• 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!

Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

Ontologuy said:
False, obviously.



False again.

The majority of American citizens supports recognition of SS couples' committed monagamous romantic relationship civil union domestic partnerships by both government and private enterprise.

However, this majority is not a large one.

And, only a small minority supports oxymoronically calling these civil union domestic partnerships "marriages".

Of those who support SS couples' civil union domestic partnerships, a significant marjority of them prefer that a different name be used.

And the minority that opposes SS couples' civil uion domestic partnerships by any name are adamantly opposed.

That's reality.




Now you're bashing a strawman and simply for the purpose of rabble-rousing.

Meaningless .. and a failed debate tactic.



But .. not the way you think. :shock:



That's precisely the description of your post here. :lol:



When casual readers pass this way, and they see all you're doing is denying the specific details of reality, and rabble-rousing ..

.. And they see the thought and consideration and intelligence reflected in the details of my topically relevant posts, who do you think they're going to align with if they're on the fence?

Uh huh .. that's right ... :cool:

The only one doing his "side" a disservice here .. is you ..

.. Obviously.
Click to expand...

Do you ever get anything right? Civil Rights

Most recent poll: "Do you think marriages between gay and lesbian couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?" 55 should, 44 should not

Next most recent: "Overall, do you support or oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?" 57 support, 40 oppose.

Let me guess your argument. A clear, solid majority is "small", and these polls are all outliers. Bet you don't admit you where wrong, even though I just documented it.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
In your opinion... which has nothing to do with facts. Please post links that prove this assertion. No, I'm making an accurate assessment of what you posted. A tactic that is not for you, but for others who happen to read you. Based on how people respond to you, it's quite an effective tactic... in fact VERY effective. Of course the nonsense you post is a FAR more effective tactic than me just pointing it out. Of course they do. Nonsense. Look at how people respond. They KNOW that what you say is nonsense. I know it bothers you when I point out and render your comments as irrelevant, but I want to make sure that people get correct information around here. Look around you. When people see the nonsense you present and then my retorts and destruction of that nonsense, you get no support and no agreements. Now, you can pretend that you do, but the rest of us know the truth. It's right here in black and white. Btw... I noticed that you ran from our discussing on definitions and what I said. You didn't post where I used the term "redefined" or where I said that the issue was anything but a state's rights issue. Are you ready to concede that you were wrong and were just straw manning or am I going to have to continue to confront you on this?
Click to expand...
Again, you're posting like an ideologue.

When I present the accurate information that I do, those who simply don't like that information because of what it means, left-wing ideologues, well, they're going to whine, obviously.

That ideologues whine in response to my accurate information posts is, of course, meaningless.

That you seem so obsessed about repeatedly discrediting me personally likely implies that the accurate information of topical relevancy I present is something you indeed recognize to be a threat to your particular ideology on the topic.

And, that you're so upset that I bowed out of responding to your obfuscating subterfuge some posts ago means, apparently, that you're really incensed about me not acknowledging your "it's all about me" attitude.

Maybe you should just give it a rest for a while.
 
Trip said:
You probably missed my repeated references to reproduction not being mandatory, nor even having to be capable, but rather only possible for that sort of union. Psst! that reproduction is not happening for gay couples, not even for a scant minority of cases, nor is it actually ever possible.

No, I'm not wrong, and your unfathomable ignorance and disregard, for quite literally every society throughout mankind's history, really indicates that the problem is your own ignorance. Which is heightened by the enormous irony of you being undeniably the byproduct of a heterosexual relationship.

And, you hit the nail on the head, which is extremely amusing, in stating that procreation does not require marriage, and does not even require sex, which .......... again.......... is the whole reason why committed heterosexual unions - i.e. marriage, are valued by society, recognized and rewarded... and not gay unions.

It boggles the mind that people can actually leave American schools and be so entirely clueless about fact, common sense, and even the most simple social history, such as WHY marriage is recognized.
Click to expand...

And there are many opposite sex couples where reproduction is not happening, not even for one scant moment. My mother, should she ever remarry, cannot have children again. She has no uterus.

You are the one who is trying to connect procreation to marriage. It is not connected.
 
Redress said:
Do you ever get anything right? Civil Rights

Most recent poll: "Do you think marriages between gay and lesbian couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?" 55 should, 44 should not

Next most recent: "Overall, do you support or oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?" 57 support, 40 oppose.

Let me guess your argument. A clear, solid majority is "small", and these polls are all outliers. Bet you don't admit you where wrong, even though I just documented it.
Click to expand...
Where is the poll question about calling the SS domestic partnership civil unions something other than marriage that correctly differentiates between OS ones and SS ones?

When the poll does not present all the information in the form of logical and topically relevant valid questions, then responders have to decide between letting SS couples have their recognition by government and private enterprise but stomaching "marriage" as the description, or rejecting "marriage" as the description and thus also the recognition.

You'd have a lot more people supporting the recognition of SS couples than in the mere mid-50 percentages if you let them accept the recognition but under a different and appropriate name other than "marriage".

Again, obviously.

Put some detailed and deeper thought into your arguments.
 
Ontologuy said:
Where is the poll question about calling the SS domestic partnership civil unions something other than marriage that correctly differentiates between OS ones and SS ones?

When the poll does not present all the information in the form of logical and topically relevant valid questions, then responders have to decide between letting SS couples have their recognition by government and private enterprise but stomaching "marriage" as the description, or rejecting "marriage" as the description and thus also the recognition.

You'd have a lot more people supporting the recognition of SS couples than in the mere mid-50 percentages if you let them accept the recognition but under a different and appropriate name other than "marriage".

Again, obviously.

Put some detailed and deeper thought into your arguments.
Click to expand...

Rejecting the results. So sad. Not checking the link, even sadder.
 
Ontologuy said:
Where is the poll question about calling the SS domestic partnership civil unions something other than marriage that correctly differentiates between OS ones and SS ones?

When the poll does not present all the information in the form of logical and topically relevant valid questions, then responders have to decide between letting SS couples have their recognition by government and private enterprise but stomaching "marriage" as the description, or rejecting "marriage" as the description and thus also the recognition.

You'd have a lot more people supporting the recognition of SS couples than in the mere mid-50 percentages if you let them accept the recognition but under a different and appropriate name other than "marriage".

Again, obviously.

Put some detailed and deeper thought into your arguments.
Click to expand...

Since the federal government never has nor even has attempted to recognize any other unions besides marriage, then there is no other legitimate union to be asked about besides marriage. You cannot ask about something that does not truly exist, national recognition of domestic unions other than marriage.
 
Redress said:
Rejecting the results. So sad. Not checking the link, even sadder.
Click to expand...
Here you whine with false accusation, when it's you who didn't present the relevant facts you're supposedly debating me on. :roll:

So, let me do it for you.

Here's the results on the question about allowing SS couples civil union domestic partner ships but calling those relationships something other than "marriage":
"Do you believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to get legally married, allowed a legal partnership similar to but not called marriage, or should there be no legal recognition given to gay and lesbian relationships?"

.............................Legally married....legal partnership....No legal recognition....Unsure
....................................%......................%..........................%....................%
5/13-15/12...................37......................33.........................25.....................5
8/10-11/10...................37......................29.........................28.....................6
5/12-13/09...................33......................33.........................29.....................5
11/4-5/06 LV................30......................30.........................32.....................7
6/13-14/06...................27.....................25..........................39.....................8
5/18-19/04...................25.....................26..........................40.....................9
3/3-4/04......................20......................33.........................40.....................7

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...

Notice that the most recent response causes a drop from your mid-50s percentage for "marriage" to 37 percent!

And, notice that the 29 percent who favor recognition but not oxymoronically calling it "marriage" came from, not only the "marriage" group but from the opposed to SS marriage group.

Thus supporting SS recognition jumps to 70% if you call it rightly something other than "marriage".

This proves my point that the majority does not support SS .. wait for it .. .. marriage, as 63% do not support SS "marriage" though 70% want SS relationships recognized. :cool:

Now sure, there will be extreme ideologues who'll refuse anything other than the oxymoronic "marriage" as the term for these SS recognitions, but they're a really tiny and unreasonable extreme.

So, though you falsely accuse me of not reading the link, it apparently is you who didn't read it .. either that or you purposely omitted the poll of topical relevance because it refuted your debate point.

Whatever, clearly SS organizers would have much more success if they'd simply heed what I'm saying and work to create homarriage domestic partnership civil unions in every state.
 
Ontologuy said:
Here you whine with false accusation, when it's you who didn't present the relevant facts you're supposedly debating me on. :roll:

So, let me do it for you.

Here's the results on the question about allowing SS couples civil union domestic partner ships but calling those relationships something other than "marriage":

Notice that the most recent response causes a drop from your mid-50s percentage for "marriage" to 37 percent!

And, notice that the 29 percent who favor recognition but not oxymoronically calling it "marriage" came from, not only the "marriage" group but from the opposed to SS marriage group.

Thus supporting SS recognition jumps to 70% if you call it rightly something other than "marriage".

This proves my point that the majority does not support SS .. wait for it .. .. marriage, as 63% do not support SS "marriage" though 70% want SS relationships recognized. :cool:

Now sure, there will be extreme ideologues who'll refuse anything other than the oxymoronic "marriage" as the term for these SS recognitions, but they're a really tiny and unreasonable extreme.

So, though you falsely accuse me of not reading the link, it apparently is you who didn't read it .. either that or you purposely omitted the poll of topical relevance because it refuted your debate point.

Whatever, clearly SS organizers would have much more success if they'd simply heed what I'm saying and work to create homarriage domestic partnership civil unions in every state.
Click to expand...

Where is the link?
 
roguenuke said:
Since the federal government never has nor even has attempted to recognize any other unions besides marriage, then there is no other legitimate union to be asked about besides marriage. You cannot ask about something that does not truly exist, national recognition of domestic unions other than marriage.
Click to expand...
Actually, your statement here is blatantly false.

Just take a gander at my immediately preceeding post above.
 
winston53660 said:
Exen in that the largest % favors marriage. Sorry Charlie you lose again.
Click to expand...
:lol:

Meaningless, obviously.

But, if that's all you've got, it's tantamount to capitulation.
 
SF City Hall:

SF City Hall.jpg

Taste the rainbow, muther****ers.
 
Ontologuy said:
:lol:

Meaningless, obviously.
Click to expand...

It means even with that the largest % favor marriage. It means your ideological non-sense about "homarriage" is losing ground at a rapid pace.
 
winston53660 said:
It means even with that the largest % favor marriage. It means your ideological non-sense about "homarriage" is losing ground at a rapid pace.
Click to expand...
:roll:

3k11c9a5u1q7
 
Ontologuy said:
Actually, your statement here is blatantly false.

Just take a gander at my immediately preceeding post above.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. There simply does not exist a legitimate federally recognized union besides marriage, so to ask the question about support for it is pointless. IF there was a legitimate option, then you would have a point. But that option does not exist and is not even being discussed seriously as being put into place on a federal level.
 
roguenuke said:
No it isn't. There simply does not exist a legitimate federally recognized union besides marriage, so to ask the question about support for it is pointless. IF there was a legitimate option, then you would have a point. But that option does not exist and is not even being discussed seriously as being put into place on a federal level.
Click to expand...
You're appearing rather ideological in your denial of obvious realities.

It simply doesn't matter whether there exists in the federal government at this time a box on the IRS form to check for "married/homarried".

There easily can be one re-worded there if just one state adopts a civil union domestic partnership for SS couples called something other than "marriage" but with state-authorized recognition by government and private enterprise, as the Constitution requires that the federal government (as well as other states) adapt accordingly in support providing the state adoption does not violate the Constitution.

The relevant point, which I'm sure you grasp, is what the American people actually want.

And though 70% want SS relationships recognized, 63% are opposed to calling those relationships "marriage".

That's a huge piece of information to so blantantly deny the relevancy of.

Acceptance is really for the best.
 
Ontologuy said:
You're appearing rather ideological in your denial of obvious realities.

It simply doesn't matter whether there exists in the federal government at this time a box on the IRS form to check for "married/homarried".

There easily can be one re-worded there if just one state adopts a civil union domestic partnership for SS couples called something other than "marriage" but with state-authorized recognition by government and private enterprise, as the Constitution requires that the federal government (as well as other states) adapt accordingly in support providing the state adoption does not violate the Constitution.

The relevant point, which I'm sure you grasp, is what the American people actually want.

And though 70% want SS relationships recognized, 63% are opposed to calling those relationships "marriage".

That's a huge piece of information to so blantantly deny the relevancy of.

Acceptance is really for the best.
Click to expand...

It does not exist now, and despite numerous polls throughout the last decade plus showing that people at least used to support same sex unions other than marriage in much larger amounts, there still has been no valid effort made to pass such a thing on the federal level. Even most of the states that passed same sex civil unions just went ahead and opened up marriage to same sex couples. They recognize the foolishness of making two government contracts that do basically the same thing except they are called different things.

This is very relevant. If in over 10 years no one has made an effort to put an other-than-marriage federal union in place, then it isn't likely to happen now that same sex marriage has grown to over 50% acceptance throughout the US.
 
roguenuke said:
It does not exist now, and despite numerous polls throughout the last decade plus showing that people at least used to support same sex unions other than marriage in much larger amounts, there still has been no valid effort made to pass such a thing on the federal level. Even most of the states that passed same sex civil unions just went ahead and opened up marriage to same sex couples. They recognize the foolishness of making two government contracts that do basically the same thing except they are called different things.

This is very relevant. If in over 10 years no one has made an effort to put an other-than-marriage federal union in place, then it isn't likely to happen now that same sex marriage has grown to over 50% acceptance throughout the US.
Click to expand...
Your statements are erroneous.

It's not about any "valid effort made to pass such a thing on the federal level", as that must be initiated by the states, not the fed.

Your statement "Even most of the states that passed same sex civil unions just went ahead and opened up marriage to same sex couples" is a contradiction. Thus it is unlikely that any state ever did create the non-marriage civil union domestic partnerships you allege .. so I'll call you on that one: please provide proof, not only that those were ever created and called something other than marriage, but then later they were deleted/abandoned and replaced with SS marriage statutes. This should not be too hard for you, as only a handful of states now have SS marriage statutes.

Thus your statement of "they recognize the foolishness ..." is merely a contrived fantasy.

Also, your statement that "ss marriage has grown to over 50% acceptance ..." is blatantly false, as proven by the link I presented a page or so back that shows without any rational conjecture that only 37% favor SS "marriage" andthat 63% are opposed to it.

Again, your obviously false statements only harm your cause.

The fact that there are no SS homarriage statutes on state books would be because SS activists thought that would take too long, and so they opted for the hijacking of marriage.

Clearly, according to the poll results, that hasn't been successful, and is not likely to be successful nationally.

Activists would have a better chance at getting SS recognition if they followed public sentiment and stumped hard for SS homarriage statues in every state.

Then the fed would instantly prepare for it.

It really is that simple and that obvious.
 
Ontologuy said:
Your statement "Even most of the states that passed same sex civil unions just went ahead and opened up marriage to same sex couples" is a contradiction. Thus it is unlikely that any state ever did create the non-marriage civil union domestic partnerships you allege .. so I'll call you on that one: please provide proof, not only that those were ever created and called something other than marriage, but then later they were deleted/abandoned and replaced with SS marriage statutes.
Click to expand...

just to prove you wrong again:

Same-sex marriage in Connecticut

The state enacted a civil union law in 2005 that provides same-sex couples with the same rights and responsibilities under state law as marriage. Connecticut became the second state in the United States (following Vermont) to adopt civil unions, and the first to do so without judicial intervention. The bill was passed by the House on April 13, and by the Senate on April 20. Governor Jodi Rell signed the bill into law later the same day, and it went into effect on October 1, 2005.[2]

<snip>

Updates to all marriage statutes[edit]
On April 22, 2009 lawmakers of Connecticut both in the House (vote 100-44) and in the Senate (vote 28-7) agreed to repeal all the old marriage laws and fully replace them with genderless quotes and all references to marriage will be fully gender-neutral. Governor Jodi Rell, a Republican, signed the law on April 23. On October 1, 2010, civil unions ceased to be provided and existing civil unions were automatically converted into marriages. Until then, existing civil unions were kept and couples could upgrade to marriage voluntarily.[14][15][16][17] Same-sex marriages, civil unions and broad domestic partnerships from other jurisdictions are legally treated as marriages in Connecticut.[5]

Same-sex marriage in Connecticut - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
winston53660 said:
just to prove you wrong again:

Same-sex marriage in Connecticut

The state enacted a civil union law in 2005 that provides same-sex couples with the same rights and responsibilities under state law as marriage. Connecticut became the second state in the United States (following Vermont) to adopt civil unions, and the first to do so without judicial intervention. The bill was passed by the House on April 13, and by the Senate on April 20. Governor Jodi Rell signed the bill into law later the same day, and it went into effect on October 1, 2005.[2]

<snip>

Updates to all marriage statutes[edit]
On April 22, 2009 lawmakers of Connecticut both in the House (vote 100-44) and in the Senate (vote 28-7) agreed to repeal all the old marriage laws and fully replace them with genderless quotes and all references to marriage will be fully gender-neutral. Governor Jodi Rell, a Republican, signed the law on April 23. On October 1, 2010, civil unions ceased to be provided and existing civil unions were automatically converted into marriages. Until then, existing civil unions were kept and couples could upgrade to marriage voluntarily.[14][15][16][17] Same-sex marriages, civil unions and broad domestic partnerships from other jurisdictions are legally treated as marriages in Connecticut.[5]

Same-sex marriage in Connecticut - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
Purposefully, apparently, you left off the following from your quotes
The decision to provide for civil unions and not same-sex marriage was controversial and was challenged in the state's courts. On October 10, 2008, the Supreme Court of Connecticut, in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, ruled that failing to give same-sex couples the full rights, responsibilities and name of marriage was against the equal protection clause of the state's constitution, and ordered same-sex marriage legalized.[3][4]
Click to expand...
First of all, it does not specify what name was given to the SS civil union. It wasn't called a "marriage". What was it called? "Like Marriage?" If the name given is not accurately descriptive it opens up the civil union to challenge.

Second, the court erred in its ruling with respect to definitive propriety, but merely said you can't have a "like marriage" nameless civil union.

So the correct solution would have been to give it an appropriate name -- homarriage -- for instance, and try again.

That the liberal Connecticut court erred and forced these civil unions to be converted to marriages is an anomaly, one that isn't likely to happen in the states where the constitution of the state specifically prohibits SS "marriage".

In these the great majority of states, the very presence of the constitutional specifcation stating that marriage is only "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", the state courts will allow passage of homarriage statues.

So you've not "proven me wrong" in any way.

I stated that the federal government in no way compelled such a state to abandon SS homarriage statutes and that remains true. And I called the other poster to simply illustrate their point with an example as their presentation style indicated they weren't even sure of what they were saying, and indeed, the Connecticut example is not how that poster phrased their statement.

But what you've presented illustrates how difficult it will now be to do the right and respectful thing and institute homarriage statutes in every state, as some states will now have to first convert all their SS marriages to homarriage statutes and institute a state constitutional amendment stating that marriage is only "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

That will now be much harder.

Considering that the remaining states will likely never follow suit, being naturally socially conservative as determined by their geographical dynamics, SS activists who pushed for the oxymoronic "marriage" in the relative handful of states where that succeeded have basically done their people a huge disservice with respect to getting all 50 states to at least recognize SS couples.
 
Last edited:
Ontologuy said:
Purposefully, apparently, you left off the following from your quotes
First of all, it does not specify what name was given to the SS civil union. It wasn't called a "marriage". What was it called? "Like Marriage?" If the name given is not accurately descriptive it opens up the civil union to challenge.

Second, the court erred in its ruling with respect to definitive propriety, but merely said you can't have a "like marriage" nameless civil union.

So the correct solution would have been to give it an appropriate name -- homarriage -- for instance, and try again.
Click to expand...


LOL you are hilarious.

FYI "homarraige" ain't in the lexicon of the English language.
 
Ontologuy said:
The majority of American citizens supports recognition of SS couples' committed monagamous romantic relationship civil union domestic partnerships by both government and private enterprise.

However, this majority is not a large one.

And, only a small minority supports oxymoronically calling these civil union domestic partnerships "marriages".

Of those who support SS couples' civil union domestic partnerships, a significant marjority of them prefer that a different name be used.

And the minority that opposes SS couples' civil uion domestic partnerships by any name are adamantly opposed.

That's reality.
Click to expand...

Ontologuy said:
Here you whine with false accusation, when it's you who didn't present the relevant facts you're supposedly debating me on. :roll:

So, let me do it for you.

Here's the results on the question about allowing SS couples civil union domestic partner ships but calling those relationships something other than "marriage":

Notice that the most recent response causes a drop from your mid-50s percentage for "marriage" to 37 percent!

And, notice that the 29 percent who favor recognition but not oxymoronically calling it "marriage" came from, not only the "marriage" group but from the opposed to SS marriage group.

Thus supporting SS recognition jumps to 70% if you call it rightly something other than "marriage".

This proves my point that the majority does not support SS .. wait for it .. .. marriage, as 63% do not support SS "marriage" though 70% want SS relationships recognized. :cool:

Now sure, there will be extreme ideologues who'll refuse anything other than the oxymoronic "marriage" as the term for these SS recognitions, but they're a really tiny and unreasonable extreme.

So, though you falsely accuse me of not reading the link, it apparently is you who didn't read it .. either that or you purposely omitted the poll of topical relevance because it refuted your debate point.

Whatever, clearly SS organizers would have much more success if they'd simply heed what I'm saying and work to create homarriage domestic partnership civil unions in every state.
Click to expand...

Here is the poll you referenced:

"Do you believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to get legally married, allowed a legal partnership similar to but not called marriage, or should there be no legal recognition given to gay and lesbian relationships?"

.............................Legally married....legal partnership....No legal recognition....Unsure
....................................%............. .........%..........................%............. .......%
5/13-15/12...................37......................33... ......................25.....................5
8/10-11/10...................37......................29... ......................28.....................6
5/12-13/09...................33......................33... ......................29.....................5
11/4-5/06 LV................30......................30...... ...................32.....................7
6/13-14/06...................27.....................25.... ......................39.....................8
5/18-19/04...................25.....................26.... ......................40.....................9
3/3-4/04......................20......................33 .........................40.....................7

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, unlike your claim, in fact more people prefer marriage to civil unions and by a significant margin. So you where wrong on that whole majority thing, and wrong that only a small minority prefer to call it marriage. In fact you posted results which show you to be 100 % completely wrong. You won't admit this, and will continue to make excuses why the things you image really are true, despite all the evidence saying otherwise. But that will not change the fact that you where wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom