• 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!

In looming federalism fight, three states say feds can't 'unmarry' gay couples

I said its both, point is simple as the polls for civil unions prove. If you scrub "marriage" from government's lawbooks books and change to civil union, does anything really change? All rights and benefits would be the same, would it not? Its putting the meaning of marriage back where it belongs, between the two individuals.

I really don't have a problem with that. The problem is BOTH sides are so entrenched in marriage, it won't happen. Those that are married don't want to give up that status and those without it, want it.

It should have been done decades ago, however, as you see both sides don't want to push the issue at all in that regard.
 
Think you'd be surprised. The church would still refer to as marriage. The state license would say civil unions. I could care less whats on my "marriage license."

I'm not concerned with what the church would refer to it as since marriage doesn't belong to the church. To say that it is is not only inaccurate but just wishful thinking.
 
I said its both, point is simple as the polls for civil unions prove. If you scrub "marriage" from government's lawbooks books and change to civil union, does anything really change? All rights and benefits would be the same, would it not? Its putting the meaning of marriage back where it belongs, between the two individuals.

Let me ask you something. Despite your belief that marriage is a religious institution, why do you suppose everybody else wants to take part in it?
 
Let me ask you something. Despite your belief that marriage is a religious institution, why do you suppose everybody else wants to take part in it?

The history of marriage is either a religious or private contractual agreement between two families. The only reason this is debate is because, at least in the US, the government stepped in and begun to "license" marriage in the mid-1800s.

Why do people take part of it? Well, guess its to have a committed relationship recognized. Further supports my proposal. Scrub "marriage" out of federal law, replace it with "civil union" and that accomplishes that desire for recognition for everyone, regardless of their sexuality will be recognized equally under the law and receive the same benefits. Let the institutions who conduct "marriage ceremonies" decide on their requirements to perform them.
 
The history of marriage is either a religious or private contractual agreement between two families. The only reason this is debate is because, at least in the US, the government stepped in and begun to "license" marriage in the mid-1800s.

So now historically it's a state and federal contractual agreement. If you're going to use the historical fallacy then you have to use all of the history, not cherry pick the parts that are convenient to you.

Why do people take part of it? Well, guess its to have a committed relationship recognized. Further supports my proposal. Scrub "marriage" out of federal law, replace it with "civil union" and that accomplishes that desire for recognition for everyone, regardless of their sexuality will be recognized equally under the law and receive the same benefits. Let the institutions who conduct "marriage ceremonies" decide on their requirements to perform them.

Intriguing offer, but I don't see how that does me any good, so...no. The water fountain the white people are using is a lot nicer and cleaner looking.
 
So now historically it's a state and federal contractual agreement. If you're going to use the historical fallacy then you have to use all of the history, not cherry pick the parts that are convenient to you.

Ummm, its not. The lines blurred when the church was heavily intertwined with government. There's no fallacy in what I claimed. It was either a private agreement (as in no government involvement) or church sanctioned. It really didn't become a federal issue until the mid 1900s that the federal government got involved. You probably look up what "fallacy" means as you clearly misused it here. Look it up marriage license history and when the federal government got involved in its recognition.

Intriguing offer, but I don't see how that does me any good, so...no. The water fountain the white people are using is a lot nicer and cleaner looking.

Yup, because the entrenchment you display here has progressed this issue how far now?
 
Ummm, its not. The lines blurred when the church was heavily intertwined with government. There's no fallacy in what I claimed. It was either a private agreement (as in no government involvement) or church sanctioned. It really didn't become a federal issue until the mid 1900s that the federal government got involved. You probably look up what "fallacy" means as you clearly misused it here. Look it up marriage license history and when the federal government got involved in its recognition.

Are you or are you not using history as a basis for what legitimate marriage is? If you're using the argument that marriage is a religious institution because it has historically been that way, then you are using the historical fallacy. And if you're allowed to use that historical fallacy, then I'm allowed to say that marriage is also a government sanctioned institution because it has historically been that way.

Yup, because the entrenchment you display here has progressed this issue how far now?

Huh. You say this as if civil unions are going to be the law of the land any minute now and I'm just spitting into a hurricane. Do you actually believe this will happen?
 
Are you or are you not using history as a basis for what legitimate marriage is? If you're using the argument that marriage is a religious institution because it has historically been that way, then you are using the historical fallacy. And if you're allowed to use that historical fallacy, then I'm allowed to say that marriage is also a government sanctioned institution because it has historically been that way.
I not using the argument either way. Just using the history of the recognition of marriage via government, religious and society at large to consider a path forward that would be acceptable to all or more so supporting the compromise I originally proposed.

And you're obviously selectively reading my posts as I clearly stated that its currently both, but historically wasn't always. Clear?

So then, what is legitimate marriage? Government recognition? Religious? Societal?

If your position is governmental recognition, then what I proposed would meet your position, would it not?

Huh. You say this as if civil unions are going to be the law of the land any minute now and I'm just spitting into a hurricane. Do you actually believe this will happen?

I never said "any minute now." Again, go back and read my posts as you're clearly trying to paint my position on this issue into something its not. Just like any idea, it would take time to garner support. But as I mentioned, current polling would indicate the idea I proposed would gain momentum much faster than the current entrenched positions of both sides.
 
I not using the argument either way. Just using the history of the recognition of marriage via government, religious and society at large to consider a path forward that would be acceptable to all or more so supporting the compromise I originally proposed.

And you're obviously selectively reading my posts as I clearly stated that its currently both, but historically wasn't always. Clear?

No, you just made a mangled mess out of that. Would you like to try again? Because it sounds like you just said that you're using history as a basis for determining which marriage is legitimate, which is exactly what I said you were doing.

So then, what is legitimate marriage? Government recognition? Religious? Societal?

Historically? All of them, including personal claims of marriage. It's been pretty flexible and diverse throughout the years.

If your position is governmental recognition, then what I proposed would meet your position, would it not?

No, because civil unions are not the same as marriages, in that they do not carry the same symbolic breadth of unions as life-long and society-recognized bonds. If you are so sure that they are the same, how about churches get civil unions and the rest of us get marriages. Fair?

I never said "any minute now." Again, go back and read my posts as you're clearly trying to paint my position on this issue into something its not. Just like any idea, it would take time to garner support. But as I mentioned, current polling would indicate the idea I proposed would gain momentum much faster than the current entrenched positions of both sides.

Except that churches wanting to monopolize marriages for themselves is absolutely entrenched and in no way a compromise, no matter how much you may want to package it as that. You're not the only one who is aware of the symbolic and historic weight that a marriage conveys, so your "compromise" is transparent to everyone else.
 
I am married and it is LEGALLY recognized in every state and I am not of a religious institution. YOU may treat yours as religious, but marriage is a civil institution.

Did you have a minister/priest/rabbi/pastor/justice of the peace administer the vows and sign your "marriage License"? That's the problem right there, in all but an exceptionally small number of cases "marriage" is a two step process involving both civil and religious elements. For civil rights and portability, only the first part of the process (licensing with the state) is needed. The second part (the marriage ceremony) is unnecessary (for the terms of this discussion) and done as a matter of tradition and custom alone.

That's why the state should be in the civil union business and leave the marriage ceremonies to the religions.
 
Except that churches wanting to monopolize marriages for themselves is absolutely entrenched and in no way a compromise, no matter how much you may want to package it as that. You're not the only one who is aware of the symbolic and historic weight that a marriage conveys, so your "compromise" is transparent to everyone else.
Nothing in such a law as Fishstyx proposes would allow churches a monopoly on "marriage". It would remove Marriage from state and federal law.
You could have any number of community organizations, groups, ad infinitum that recognize marriage, that are NOT religious.
 
ROFLMAO@ lefties suddenly being proponents of states' rights.
 
Nothing in such a law as Fishstyx proposes would allow churches a monopoly on "marriage". It would remove Marriage from state and federal law.

What would be the benefit of this?
 
What I'm getting a kick out of is these people who want to take marriage of government, they say how awesome it's gonna be when that happens, and how happy I and every one else should be when we finally get to have civil unions instead of this awful, burdensome marriage. But they cannot in any detail whatsoever explain to me how this could be of any benefit to me or why I should be grateful for it.

Another guy I debated this with said that if government got out of marriage, I would have more freedom. Seriously, that was his answer. So of course I asked him, what perks would come with this newfound freedom? "Liberty," he replied. Yeah, I said, liberty is freedom. Got it. So what do I get from this liberty? You know, what's in it for me? "What, you don't think freedom is its own reward?" he said. "You like slavery?" Well no, I don't like slavery. But normally when I think of losing my freedom, I imagine specific perks that are being denied to me, such as freedom speech, the right to vote, free passage through the states and the world, stuff like that. Details.
 
Did you have a minister/priest/rabbi/pastor/justice of the peace administer the vows and sign your "marriage License"?

No, I didn't.

That's why the state should be in the civil union business and leave the marriage ceremonies to the religions.

As I replied before, I have no problem with that. However, the majority of even STRAIGHT couples are so entrenched in marriage they wouldn't agree to it. Why do you think it hasn't already been implemented?
 
ROFLMAO@ lefties suddenly being proponents of states' rights.

And all the right-wingers against it. It's almost as if "states rights" is not a universal, absolute standard where you either support it or don't.
 
Nothing in such a law as Fishstyx proposes would allow churches a monopoly on "marriage". It would remove Marriage from state and federal law.
You could have any number of community organizations, groups, ad infinitum that recognize marriage, that are NOT religious.

Why do that? Why does religion get to own that word? I want to own that word.
 
What I'm getting a kick out of is these people who want to take marriage of government, they say how awesome it's gonna be when that happens, and how happy I and every one else should be when we finally get to have civil unions instead of this awful, burdensome marriage. But they cannot in any detail whatsoever explain to me how this could be of any benefit to me or why I should be grateful for it.

The benefit is simple, you're just ignoring it. You'd receive the same financial benefit in the terms of taxes, same rights for the purpose of next of kin. As the civil union, in the eyes of the government, would apply to all, opposite and same sex unions.

And you're missing a key point in what I proposed. You wouldn't be denied "burdensome marriage." There are plenty of churches and other non-religious organizations that conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples. The compromise would be that those religious organization that oppose same sex marriage would not be compelled via the law or lawsuits to perform them.

Why do that? Why does religion get to own that word? I want to own that word.

They don't, they get to choose who they perform marriage ceremonies for.
 
The benefit is simple, you're just ignoring it. You'd receive the same financial benefit in the terms of taxes, same rights for the purpose of next of kin. As the civil union, in the eyes of the government, would apply to all, opposite and same sex unions.

I didn't ask if I'd get to keep the same perks of marriage, I asked what the benefits would be of government getting out of marriage. Your post doesn't answer this.

The compromise would be that those religious organization that oppose same sex marriage would not be compelled via the law or lawsuits to perform them.

Are religious organizations required to recognize other types of marriages now?
 
I didn't ask if I'd get to keep the same perks of marriage, I asked what the benefits would be of government getting out of marriage. Your post doesn't answer this.

Umm, the only thing that the government's current recognition of marriage give you is the "perks" I mentioned. Otherwise, it has no impact on marriage whatsoever.


Are religious organizations required to recognize other types of marriages now?

Not sure your point here. Are you saying you want a religious organization to be forced to recognize a marriage they don't believe in?
 
Umm, the only thing that the government's current recognition of marriage give you is the "perks" I mentioned. Otherwise, it has no impact on marriage whatsoever.

Then why would I agree to having a civil union when somebody going to a church gets marriage? What's in it for me? Why would I agree to this change?

Not sure your point here. Are you saying you want a religious organization to be forced to recognize a marriage they don't believe in?

No. I'm saying that religious organizations are not forced to recognize such marriages anyway.
 
Then why would I agree to having a civil union when somebody going to a church gets marriage? What's in it for me?

You can go to a church that would perform a marriage ceremony a same sex couple, thats whats "in it for you." On fact, you can do that right now. The change would that in the eyes of the federal government, your union would be recognized with all the perks that come with it.
 
You can go to a church that would perform a marriage ceremony a same sex couple, thats whats "in it for you." On fact, you can do that right now. The change would that in the eyes of the federal government, your union would be recognized with all the perks that come with it.

Going to a church to get my marriage performed would not be a perk -- it would be an additional obligation.
 
Going to a church to get my marriage performed would not be a perk -- it would be an additional obligation.

An obligation to whom?
 
Back
Top Bottom