• 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]

Papa bull said:
I think people that support same-sex MARRIAGE either don't understand the purpose of marriage or think that homosexual marriage should be created as an option even though it doesn't further the purpose of marriage. What is disingenuous is to deny that acceptable biological pairings was ALWAYS the foundation of marriage law in this country with all else being support for that foundation. Even Loving vs. Virginia was meaningful because it included a reasonable and logical biological pairing that was only denied due to issues of race. The real purpose of marriage was already satisfied by their biological male/female coupling.
Click to expand...

You are the one who doesn't understand the purpose of marriage, because you are limiting it to your idea of what the purpose is. The purpose of marriage is varied. There are many purposes. And none is going to be more important than the others. Marriage exists for many reasons. This is especially true today.
 
Papa bull said:
It makes sense because people should be able to enter into contracts and agreements with each other that include things such as power of attorney. This right to contractual agreement among people should support some sort of boiler plate civil union agreement, in my opinion.... or for that matter, some customized form of agreement. The bottom line is that I think it is reasonable to afford a boilerplated agreement for domestic partnerships as a point of freedom to enter into contracts with others.
Click to expand...

And that agreement is already called "marriage". There is no need to make a second agreement type that serves the same legal purpose for some ideological concept of marriage that doesn't truly represent what marriage legally is.
 
roguenuke said:
And that agreement is already called "marriage". There is no need to make a second agreement type that serves the same legal purpose for some ideological concept of marriage that doesn't truly represent what marriage legally is.
Click to expand...

Similar purpose... not the same. Domestic partnerships are not marriages and don't have the same purpose as marriage except through the "new orthodoxy" definition of marriage as any two people who have feelings for each other and want to mimic a heterosexual marriage model relationship.
 
Papa bull said:
Similar purpose... not the same. Domestic partnerships are not marriages and don't have the same purpose as marriage except through the "new orthodoxy" definition of marriage as any two people who have feelings for each other and want to mimic a heterosexual marriage model relationship.
Click to expand...

It is the same. If it comes with all the same benefits and rights and responsibilities, then it is the same thing. The only difference is how you feel about marriage. And that is not important in our laws.
 
roguenuke said:
It is the same. If it comes with all the same benefits and rights and responsibilities, then it is the same thing. The only difference is how you feel about marriage. And that is not important in our laws.
Click to expand...

I think it would actually be correct to be a subset of laws that are most appropriate to domestic partnerships. I'm not sure that all the tax benefits need apply since homosexual relationships are not for the purpose of creating families (even though alternative means may be employed to artificially create a family for a same-sex pairing). That's one of the things I'm on the fence about. Should the state give tax benefits to a same-sex couple that it gives to a couple that has traditionally had one member performing caregiving duties to the offspring? Or is that just giving away state revenue that never seems to be in adequate supply for purposes that don't support that?

That has to be a state consideration even if it's one no one dares talk about.
 
captainawesome said:
legal same sex partnership is marriage. Marriage is a civil union.
Click to expand...

According to the oligarchist SSC judges who've deemed gay marriage in their states and SSM advocates, but I think there's a different opinion among Americans. I don't think Americans' opinions are gonna matter. That's what scares me the most.
 
Last edited:
Papa bull said:
I think it would actually be correct to be a subset of laws that are most appropriate to domestic partnerships. I'm not sure that all the tax benefits need apply since homosexual relationships are not for the purpose of creating families (even though alternative means may be employed to artificially create a family for a same-sex pairing). That's one of the things I'm on the fence about. Should the state give tax benefits to a same-sex couple that it gives to a couple that has traditionally had one member performing caregiving duties to the offspring? Or is that just giving away state revenue that never seems to be in adequate supply for purposes that don't support that?

That has to be a state consideration even if it's one no one dares talk about.
Click to expand...

How you feel about it is not how our laws work. And there is no public support for making procreation a part of marriage laws, not positive procreative ability and/or intent. It simply isn't that important to most people. Nor do most people agree with you that procreation is the reason and sole purpose or even foundation of marriage.
 
cabse5 said:
According to the oligarchist SSC judges who've deemed gay marriage in their states, but I think there's a different opinion among Americans. I wonder if Americans' opinions are gonna matter? That's what scares me the most.
Click to expand...

Americans' opinions do matter, and that opinion was placed into the main law of our land saying that states cannot deny equal protection without showing how a restriction furthers a legitimate state interest. Plus, the majority supports same sex marriage, whether you want to believe that or not.
 
cabse5 said:
According to the oligarchist SSC judges who've deemed gay marriage in their states, but I think there's a different opinion among Americans. I don't think Americans' opinions are gonna matter. That's what scares me the most.
Click to expand...

Your correct opinion about SSM being icky or immoral doesn't matter. Just like the opinion interracial marriage is icky or immoral doesn't matter.
 
roguenuke said:
Americans' opinions do matter, and that opinion was placed into the main law of our land saying that states cannot deny equal protection without showing how a restriction furthers a legitimate state interest. Plus, the majority supports same sex marriage, whether you want to believe that or not.
Click to expand...

Where is the denial of equal protection when SS unions have all the rights and responstibilties of marriage?
 
cabse5 said:
Where is the denial of equal protection when SS unions have all the rights and responstibilties of marriage?
Click to expand...

Except they don't and there is no legitimate push for same sex unions other than marriage in most places that don't already recognize same sex marriage nor on a federal level. So denying same sex couples the right to enter into the only partnership that "is like marriage", marriage itself, is denying equal protection.
 
captainawesome said:
Your correct opinion about SSM being icky or immoral doesn't matter. Just like the opinion interracial marriage is icky or immoral doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

I do think SSM is icky, but not immoral. My complaint is the gov't is changing the definition of marriage. Like including football in the definition of basketball. Why the need for this mongrelization?
 
captainawesome said:
Except they haven't offered SSM with all the same benefits.
Click to expand...


Nevada, and Califorinia, and Washington, and Oregon, and Colorado have unions with all the rights and responsibilites of marriage. Other states can easily follow suit with legislation. Tax breaks for SS unions would be federal.

If your goal is SSM in every state, why all this hard work, and possible defeat for something you already have (SS unions with all the rights and responsibilites of marriage)?
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
Nevada, and Califorinia, and Washington, and Oregon, and Colorado have unions with all the rights and responsibilites of marriage. Other states can easily follow suit with legislation. Tax breaks for SS unions would be federal.
Click to expand...

There you go not equal.
 
cabse5 said:
Nevada, and Califorinia, and Washington, and Oregon, and Colorado have unions with all the rights and responsibilites of marriage. Other states can easily follow suit with legislation. Tax breaks for SS unions would be federal.
Click to expand...

And most of those have simply went to allowing same sex couples to marry because having two unions that give the same benefits/rights/responsibilities is nonsense and stupid, not to mention costly. Plus, most of the states that ban same sex marriage also ban such unions as well.

Show me the federal law that says that the federal government, the IRS will recognize those in civil unions or anything other than marriages as married under their laws.
 
Only proves you think the Yankees and the Red Sox aren't equal. You gonna force the Red Sox play all their home games in the modern Yankee Stadium, too?
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
And most of those have simply went to allowing same sex couples to marry because having two unions that give the same benefits/rights/responsibilities is nonsense and stupid, not to mention costly. Plus, most of the states that ban same sex marriage also ban such unions as well.

Show me the federal law that says that the federal government, the IRS will recognize those in civil unions or anything other than marriages as married under their laws.
Click to expand...

I guess I'd show you one of those gay rights polls that says Americans are for gay rights by about 70% (but not SSM by 70%). Politicians want to be re elected.
.
 
Last edited:
I reiterate: only argument for SSM comes from oligarchist SSC judges. Only argument.
 
It changes the definition of marriage. I guess, for that same reason, the state forcing a man-to-woman-union to be defined as a lesbian couple.
 
cabse5 said:
I guess I'd show you one of those gay rights polls that says Americans are for gay rights by about 70% (but not SSM by 70%). Politicians want to be re elected.
.
Click to expand...

Which means another 30% are for no rights at all, including recognition of any types of unions. And since 50% of the population is willing to give same sex couples legal marriage, that means that only about 20% are for giving limited rights to gays.
 
What's keeping a SS union from throwing a lavish celebration of their union if they aren't married? Sure the SS couple can find a lavish place to hold it, anyway. An analogy for the situation: can't force a christian wedding to be performed in a mosque, can you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom