• 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

Reverand Hellhound, I think the point about children is that, by having your marriage legally recognized by the govt, your children (and you) get a lot of protections that you wouldn't get if you didn't have the govt-legalized marriage.

Things like inheritance rights, visitation in hospital rights, custody rights in case of the partnership splitting up, etc.

I understand your point that you feel this should all be covered without govt interference; but that's going to be a lot of work. So given how our society is set up, it's easier to extend marriage to same sex couples (which you're fine with) than to toss the institution out altogether

Maybe in 30 years... I read in a book one time where the author envisioned contract marriages; you got married for 5 or 10 years; at the end of that time the contract was dissolved unless both partners agreed to re-sign it. That could work.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

I don't think so. with media, social media, etc, you may have a small group of holdouts, but they will be irrellevent.

There is a significant portion of people against both of those, even if still a rather small percentage.

There was a poll taken of Republicans in Mississippi in 2010 showing that 46% of them were against interracial marriage. There are still instances where JoPs will refuse to marry an interracial couple.

From 2013:

498ae3155dce43bc0fc3d081d53295d4.jpg

In U.S., 87% Approve of Black-White Marriage, vs. 4% in 1958

13% is a pretty relevant amount considering the time we are currently living in.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

There is a significant portion of people against both of those, even if still a rather small percentage.

There was a poll taken of Republicans in Mississippi in 2010 showing that 46% of them were against interracial marriage. There are still instances where JoPs will refuse to marry an interracial couple.

From 2013:

View attachment 67181704

In U.S., 87% Approve of Black-White Marriage, vs. 4% in 1958

13% is a pretty relevant amount considering the time we are currently living in.




see from 95 on?


that's that social media, thing I keep tekkubg yoou about, as it plateus, those are your hold outs, about 13% as you noted.

That's not a relevant amount.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Reverand Hellhound, I think the point about children is that, by having your marriage legally recognized by the govt, your children (and you) get a lot of protections that you wouldn't get if you didn't have the govt-legalized marriage.

Things like inheritance rights, visitation in hospital rights, custody rights in case of the partnership splitting up, etc.

I understand your point that you feel this should all be covered without govt interference; but that's going to be a lot of work. So given how our society is set up, it's easier to extend marriage to same sex couples (which you're fine with) than to toss the institution out altogether

Maybe in 30 years... I read in a book one time where the author envisioned contract marriages; you got married for 5 or 10 years; at the end of that time the contract was dissolved unless both partners agreed to re-sign it. That could work.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/28/lets-divorce-marriage-from-the-government

"Government neutrality -- or the closest we can get to it -- is the best way to ensure fairness and social peace on this and most other social issues. Marriage is too important of an institution to be dependent on the wiles of the state. Do we really care if the state validates our marriage licenses?"
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Wonder how ostracized Clarence Thomas and Ginny are.

Think he was saying that those against interracial marriage or legal divorce are ostracized, but this isn't a contention supported by the amount of those who oppose these things nor reality. We didn't even "ostracize" my grandparents when my mother taught us that it didn't matter what race you married. Both my father and my husband were asked if my mother and I (respectively) were white, because it still does matter to some people, in some places, in pretty significant amounts. There are still places with segregated proms.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

see from 95 on?


that's that social media, thing I keep tekkubg yoou about, as it plateus, those are your hold outs, about 13% as you noted.

That's not a relevant amount.

Yes, 13% is still pretty relevant. It may not do anything when it comes to voting, but still a lot of people, Americans. That is almost 27 million Americans that do not approve of interracial marriages.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Yes, 13% is still pretty relevant. It may not do anything when it comes to voting, but still a lot of people, Americans. That is almost 27 million Americans that do not approve of interracial marriages.


do you really expect 100%?


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

do you really expect 100%?


ever?

There are far more people who disapprove of interracial relationships than there are those in those types of relationships. In fact, just looking at the percentages, a greater percentage of the population disapproves of interracial marriages/relationships than the percentages of marriages that are interracial, particularly white/black interracial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

I don't know how many times I can say it, I don't care who you marry, what your call your marriage.
Dude? It's not about what YOU want. The changes you want will not stop the political conflicts.


Sure it does, it takes who gets to tell others who they can marry, out of thier hands.
No, it doesn't. "Privatizing marriage" solves nothing.

If we replace formal state marriages with a contract, then who can sign marriage contracts? If we legally restrict the contracts to "one man and one woman," then government is still involved, gays are still treated like second-class citizens, will not have marriage equality, and SSM advocates will still fight.

If we do not limit those contracts, then government is out of the picture. In turn, this will legalize gay marriage -- and polygamy as well. Social conservatives will not accept this, because yet again... they are fighting against the normalization of homosexuality. They will thus fight against unrestricted marriage contracts.

Yet again, the problem is not that "government is involved in marriage." The legislatures and courts merely happen to be the playing field. The issue is the normalization and acceptance of homosexuality.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Dude? It's not about what YOU want. The changes you want will not stop the political conflicts.

You just made it about me, I simply corrected you.




No, it doesn't. "Privatizing marriage" solves nothing.

If we replace formal state marriages with a contract, then who can sign marriage contracts? If we legally restrict the contracts to "one man and one woman," then government is still involved, gays are still treated like second-class citizens, will not have marriage equality, and SSM advocates will still fight.

nonsense, 14th amendment for one. adults can engage in almost any contract as long as there is a "meeting of the minds". they can bitch all they want, it will be pointless.

If we do not limit those contracts, then government is out of the picture. In turn, this will legalize gay marriage -- and polygamy as well. Social conservatives will not accept this, because yet again... they are fighting against the normalization of homosexuality. They will thus fight against unrestricted marriage contracts.

Yet again, the problem is not that "government is involved in marriage." The legislatures and courts merely happen to be the playing field. The issue is the normalization and acceptance of homosexuality.[/QUOTE]
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Yet again, the problem is not that "government is involved in marriage." The legislatures and courts merely happen to be the playing field. The issue is the normalization and acceptance of homosexuality.


So you want to legislate tolerance?
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

There are far more people who disapprove of interracial relationships than there are those in those types of relationships. In fact, just looking at the percentages, a greater percentage of the population disapproves of interracial marriages/relationships than the percentages of marriages that are interracial, particularly white/black interracial.

Interracial marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





that's non responsive, we have 87% approval, you claimed that's not enough, I am asking you if it's realistic to ever expect 100% approval?


I find 87% suspect personally.


hell I bet if they polled "do you support any marriage" you'd find 10% that would say "no".
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

nonsense, 14th amendment for one. adults can engage in almost any contract as long as there is a "meeting of the minds". they can bitch all they want, it will be pointless.
Did you bother to read my post? If we remove government from the process, AND we place no limits on private marriage contracts, the anti-SSM crowd will lose. This is because they do not want any sort of legitimate same-sex marriage at all.

The fight over SSM is not about semantics, it's not about reducing the role of government. It's about accepting homosexuality.


So you want to legislate tolerance?
:roll:

No, I do not advocate "legislating tolerance." I certainly am not demanding that individuals give their personal blessings to same-sex unions. At no time have I advocated that religious organizations be required to perform SSM ceremonies. There are a wide variety of legal methods to express intolerance for an individual or group, and at no point have I advocated (for example) outlawing any form of speech, or requiring private clubs to be subject to anti-discrimination laws.

What I want is for homosexuals not to be treated by the state as second-class citizens.

I.e. please stop trying to hammer round pegs into square holes, kthx.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Did you bother to read my post? If we remove government from the process, AND we place no limits on private marriage contracts, the anti-SSM crowd will lose. This is because they do not want any sort of legitimate same-sex marriage at all.

The fight over SSM is not about semantics, it's not about reducing the role of government. It's about accepting homosexuality.


I thought it was about equal protection under the law, not an activist crusade to make people accept other peoples lifestyle.



:roll:

No, I do not advocate "legislating tolerance." I certainly am not demanding that individuals give their personal blessings to same-sex unions. At no time have I advocated that religious organizations be required to perform SSM ceremonies. There are a wide variety of legal methods to express intolerance for an individual or group, and at no point have I advocated (for example) outlawing any form of speech, or requiring private clubs to be subject to anti-discrimination laws.


But you wish to pass laws to bring about "Accepting homosexuality". your words.


What I want is for homosexuals not to be treated by the state as second-class citizens.

Me too.


I.e. please stop trying to hammer round pegs into square holes, kthx.

I'm going by what you post. *shrug*
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

I don't think so. with media, social media, etc, you may have a small group of holdouts, but they will be irrellevent.

Exactly. Irrelevant. So not on anyone's radar....obviously no ostracized. Not even notable in most cases today.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Reverand Hellhound, I think the point about children is that, by having your marriage legally recognized by the govt, your children (and you) get a lot of protections that you wouldn't get if you didn't have the govt-legalized marriage.

Things like inheritance rights, visitation in hospital rights, custody rights in case of the partnership splitting up, etc.

I understand your point that you feel this should all be covered without govt interference; but that's going to be a lot of work. So given how our society is set up, it's easier to extend marriage to same sex couples (which you're fine with) than to toss the institution out altogether

Maybe in 30 years... I read in a book one time where the author envisioned contract marriages; you got married for 5 or 10 years; at the end of that time the contract was dissolved unless both partners agreed to re-sign it. That could work.

And if he did marry, then he chose to take advantage of those benefits. He and is partner did not have to formally marry in the legal sense to enjoy a 'married' relationship.

Of course we all develop different perspectives and positions as we mature so maybe he has just legitimately changed his stance on the issue.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

I think 100% acceptance is unrealistic

Well I wasnt really commenting on acceptance so much as 'ostracized.' It was 2 different posts so I can understand that not being clear.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

I thought it was about equal protection under the law, not an activist crusade to make people accept other peoples lifestyle.
Yes, it's about everyone being treated equally by the law.

Yes, as I said, the anti-SSM crew are motivated to oppose SSM because they do not want our society to accept homosexuality as normal.

The anti-SSM groups are on an activist crusade to make everyone reject a specific lifestyle. Fighting against this does not mean "forcing people to be tolerant." It means "using the law to allow people the freedom to make their own choices."

This does not mean I am actually advocating any policies that "force tolerance." Like I said, I don't want any religious entities to be compelled to perform same-sex marriages. I don't want private clubs to be compelled to accept gay members. I am not proposing any restrictions on speech. I'm not requiring anyone to get married. As such, I am not trying to use the law to force people to accept the views of others. I'm trying to use the law to prevent a restriction of freedom.

And as noted, if you try to remove government from the equation, by default you're defeating the anti-SSM side. Thus, removing government does not qualify as a neutral stance upon which everyone can or should agree.


But you wish to pass laws to bring about "Accepting homosexuality". your words.
...no, I want the law to stop treating homosexuals as second-class citizens. THOSE are my words.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Yes, it's about everyone being treated equally by the law.

Yes, as I said, the anti-SSM crew are motivated to oppose SSM because they do not want our society to accept homosexuality as normal.

The anti-SSM groups are on an activist crusade to make everyone reject a specific lifestyle. Fighting against this does not mean "forcing people to be tolerant." It means "using the law to allow people the freedom to make their own choices."

This does not mean I am actually advocating any policies that "force tolerance." Like I said, I don't want any religious entities to be compelled to perform same-sex marriages. I don't want private clubs to be compelled to accept gay members. I am not proposing any restrictions on speech. I'm not requiring anyone to get married. As such, I am not trying to use the law to force people to accept the views of others. I'm trying to use the law to prevent a restriction of freedom.

And as noted, if you try to remove government from the equation, by default you're defeating the anti-SSM side. Thus, removing government does not qualify as a neutral stance upon which everyone can or should agree.



...no, I want the law to stop treating homosexuals as second-class citizens. THOSE are my words.




"And as noted, if you try to remove government from the equation, by default you're defeating the anti-SSM side. Thus, removing government does not qualify as a neutral stance upon which everyone can or should agree."


I don't see why it doesn't.

If the government had no part of it, who's to say who can and cannot call thier things "marriage" I guess I am not fully understanding your point.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

I think 100% acceptance is unrealistic

So? When did the culture war for same sex marriage acceptance begin? At what percent support? At what point is the war over same sex marriage over? What percentage of acceptance?
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

"And as noted, if you try to remove government from the equation, by default you're defeating the anti-SSM side. Thus, removing government does not qualify as a neutral stance upon which everyone can or should agree." I don't see why it doesn't.
I have already explained why.

If we privative marriage, then no one can stop two adult males from marrying, or two adult females from marrying. Without government enforcement, no one can mandate or control the use of the terms "marriage" or "civil union." This amounts to the legalization of same-sex marriage, which is explicitly what the anti-SSM folks are fighting.

Thus... it's not neutral. It's a victory for SSM.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

I have already explained why.

If we privative marriage, then no one can stop two adult males from marrying, or two adult females from marrying. Without government enforcement, no one can mandate or control the use of the terms "marriage" or "civil union." This amounts to the legalization of same-sex marriage, which is explicitly what the anti-SSM folks are fighting.

Thus... it's not neutral. It's a victory for SSM.

But if the anti-SSM is against any kind of recognition of same sex relationships, they'll fight this just as hard as they are fighting SSM proposals.

It's about bigotry; they don't really care if the govt is sanctioning it or their church is sanctioning it or if it's contracts. They don't want same sex couples getting the same rights they have or having their partnerships called the same thing.

Any rate, I think most of us at this point in this thread are for legalizing SSM; doing it through including them in the definition of marriage is the fastest way to do it, and hopefully will be done in June.

Those who want to work to get government out of marriage altogether are, of course, welcome to attempt that.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

If they can figure out a way for 3 people to get legally married to each other, for whatever reasons (financial or otherwise), I don't see a problem with it.

If we're talking religion and morality, it isn't any of my business.
 
Back
Top Bottom