp onto it that its not because you're using it against someone that isn't arguing in the stereotypical way so I'm simultaneously showing your pathetic act to be worthless while also not hurting the arguments they make.

    Seriously, just stop.

    Still waiting for proof on that as well since the larger the family as in extended family, seems to be better for rearing children according to gay marriage proponents.
    Again, you have a problem with apples and oranges, which is why you fail so absolutely miserably with this worthless act you're putting on. Studies researching if two men or two women can have a health environment for a child != equal studies looking at families of 3 or more parents. Your own complete and utter hatred for the gay life style and thus illogical emotion filled response to anyone daring to question your infallible and perfect interpretation of what god really thinks makes you about a step up from mud in regards to explaining what "gay marriage proponents" are ACTUALLY arguing rather than what they appear to be arguing to you through the stereotypical lens through which you view it. As I said, I've not looked into it closely...as it appears you haven't either...which is why my argument is actually rooted in the constitution and the Equal Protection Clause which requires only a rational argument that its beneficial to the government to discriminate. Its impossible to suggest that forgoing rewriting large amounts of legal structure and the amount of time that it would take with regards to passing such things, sorting out the details, etc isn't beneficial. You could suggest that YOU don't think the benefit is enough to outweigh the discrimination...but that's not your call, nor does it matter for that level of the EPC. They just need to show a ration reason why it serves a legitimate state interest.

  5. #905
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,512

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Hey, if you and Blackdog wish to push for constitutional change, I applaud your efforts to do so.

    Till that point, I'll be the one here actually dealing with reality and arguments based on actual constitutional law rather than poorly done satire or 4chan styled antagonizing.
    Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point. Of course the 1st section of the 14 amendment does mention "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Basically your argument has been it's to complicated. That has nothing at all to do with Constitutional law.

    So where does that leave your argument? I'll tell you...

    It's not bad to discriminate as long as YOU agree with it.
    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.

  6. #906
    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?

    Why exactly would polygamous people need an actual marriage contract between all of them? Give me a situation where multiple people would actually need most of the various rights/responsibilities that come from marriage in a single marriage.

    I am for making some sort of document to make them all legal family. I absolutely have no problem with this. The marriage contract itself though, is meant to specifically name a person as another's closest living relative. Legally speaking, a person cannot have multiple "closest" living relatives. It does not work. There is legal conflict in doing this.

    Same sex couples need a legal marriage contract for their union to ensure that they get such rights as being the one person to make the decisions should the partner be incapacitated or dead and that their say means more than that of "blood" relatives. It ensures that a couple can be given priority in each other's lives and so that they can actually adopt each other's children.

    I am not against some legal recognition for polygamists, with certain rules attached, but they cannot be given the same marriage contract that applies to a two people marriage. It won't work. They can still have a different type of "marriage" contract to give them some of the same rights that legal family members have. Not against this at all. In the meantime, while the rules for such multi-person marriage contracts and paperwork is being worked out, same sex couples can easily get their rights under the current marriage contract in place. Very little tweaking is involved at all.
    "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.

  7. #907
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,512

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Care to actually address my constitutional point? Or just wish to keep uttering your fallacy of appeal to emotion and expect me to give a damn?

    Oh, by the way, constitutional point may be best dealt with by actually speaking with regards to constitutional law...so while I do suggest you go back to your actual honest beliefs, please remember, your opinion that what the bible says according to Blackdog does not, in this country, supersede the constitution.

    Yes, because Obama care was all about the the EPC-...

    Oh wait, no it isn't. So appeal to emotion, and then a red hearing.

    Seriously, you're making Colbert look bad with this sad impersonation of style.

    See, there you go again, making your comments directed at me showing your apparent ignorance, or inability to counter, what my actual argument is.

    Let me spell it out for you once more.

    I don't give two ****s about love with regards to marriage as a legal structure.

    And when they're getting government benefits, you're damn right its my business. They're receiving perks, perks provided to them on the backs of tax payers, thus making them "my business". And they're "my business" as long as what I, and those I vote in, do to them stays within the realms of constitutional. And, on one hand, I've actually made a constitutional argument why its perfectly suitable and legitimate to discriminate against them. You on the other hand have done nothing but your poor imitation of a gay marriage supporter attempting to "appeal to emotion", hoping and begging as you hold onto it that it will somehow prove your point, and realizing sadly as you grasp onto it that its not because you're using it against someone that isn't arguing in the stereotypical way so I'm simultaneously showing your pathetic act to be worthless while also not hurting the arguments they make.

    Seriously, just stop.

    Again, you have a problem with apples and oranges, which is why you fail so absolutely miserably with this worthless act you're putting on. Studies researching if two men or two women can have a health environment for a child != equal studies looking at families of 3 or more parents. Your own complete and utter hatred for the gay life style and thus illogical emotion filled response to anyone daring to question your infallible and perfect interpretation of what god really thinks makes you about a step up from mud in regards to explaining what "gay marriage proponents" are ACTUALLY arguing rather than what they appear to be arguing to you through the stereotypical lens through which you view it. As I said, I've not looked into it closely...as it appears you haven't either...which is why my argument is actually rooted in the constitution and the Equal Protection Clause which requires only a rational argument that its beneficial to the government to discriminate. Its impossible to suggest that forgoing rewriting large amounts of legal structure and the amount of time that it would take with regards to passing such things, sorting out the details, etc isn't beneficial. You could suggest that YOU don't think the benefit is enough to outweigh the discrimination...but that's not your call, nor does it matter for that level of the EPC. They just need to show a ration reason why it serves a legitimate state interest.
    #1 Obama care is not a fallacy or red herring. It is the perfect example of being to "complicated" is not an excuse or argument as the facts of government say different.

    #2 I understand your argument as far as "it's your business" and yet when it comes to gay marriage proponents still say it's none of my business.

    The rest is again another personal attack rant. So forgive me for ignoring it.
    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. #908
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,512

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Why exactly would polygamous people need an actual marriage contract between all of them? Give me a situation where multiple people would actually need most of the various rights/responsibilities that come from marriage in a single marriage.

    I am for making some sort of document to make them all legal family. I absolutely have no problem with this. The marriage contract itself though, is meant to specifically name a person as another's closest living relative. Legally speaking, a person cannot have multiple "closest" living relatives. It does not work. There is legal conflict in doing this.

    Same sex couples need a legal marriage contract for their union to ensure that they get such rights as being the one person to make the decisions should the partner be incapacitated or dead and that their say means more than that of "blood" relatives. It ensures that a couple can be given priority in each other's lives and so that they can actually adopt each other's children.

    I am not against some legal recognition for polygamists, with certain rules attached, but they cannot be given the same marriage contract that applies to a two people marriage. It won't work. They can still have a different type of "marriage" contract to give them some of the same rights that legal family members have. Not against this at all. In the meantime, while the rules for such multi-person marriage contracts and paperwork is being worked out, same sex couples can easily get their rights under the current marriage contract in place. Very little tweaking is involved at all.
    That sounds like separate but equal. Much like civil unions for gays?
    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. #909
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,950

    Re: Same sex marriage: what is it really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point. Of course the 1st section of the 14 amendment does mention "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Courts have the constitutional power to interpret the constitution. As it stands, the courts have found that marriage is a civil right, and as such is afforded constitutional protection (Loving v. Virginia). United States v. Carolene Products Co. created the classifications of various levels of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, with cases following it helping to flesh out what those various levels of scrutiny are. As of now, my entire argument has been based around the notion that marriage as it stands currently is unconstitutionally discriminating against sex, which is a middle tier scrutiny classification. Additionally, against your ridiculous act, I've been pointing out that "polygamsts" or "Numbers of people involved in a contract" are not classified under intermediate nor strict scrutiny tiers and thus would require but a rational basis-test.

    It is a rational argument to suggest that the great and significant shift within our laws, court system, and tax code that would take place with the shift to polygamy with little benefit towards the governments interest in marriage (which is to propagate a stable family environment, where in two individuals is deemed suitable and would be met before the 3 or more would come into place with polygamy) and as such its rational to suggest the states interest is served by not expending the resources in time, man power, and money to institute such changes.

    See, just because you didn't feel like taking the time to read my words and research them, in large part because you have nothing vested in this ridiculous act of yours, doesn't mean they're not constitutional. I've spelled out pretty clearly prior to this what I was basing it off of and now clear as day for you. My argument is based on constitutional law and actual facts...yours is based off a flawed interpretation of an argument you don't like and worthless appeals to emotion.

  10. #910
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,122

    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?
    First allow me to correct you. The Church of Latter Day Saints does not practice polygamy. Only fringe, fundamentalist Mormons practice polygamy.

    As an individual who has lived in the area where such sects have existed, I can tell that they produce several societal problems. First off, they lead to younger men being ostracized from the community by older established members since they are competition for wives. In fact, in some cases boys in their early teens have been completely kicked out of the community by their own fathers. Second, it creates an imbalance of genders. Generally speaking, a society is composed of 50% males and 50% females. Polygamy is far, far more common than polyandry since men can sire several children. As such, it naturally creates a shortage of females and excess of males. Third, it creates a considerable mess as far as rights upon injury or death of the husband since several women who may have bared different numbers of children are innately put in conflict with each other over who makes decisions and who gets what portion of the estate. Fourth, it divides a father's time among several different families, inherently creating several single parent families headed by a mother and often absent father thereby proving detrimental to children. Fifth, it is usually only sustainable with a great amount of wealth, therefore wealthier men are far more likely to practice polygamy and poorer men. This of course creates further stratification across socioeconomic lines. Sixth, it has been found within currently existing polygamous sects that young women are pushed to marry at a young age to men much older than themselves, often resulting in young mothers left to take care of children left by men who pass on before the children are fully matured.

    I could go on and on, but I seriously doubt you are actually here to have a legitimate debate on why polygamy is harmful to society. Same sex marriage in no way creates this degree of societal change or instability and if you can't see that, then you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself.

Page 91 of 98 FirstFirst ... 41818990919293 ... 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
  •