• 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!

Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win[W:48]

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

And you keep ignoring that in 2014 there are various legal proceedings that require recognition of a family unit.

I am not ignoring anything, I want those changed too.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Call it what you want, the underlying point stands.

Yes, my underlying point stands. The government should not be involved.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

The ultimate cop out, just declare the other side has sinister intentions and ignore any actual good they're doing.

Politician actions change to reflect changing opinions of their constituents? Well, I never!

So why not sooner?
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

So why not sooner?

Same reason as every other civil rights issue. Public opinion takes time to shift.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

National, legalized ss marriage is inevitable.

Me?

I think marriage is silly. Being legally pressured to stay with one person for the rest of your life, imo, causes more misery then joy.

A relationship is not stronger because you are married...it's just more difficult to get out of.

And people should be free (and, in fact, encouraged) to leave any romantic relationship the second they want to.

I don't want to be with the wrong person AND the last thing I want is my partner staying with me mostly because it's too much work to leave.


Having said that...any two sane, consenting adults should be able to legally marry.

If two people are sharing expenses and/or living space, then they can have just as much difficulty leaving that situation unmarried as married. It all depends on how "civil" the people are as to how hard it is to leave the situation. If they can agree on who gets what, then it really isn't that difficult at all. It's just filing a bit more paperwork than if they aren't legally married.

I've known some couples who have gotten divorced with really no issues, and some that had many. I've also known many people who simply broke off a non-marriage relationship, and end up in court or fighting each other for years. In fact, many of those who have children but weren't married that I know end up in court more times or at least for many more issues than those who were married with children. Divorce forces those with children to work out a base custody issue within a year or less (for a few couples, longer, but not many) due to the divorce requiring legal attention that brings up the children. When they aren't married, from what I've seen, they end up fighting over the issue for years.

Now, I'm not saying that people should get married because of children (I'm actually against that), but I do believe that those having children should have some legal paperwork setup prior to the child being born. If we don't include child custody in this though, divorce is generally going to be more fair at least than simply splitting up, and legally could be much simpler, especially if the breakup is bad and/or there are money/responsibility issues.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

And you keep ignoring the fact that I don't want the government to recognize/regulate marriage. Even among Christians there are differences on who can get married and divorced. Up until Henry VIII marriage was regulated by social groups (i.e. families, churches, etc.) That's what it should return to.

They recognize other legal relationships and other contracts, and marriage sets up both at once so there is really no reason why the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. Even private contracts, the government has a say in. Take medical POAs. They are limited by the government so that only one person can be legally recognized as a person's medical decision maker at a given time. We limit the age any person can enter into a contract. We limit who is recognized as legal families using either legal documents or DNA evidence (that is generally verified using legal documentation).

The only thing really that a marriage license does (nowdays) is consolidate a whole lot of contracts that the vast majority of those who want to get married would like to have set up for them into a single document that is similar to the birth certificate or adoption paperwork.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

"Bigots" aren't what I am talking about. But, since we are on the subject, aren't you exhibiting your own bigotry by not tolerating that type of thought and speech? That is exactly what the first amendment seeks to prevent witg respect to the government. The government cannot tell people what to say or believe. That is absolutely essential for the voting process to remain fair.

No, it's not bigotry to be intolerant of bigotry. And yes, the KKK are bigots. When you deny others equal rights for no other reason than you don't like a you don't like a group, you're a bigot. The KKK has a long history of harming others.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

No, it's not bigotry to be intolerant of bigotry. And yes, the KKK are bigots. When you deny others equal rights for no other reason than you don't like a you don't like a group, you're a bigot. The KKK has a long history of harming others.

Of course. It isn't bigotry if you think it is ok. [/Sarcasm]
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

1.)Yes, they are. That is why you are issued a marriage license.
2.)To people of the big 3 religions, there is no such thing as a nonreligious marriage.

1.) nope they arent endorsing it they are simply protecting rights.
endorse
: to publicly or officially say that you support or approve of (someone or something)
: to publicly say that you like or use (a product or service) in exchange for money
: to write your name on the back of (a check)

unless you mean it in some obscure way?


2.) well since im one of those people that is factually false lol

once again the fact remains religion has nothing to do with legal marriage, its 100% meaningless to it and equal rights.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Oh don't fool yourself into thinking the SSM push is purely about civil rights. This is primarily a push by liberal democrats to distract from the President's failed economic, health care and foreign policies. If this was about civil rights, they would have done it decades ago. They are only pushing it now because they think the issue will get them some votes.

LMAO please repeat this dishonest, inane, hyperbolic "POST" as much as possible. I'm positive that anybody who is educated, honest and objective will laugh just as hard as i did and NONE of them will take it seriously. thanks that was hilarious!
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Yes, they are. That is why you are issued a marriage license.

To people of the big 3 religions, there is no such thing as a nonreligious marriage.

Then those people of the "big 3 religions" need to get over themselves (at least the ones who actually believe that "there is no such thing as a nonreligious marriage") because those people would be wrong. They don't own marriage.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

1.) nope they arent endorsing it they are simply protecting rights.
endorse
: to publicly or officially say that you support or approve of (someone or something)
: to publicly say that you like or use (a product or service) in exchange for money
: to write your name on the back of (a check)

unless you mean it in some obscure way?

No obscure meanings necessary. By issuing a license the government entity endorses the legitimacy of the act.

2.) well since im one of those people that is factually false lol

once again the fact remains religion has nothing to do with legal marriage, its 100% meaningless to it and equal rights.

The big 3 religions believe God created marriage with the union of Adam and Eve.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Yes, they are. That is why you are issued a marriage license.



To people of the big 3 religions, there is no such thing as a nonreligious marriage.

Um...good for them?
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

LMAO please repeat this dishonest, inane, hyperbolic "POST" as much as possible. I'm positive that anybody who is educated, honest and objective will laugh just as hard as i did and NONE of them will take it seriously. thanks that was hilarious!

Ok....but if what I say is laughably untrue than please tell me why now? If this is such a significant civil rights issue why wait for public support to come out in favor? Why wasn't this issue addressed when Democrats had the house and senate and presidency just a few short uears ago? Did they just become aware that this issue existed? Why not do the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing when they became aware?

You can voice your fake righteous indignation all you want, but the rest of is see this political stunt as the disingenuous ploy that it is.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

To people of the big 3 religions, there is no such thing as a nonreligious marriage.

That is OK. Since there is no law against Atheists marrying, religion is not a necessity for a lawful marriage. Surely you would consider a male-female atheists marriage real...right?
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

That is OK. Since there is no law against Atheists marrying, religion is not a necessity for a lawful marriage. Surely you would consider a male-female atheists marriage real...right?

My wife and I are atheists and nobody gave us any grief for it when we were married.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

That is OK. Since there is no law against Atheists marrying, religion is not a necessity for a lawful marriage. Surely you would consider a male-female atheists marriage real...right?

Depends.

God didn't say a man will marry a woman. Not a man tgat believes in me will marry a woman tgat believes in me.

BUT if they marry after an invalid divorce or some other way violate God's will, then I would say I don't view it as a valid marriage. That is their business though and no one with beliefs like mine should be required to participate or validate or recognize such marriages as such. That is why the government should be out of the marriage business all together.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Depends.

God didn't say a man will marry a woman. Not a man tgat believes in me will marry a woman tgat believes in me.

BUT if they marry after an invalid divorce or some other way violate God's will, then I would say I don't view it as a valid marriage. That is their business though and no one with beliefs like mine should be required to participate or validate or recognize such marriages as such. That is why the government should be out of the marriage business all together.

This all you have to remember... and post ever again.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Oh don't fool yourself into thinking the SSM push is purely about civil rights. This is primarily a push by liberal democrats to distract from the President's failed economic, health care and foreign policies. If this was about civil rights, they would have done it decades ago. They are only pushing it now because they think the issue will get them some votes.

That's completely silly.

Is that why it took almost 100 yrs after the Civil War for the US to attack Jim Crow laws and truly give blacks equal rights? Up to that point, they were still treated like wnd class citizens and in some states....interracial marriage was still illegal. Why didnt all that change immediately after the Civil War?

Because it takes time for momentum to build, for voices to be heard, for society to recognize people that they had tried to shove aside and not think about. "Why couldnt blacks and women and gays just be happy with what they had? Why cause all this trouble?" Well sorry for the inconvenience but *no one* should have to wait for a wrong to be made right when it comes to equality in the US. It took hundreds of yrs (even more) for gays to even 'come out of the closet' in society, much less start to demand their rights.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Which is why I am against the government endorsing any marriages as they are a creation of God in most religions.

But they've never been a creation of any imaginary friend in the sky in secular society, which is what government represents. They have nothing to do with gods, they are a civil process binding two people together legally. Religion doesn't matter at all. You can walk down all the aisles in all the churches you want, you're not married until you get that piece of paper from the state. The religious need to get it through their heads that their religious beliefs don't make them married, the government does.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

No it isn't. No law protects equal access for bigots. You may believe what you want. Say what you want. But equality under the law says you cannot discriminate for reasons of race, religion, or gender. Not bigotry. I can't stop you from eating in my burger joint. But I don't have to ask you to speak. Apples and oranges.

People can be bigots all day long, there's no way to control what goes on in someone's head and people, like it or not, have a right to free speech. Bigots simply cannot act on their bigotry in legally-restricted means, they can't stop black people from eating in their establishment, they can't stop Jews from coming into their stores, etc. Nothing says they can't hate blacks or Jews though. We don't have mind-crimes in this country. People can hate gays all they want, there's no way to stop them, they just can't act on their hatred of gays.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Yes, they are. That is why you are issued a marriage license.

Marriage is generally good for society, that's why the government recognizes it. It has nothing to do with religion.

To people of the big 3 religions, there is no such thing as a nonreligious marriage.

Then they're morons that need to grow up.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

I think marriage is silly. Being legally pressured to stay with one person for the rest of your life, imo, causes more misery then joy.

You're not being pressured to do anything, you signed up. You volunteered. Nobody forced you into it. If you don't like it, don't do it. Easy.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

To people of the big 3 religions, there is no such thing as a nonreligious marriage.

While I also agree that the govt should not be involved in marriage, unfortunately it is. And since it is, then it is discriminating against consenting adults who should be allowed to partake of the benefits and legal protections accorded to marriage.

Are the people in the '3 big religions' unaware of the country they are living in and the laws that govern it? Which are specifically supposed to not force a religious belief on someone else? Yes? No? Do they know this?

Do they know that millions of atheists also marry here in the US? Yes? No? So then...are those people 'married' or not? Hmmm. Married under the law is the answer of course.


Now, no one forces religious (or other) couples to get marriage licenses and be married under the aegis of the state. Any straight couple in the US can go to the church of their choice and have their specific marriage ceremony performed and be married 'In the eyes of God.' Yes? No?

So if the people of the '3 big religions' dont like 'govt sponsored' marriage, no one is making them sign up for it. Correct? They can still have exactly what they want, correct?

So then if the people of the '3 big religions' are offended by marriage as defined or newly defined by their states....they can opt out. I havent heard of anyone doing so tho. I wonder why? Do you know?
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

1.)No obscure meanings necessary. By issuing a license the government entity endorses the legitimacy of the act.
2.)The big 3 religions believe God created marriage with the union of Adam and Eve.

1.) only its legality and peoples rights not the actual marriage itself.
2.) which once again has NOTHING to do with equal rights and legal marriage lmao nothing , zip, zero, zilch they are not related. so your original statement is still factually false.
 
Back
Top Bottom