• 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!

They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex marria

Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

What war? The "war" is over. I have no idea how your ruling class comment relates to this. Seriously, you just sound like you're babbling.


I don't think it's over, we won the battles, but the war ain't over.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

I don't think it's over, we won the battles, but the war ain't over.
In the United States, same-sex marriage is recognized by the federal government and has been legalized in 37 U.S. states,[a] the District of Columbia and 22 Native American tribal jurisdictions. More than 70% of the population live in jurisdictions where same-sex couples can legally marry.[4]

Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And a new ssm ban gets struck down every other month, it seems. And then, sure, some judge will uphold their ssm ban, and that invariably gets overturned too. Yeah, this war is over. Zero need for compromise.
 
Last edited:
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And a new ssm ban gets struck down every other month, it seems. And then, yeah, some judge will uphold their ssm ban, and that invariably gets overturned too. Yeah, this war is over. Zero need for compromise.



I don't think you understand. the legal battles are close to being all won, you still have a cultural battle raging./
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

I don't think you understand. the legal battles are close to being all won, you still have a cultural battle raging./

"Raging" in a minority of minds. Most people have accepted ssm and moved on. In ten years it won't even be a thing. Hey, want to really get a blast from the past? Watch Raw with Eddie Murphy, the blatant homophobia is mind-blowing. When I saw that I couldn't believe that was the decade I grew up in.



Hahaha...I'm old.
 
Last edited:
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

"Raging" in a minority of minds. Most people have accepted ssm and moved on. In ten years it won't even be a thing. Hey, want to really get a blast from the past? Watch Raw with Eddie Murphy, the blatant homophobia is mind-blowing. When I saw that I couldn't believe that was the decade I grew up in.



Hahaha...I'm old.





Maybe you are right, I started this whole just get rid of the word "marriage" thing many years ago, and it's not the same world today, that's for sure.


I still think the gov should get out of the marriage business.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

"Raging" in a minority of minds. Most people have accepted ssm and moved on. In ten years it won't even be a thing. ... [/I]

Yup. I wrote this last year, when SCOTUS rejected an appeal from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin:

The death knell for anti-gay haters is knocking at their door, and they know it, hence the extra heated growls and rancor as each state's ban gets knocked down.

And even if

Even if ...

these Courts were not ruling in favor of Equality as fast as they as -- and even if this SCOTUS did not reject this appeal...

the real death knell --

Top line, third number over:

tbpelkodp0spw8exj7rmuw_zps6a5d870f.png
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

"Raging" in a minority of minds. Most people have accepted ssm and moved on. In ten years it won't even be a thing. Hey, want to really get a blast from the past? Watch Raw with Eddie Murphy, the blatant homophobia is mind-blowing. When I saw that I couldn't believe that was the decade I grew up in.



Hahaha...I'm old.


Wow! You forget just how crude it was back then.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

So? Government marriage does that already. Bam, problem solved.

Yeah, it's a lot of trouble to go through to get rid of "marriage" in our laws. It works, all we need to do is epxand to same sex couples in all states, and we're good.

Maybe religions can come up with a new word for their unions.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

You could have all that be covered under the civil union laws if you must. POA's or civil contracts.

It's already covered under marriage laws that are working just fine.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Maybe you are right, I started this whole just get rid of the word "marriage" thing many years ago, and it's not the same world today, that's for sure.

Here's the thing:

I don't believe you.

I never once in my life heard anyone say the government should call marriages anything else, until after same sex marriage started to come up.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Here's the thing:

I don't believe you.

I never once in my life heard anyone say the government should call marriages anything else, until after same sex marriage started to come up.




I quoted me back in 2010, and you can search on the net back to 2004, I believe. as a libertarian why would I believe any differently?


I find it sad, how the far left has to demonize even those on thier side, simply because they don't follow the exact talking points.

I'll say it again, I support gay marriage,


thinking that there is/was a way to avoid most of the strife, is not being afainst anything, and such stupidity should be dismissed.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

I quoted me back in 2010, and you can search on the net back to 2004, I believe. as a libertarian why would I believe any differently?


I find it sad, how the far left has to demonize even those on thier side, simply because they don't follow the exact talking points.

I'll say it again, I support gay marriage,


thinking that there is/was a way to avoid most of the strife, is not being afainst anything, and such stupidity should be dismissed.

I don't know what that is significant. Vermont had Civil Unions in 2000 -- then in 2003 Mass. was the 1st state to recognize same sex marriage.

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE - THE OVERVIEW - MARRIAGE BY GAYS GAINS BIG VICTORY IN MASSACHUSETTS - NYTimes.com

That's older than your 2004. So, you can't say it was before...
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Yeah, it's a lot of trouble to go through to get rid of "marriage" in our laws. It works, all we need to do is epxand to same sex couples in all states, and we're good.

Maybe religions can come up with a new word for their unions.

That's a good idea. As with all stupid progressive policies it will be necessary for the progressives to come up with a new word for marriage once they have fully debased the it. At that point they will find a different name for "marriage" in a hope of rebranding it and the churches can get the word "marriage" back.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

I quoted me back in 2010, and you can search on the net back to 2004, I believe. as a libertarian why would I believe any differently?


I find it sad, how the far left has to demonize even those on thier side, simply because they don't follow the exact talking points.

I'll say it again, I support gay marriage,


thinking that there is/was a way to avoid most of the strife, is not being afainst anything, and such stupidity should be dismissed.

Really? Demonizing? That is the word you're going to use to describe this conversation?

You don't support same sex marriage. You support same sex civil unions.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

I don't know what that is significant. Vermont had Civil Unions in 2000 -- then in 2003 Mass. was the 1st state to recognize same sex marriage.

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE - THE OVERVIEW - MARRIAGE BY GAYS GAINS BIG VICTORY IN MASSACHUSETTS - NYTimes.com

That's older than your 2004. So, you can't say it was before...


Oh to add: I just remembered: In 1993, Hawaii made gay marriage legal, stemming from a case brought in 1991 (it was appealed and lost in 1996)

That's going back a heck of a lot further.

Then after that, mid-90's - states started writing SSM bans and the bozos in congress passed DOMA as a result,-- so unless you can say you were against gov't in marriage sometime about the 80's, it really doesn't mean much.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

ROTFLOL... how long until this "right" is bestowed on US citizens?

Oughta be a field day for divorce lawyers.

Will it be limited to only homosexuals? LOL...

I take it you wore overalls and a straw hat to your wedding?
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Really? Demonizing? That is the word you're going to use to describe this conversation?

You don't support same sex marriage. You support same sex civil unions.



yes, demonize, I am more for libertry and the rights of people to do what they want, including marry whomever they want than you. yet, you treat meas if I am not for marriage equality.

Please, you are smart enough to read my posts, which means you are simply being dishonest. don't be that guy.


I'm not sure what you think I am advocating that any of this would be an issue. if you kept ALL the things and apply it to a "Civil union" for all, you'd get the same thing.

And, yes, if this isn't possible, fight the long fight for gay marriage.


The only absurdity here is your rebuttal. I will re-state my position. I support marriage equality and I don't care who you ****, do "bolivian marching powder" with, or marry. It's none of my business.

Don't care, people should be able to marry as many people of any sex they want.


Well, I think as we move away from this, the ultimate goal is to get them out of the business all together,. gay marriage or not,.



I support marriage equality, period.



Not only do I support the same thing for everyone, I also support polygamy if that's your scene.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

That's a good idea. As with all stupid progressive policies it will be necessary for the progressives to come up with a new word for marriage once they have fully debased the it. At that point they will find a different name for "marriage" in a hope of rebranding it and the churches can get the word "marriage" back.

Funny, I didnt see the churches going out of their way to prevent all those others debasing marriage from getting married. You know, all the adulterers (remarrying), fornicators, domestic abusers, even convicted pedophiles or murders or rapists in jail....churches never had a problem allow them to use the word or institution of marriage (except the Catholics in some cases). No organized legislative battles and petitions against those things. Huh....just 'da geighs.' I guess only they are debasing marriage by wanting to declare their love and committment to each other.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Funny, I didnt see the churches going out of their way to prevent all those others debasing marriage from getting married. You know, all the adulterers (remarrying), fornicators, domestic abusers, even convicted pedophiles or murders or rapists in jail....churches never had a problem allow them to use the word or institution of marriage (except the Catholics in some cases). No organized legislative battles and petitions against those things. Huh....just 'da geighs.' I guess only they are debasing marriage by wanting to declare their love and committment to each other.


Well said! I was trying to figure out how getting more people able to marry was debasing it. Not like there's only so much of it to go around...
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Funny, I didnt see the churches going out of their way to prevent all those others debasing marriage from getting married. You know, all the adulterers (remarrying), fornicators, domestic abusers, even convicted pedophiles or murders or rapists in jail....churches never had a problem allow them to use the word or institution of marriage (except the Catholics in some cases). No organized legislative battles and petitions against those things. Huh....just 'da geighs.' I guess only they are debasing marriage by wanting to declare their love and committment to each other.

Well, no, all of these stands are for drawing the line on this point and everything that follows it. As I am on record saying here many times, I don't have a specific objection to gay marriage. What I object to is the lazy, damaging way that gay marriage is being argued. While supporters claim that the argument is only about gay marriage, the truth is that if gay marriage wins on the current argument then there is no rational argument for limiting any kind of marriage.

The problem was that gay marriage is not really defensible from any other line of argument, I always hoped they could find a compelling argument that wasn't as applicable to a woman and her cats as it was to two women.

I have gone on record that I am all for abolishing all federal law involving marriage. Get the state out of the marriage business all together. I think that the perceived benefits from getting married built into the tax law have attracted a lot of couples to get marriage who never should have been married in the first place.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Well, no, all of these stands are for drawing the line on this point and everything that follows it. As I am on record saying here many times, I don't have a specific objection to gay marriage. What I object to is the lazy, damaging way that gay marriage is being argued. While supporters claim that the argument is only about gay marriage, the truth is that if gay marriage wins on the current argument then there is no rational argument for limiting any kind of marriage.

The problem was that gay marriage is not really defensible from any other line of argument, I always hoped they could find a compelling argument that wasn't as applicable to a woman and her cats as it was to two women.

I have gone on record that I am all for abolishing all federal law involving marriage. Get the state out of the marriage business all together. I think that the perceived benefits from getting married built into the tax law have attracted a lot of couples to get marriage who never should have been married in the first place.

I dont disagree with alot of that.

I would not care at all if the govt got out of marriage but since I believe they can make a compelling case on its benefits to society, I wont bother fighting it.

However while such a decision for gay marriage may open up marriage to others, most that I've seen would be fine with me...dont care, doesnt affect me. But the legal decision would have to be case by case for each group. And there would have to be a demographic willing to advocate and fight for it. That's not going to happen for those interested in incestuous marriage. for instance.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

The only absurdity here is your rebuttal....
You asked for a list of states that banned SSM. I provided it. 20 states, including some of the most populated ones in the US, outlawed all types of civil unions with the express purpose of preventing gay civil unions. Nothing absurd about that.


I will re-state my position. I support marriage equality and I don't care who you ****, do "bolivian marching powder" with, or marry. It's none of my business.
But you do want to stop people from demanding equal treatment under the law? How strange.


I am also a strong belliever in this government is too large, to convoluted, and too complicated. One such way of simplification it to remove who the government can and can't say who is married, and call EVERYONE a civil union.
1) The evidence is clear that many conservatives will not tolerate the semantic change you propose.
2) I have seen absolutely no sign that anyone, other than a tiny handful of libertarians and anti-SSM advocates who have given up, want to strip marriage of its legal status.

How many people want to strip all spouses of the ability to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner?

How many people want to eliminate the clauses in estate law, that allow a spouse to receive an estate without taxation?

Do we want to trash all the laws relating to child custody?

We should also note that on some level, this is not about the government "telling you what to do." The government isn't telling you that you must get married, or must get divorced. It's acting as a neutral arbitrator, and enforcing the functions that we as a society want associated with marriage.

Or, think of it another way. Let's say we eliminate every legal aspect to marriage. People can marry whoever they want. Now, instead of signing a single legal document to formalize the marriage, you need to...
• Write / rewrite both of your wills
• Sign health care proxies for each other
• Sign binding contracts that determine how child custody will be handled
• Sign pre-nuptial agreements
• Write contracts dividing your existing property during the marriage
• Gnash your teeth when you realize your spouse will have to pay estate taxes for whatever said spouse inherits
• Lose out on Social Security or military survivor benefits
• Lose out on spousal eligibility for employer-provided health care

Wow. Yeah, I can see how removing the legal aspects of marriage will make things simpler for everyone. :cool:


now you have "civil unions". states CANNOT deny ones partner from seeing thier loved ones as it would then violate the 14th amendment.
They certainly tried.

It's also not about just seeing a loved one. It's about actually making decisions about their medical care, and the state cannot deal with such a critical issue in a casual or informal manner.


It's really quite simple, and this fascist style "BELEIEVE AS WE 100% or even though you support gay marriage, you are a homophobe bigot!!!!!" nonsense is the same intolerant crap, you are suppoosedly against.
Sorry, but that really doesn't fly.

1) You're basically suggesting a semantic change. That has fooled no one.
2) You're suggesting that marriage have no legal consequences whatsoever. That also won't work.
3) SSM is a civil rights issue, and in this respect is absolutely no different than interracial marriage -- something that lots of people screeched about when it was in the process of legalization.
4) We don't allow employers, hospitals or other organizations to unilaterally approve or disapprove of anyone's marriage prior to granting benefits or legal rights.
5) There is ultimately no justification for treating homosexuals like second-class citizens, and denying them the same rights and privileges as anyone else -- right down to the name of an institution.
6) Removing all legal aspects and consequences from marriage, especially if you're doing it in order to allegedly make people accept SSM, is throwing the baby out with the bath-water.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

I've been advocating this for years, I am a libertarian. who you marry is none of my business....
Good news! If you want to have a legally meaningless marriage, you can do that right now. You can call it a marriage, or a commitment ceremony, or a left nostril inhalation sharing arrangment, whatever the **** you please. No one and nothing can stop you, and no one can force you to enter into a legally binding marriage.

That also means you can stop bitching about other people who do choose to have legally binding marriages, because the category never had to apply to you in the first place.

Ain't America great?
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Of course it is. Getting married, unlike having a child or assuming responsibility for a sick or elderly relative, does not impact upon your financial wellbeing...well, it does, but in the opposite direction, likely making your finances easier, not more difficult. There is no economic argument for giving away money to newlyweds, it's a political gesture, saying we approve of your life-choice, we want people to marry. Those are ideological considerations, even when those benefits are rolled out to same-sex couples. Hence fairness is not a consideration and such tax breaks are wholly unfair on those who are single, or in a domestic relationship that isn't recognised as 'marriage'.

Except for the fact that only about half of the people that see any difference in their taxes due to marriage benefit from them. Most get no significant benefit.
 
They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-se...

It should be removed. taxes should not change based on who you shack up with.

Too bad. Don't like it, push to get your reps to change it. I wouldn't count on it happening though.

Of course the fact that you think marriage is about "shacking up" doesn't speak well for your argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom