• 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
gay people have every right to marry. not a single one of their actions is restricted; they can have ceremonies, live, love, and grow old together; dying in each others' arms and being buried together as 'husband and husband' etc.

all they can't do is force the rest of us via government to issue them a marriage license.

Um...that marriage license is kinda a big deal, and goes far beyond just being a piece of paper. Legal and economic benefits of marriage

On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
and more....

Trying to dismiss that as a minor thing is silly.
 
If it's non of my business, then why do they bring me into it?

They need your help to allow them to legally be married. But if you want to go play your Shaman, go play your shaman. It's a jerk move to just turn your back on people who would like your help and your help not being any sort of effort to yourself. But it's a free country.
 
Last edited:
Read that back to yourself. Why would I dissent etc if I had nothing to gain? :doh

People love to run their mouths about all sorts of things. Look at the Westboro Baptist people running around against homosexuals. Are they going to make reform somehow? No, they're idiots. But they run their mouths all the time regardless.

Until the government gets out of marriage or makes gay marriage legal, I am acting well within the law.

Being "within the law" is not the same as being within your rights.

He's dead, I win.

I will however give you +1 point for the Red Dawn reference as it was funny.

Well it was meant as a joke.
 
They need your help to allow them to legally be married. But if you want to go play your Shaman, go play your shaman. It's a jerk move to just turn your back on people who would like your help and your help not being any sort of effort to yourself. But it's a free country.

If it's a jerk move, then why do they turn their back on me?
 
People love to run their mouths about all sorts of things. Look at the Westboro Baptist people running around against homosexuals. Are they going to make reform somehow? No, they're idiots. But they run their mouths all the time regardless.

You said...

You are within your rights to dissent. You are within your rights to hold your opinion of what marriage is. You are within your rights to denounce same sex marriage. You are within your rights to protest against it. You are within your rights to forbid same sex marriage in your church. You are not within you rights (as per the definition of rights, rights does not mean ability) to use government force against others whom have not infringed upon the rights of anyone else. That is the base. That is fundamental. That is America. - Ikari

So your "Westburo" comment literally has nothing to do with me. I don't protest or take a position to hear myself talk. It is in every way American to support your views.

You are beginning to sound like the "not supporting the war makes you un-American" crowed.

Being "within the law" is not the same as being within your rights.

Without the law to protect your "rights" you have nothing.

Well it was meant as a joke.

Hence the +1. I liked it.
 
Last edited:
If it's a jerk move, then why do they turn their back on me?

Maybe they don't respond well to jerk responses. Maybe they see what you want as deflection away from a practical solution and it pisses them off. All I can see is that there is something which is really no skin off our teeth and requires pretty much no extra input of energy to change. I don't think I should stop people if they ain't doing anything wrong, and particularly if I can help change legislation through relatively no extra input of energy. But that's just my stance on it.
 
So your "Westburo" comment literally has nothing to do with me.

That's why it's called an example. You asked a question, I answered it. People like to run their mouths. Everything I said was correct. You are within your rights to dissent and protest if you choose to. I'm not saying you have to, I'm saying that action is well within your rights. You can make whatever choice you want with your rights, exercise them or sit at home. Up to you. And my example of Westburo was that, an example of a group who likes to run their mouths. That's it.

I don't protest or take a position to hear myself talk.

And you're within your rights to do so

It is in every way American to support your views.

To a degree. We're always bitching and moaning about something, and that's particularly well within the line of "American". But we made a Republic to protect the rights and liberties of the individual. So while many had argued this or that, in the end we wish to really set aside time for intellectual discourse and to examine whether particular actions will infringe upon the rights of the individual. We also set our system to expand our liberties as we grew older and wiser. America should become more free over time, not less.

You are beginning to sound like the "not supporting the war makes you un-American" crowed.

I think that support of government force against the individual when said individual did not infringe upon the rights of others is dubious "American" title considering the foundations of the Republic.

Without the law to protect your "rights" you have nothing.

Rights will always exist as they are innate and inalienable. But my point stands. Being "within the law" is not the same as being "within your rights". You're not within your rights to use government force against those whom have not infringed upon the rights of anyone else. You may be "within the law", you may be able to use force to get your way; these are all true. But you are not within your rights.
 
Maybe they don't respond well to jerk responses. Maybe they see what you want as deflection away from a practical solution and it pisses them off. All I can see is that there is something which is really no skin off our teeth and requires pretty much no extra input of energy to change. I don't think I should stop people if they ain't doing anything wrong, and particularly if I can help change legislation through relatively no extra input of energy. But that's just my stance on it.

Excuse me, but they were being jerks by interrupting my 25-man raid to bother me about something which we all agree doesn't affect me in any way. They weren't invited, they didn't call before coming over. So, we can swing a deal or i'll just troll the **** out of them for their disrespect.

WoW is how I cope with missing children, if you interrupt me, if you touch this injured dog, you'd better have a stake in your hand or you're gona get bit.
 
Excuse me, but they were being jerks by interrupting my 25-man raid to bother me about something which we all agree doesn't affect me in any way. They weren't invited, they didn't call before coming over. So, we can swing a deal or i'll just troll the **** out of them for their disrespect.

WoW is how I cope with missing children, if you interrupt me, if you touch this injured dog, you'd better have a stake in your hand or you're gona get bit.

That's not exactly being a jerk. I've never thought the Mormons were jerks when they come knocking on my door. Just doing their community work and all. Or maybe the next time the boyscouts come along looking for donations of canned food; I can just ask them since they're being jerks and interrupting whatever it was that I was doing, what they're going to give me in order to get those cans. And if you're in middle of a 25 man raid, you don't have to answer the door. They certainly do not sound like the jerk in your scenario.
 
I agree.

As soon as they call it something other than a marriage, they will have my full support.

So long as the Marriage License exists, they are entitled to enter it. If you don't want them using the term marriage, you should probably do something about the Marriage License.
 
That's not exactly being a jerk.

Yes, yes it is, and a Mod should run up and give them 3 point for it, too ;)

I've never thought the Mormons were jerks when they come knocking on my door.

Oh I do. **** Mormons.

Just doing their community work and all. Or maybe the next time the boyscouts come along looking for donations of canned food; I can just ask them since they're being jerks and interrupting whatever it was that I was doing, what they're going to give me in order to get those cans.

Ohhh very nice, bringing up the Boy Scouts knowing they still ban gay den leaders...very nice :lol:

I'm already affiliated with the Scouts, AND they send out prior notice when they intend to hold a food drive, pick up trees, etc, so they can come over any time.

And if you're in middle of a 25 man raid, you don't have to answer the door. They certainly do not sound like the jerk in your scenario.

Of course I'm going to answer the door, you never know when there's some Jehovah's Witnesses in need of some Confederated Products for their temple ;)
 
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. I'm still not convinced that knocking on the door in and of itself constitutes a jerk action. 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.
 
Excuse me, but they were being jerks by interrupting my 25-man raid to bother me about something which we all agree doesn't affect me in any way. They weren't invited, they didn't call before coming over. So, we can swing a deal or i'll just troll the **** out of them for their disrespect.

WoW is how I cope with missing children, if you interrupt me, if you touch this injured dog, you'd better have a stake in your hand or you're gona get bit.

I scared away the first Mormon missionaries I ever saw by just getting excited at meeting them. I had always heard of Mormons going door to door but I had never actually seen any til I was 20 and living with Navy roommates in an apartment in WA. We seen them as we were getting home one day at our neighbor's door. They went to hand us a pamplet, and I told them "wow, you guys are real. I have never met any of you guys before." I know it was probably a little rude, now, but I really hadn't met any before so it was interesting. They quickly handed us the pamplet and left. My roommate was laughing his butt off. Him, and our other roommate who got home a little later, thought it was hilarious that I could scare away Mormons.
 
I scared away the first Mormon missionaries I ever saw by just getting excited at meeting them. I had always heard of Mormons going door to door but I had never actually seen any til I was 20 and living with Navy roommates in an apartment in WA. We seen them as we were getting home one day at our neighbor's door. They went to hand us a pamplet, and I told them "wow, you guys are real. I have never met any of you guys before." I know it was probably a little rude, now, but I really hadn't met any before so it was interesting. They quickly handed us the pamplet and left. My roommate was laughing his butt off. Him, and our other roommate who got home a little later, thought it was hilarious that I could scare away Mormons.


I was sleeping on my brothers very uncomfortable couch after a night of drinking in Austin and they knocked. It was not a pretty scene;)
 
So long as the Marriage License exists, they are entitled to enter it. If you don't want them using the term marriage, you should probably do something about the Marriage License.

You know I think government should get out of the marriage business all together. Unfortunately that is not going to change as to many dunderheads are just fine with it. I will however fight against marriage being redefined or changed for any reason.
 
You know I think government should get out of the marriage business all together. Unfortunately that is not going to change as to many dunderheads are just fine with it. I will however fight against marriage being redefined or changed for any reason.

Yeah, well I will fight against the use of government force against the rights and liberties of the individual if that individual has not infringed upon the rights of others. In other words, freedom. Because being free is what matters in the end. I think it's pretty condescending and arrogant to think that you can force your definitions onto everyone just because you think it's right. Ignoring the rights and liberties of the individual to push forward your own authoritative agenda.
 
Yeah, well I will fight against the use of government force against the rights and liberties of the individual if that individual has not infringed upon the rights of others. In other words, freedom. Because being free is what matters in the end. I think it's pretty condescending and arrogant to think that you can force your definitions onto everyone just because you think it's right. Ignoring the rights and liberties of the individual to push forward your own authoritative agenda.

I used to actually care more about the individual, then I went in the military and realized a successful society is a team effort. If one section breaks down, everything and everyone is affected. It's funny people try and say this is anti-American and that is crap. The founders did not agree as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson would tell you.

So in the end I don't think redefining marriage is good for society (or even better) the society I am a contributing member of.

I guess I am more a John Adams type after all.
 
I used to actually care more about the individual, then I went in the military and realized a successful society is a team effort. If one section breaks down, everything and everyone is affected. It's funny people try and say this is anti-American and that is crap. The founders did not agree as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson would tell you.

So in the end I don't think redefining marriage is good for society (or even better) the society I am a contributing member of.

I guess I am more a John Adams type after all.

Probably. John Adams wanted a strong central government with a strong central bank. Many say the America we have now, with the States having virtually no power and the federal government/fed system as it is was the dream of Adams. But in the end, society has no rights; only individuals have rights. I don't see how allowing gays to marry can do anything to "society". Gay people being allowed to marry isn't going to collapse society, and it's absolutely absurd to think so.
 
I agree.

As soon as they call it something other than a marriage, they will have my full support.

You do realize that gay marriage is as old or older than Christianity, right? Even a couple Roman emporers were married to men. Other than your religious beliefs, I don't know why you feel entitled to the word "marriage". And if it does have to do with your religious beliefs, then why do you feel entitled to use the state to impose your beliefs on others?

Help me understand how social conservatives think. Why do you feel justified in using the government to impose your particular moral standards?
 
Last edited:
Probably. John Adams wanted a strong central government with a strong central bank. Many say the America we have now, with the States having virtually no power and the federal government/fed system as it is was the dream of Adams. But in the end, society has no rights; only individuals have rights. I don't see how allowing gays to marry can do anything to "society". Gay people being allowed to marry isn't going to collapse society, and it's absolutely absurd to think so.

I don't think it will collapse society, why would someone say something that stupid? I didn't. I said it would be bad for society, as if we don't have enough problems with morals in our country.
 
You do realize that gay marriage is as old or older than Christianity, right? Even a couple Roman emporers were married to men. Other than your religious beliefs, I don't know why you feel entitled to the word "marriage". And if it does have to do with your religious beliefs, then why do you feel entitled to use the state to impose your beliefs on others?

Help me understand how social conservatives think. Why do you feel justified in using the government to impose your particular moral standards?

You mite as well ask me to explain why I believe in God. All I can say is because I see it as just one more immoral act trying to gain social acceptance. Hell, we have people now saying incest is OK. Just look back at a few of the threads.

I will not support a redefining of marriage to mean gay couples, period.
 
I don't think it will collapse society, why would someone say something that stupid? I didn't. I said it would be bad for society, as if we don't have enough problems with morals in our country.

And allowing gays to marry is somehow going to make up more immoral?:roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom