• 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

How would gays that love each other pervert marriage more than straight married people that cheat on their spouses, committing adultery? Or those that beat their spouses?
Well... at least you recognize it's a perversion.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Well... at least you recognize it's a perversion.

If that's what you took from Lursas post it begs the question... Are you literate?
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Well... at least you recognize it's a perversion.

A perversion of what exactly? Marriage is or at least should be completely relative to the individual.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

as long as opposite couples also got civil unions, it would probably be legal.



That's exactly what I am advocating, government makes no distinction, everyone is a civil union. let, churches, groups, etc call what their ceremonies do whatever they want, it's none of our business.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

You're missing another option: screw the bigots altogether. They're losing the equal marriage conflict pretty badly as it is. No compromise is necessary.


lol, indeed, screw them, keep marriage and the marriage penalty a part of government and make teh gays have to pay it too. ;)


if all else fails, I agree with you, I'd simply like to see government out of dictating what is and what is not a marriage and how much that's going to cost you.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

I've never been remotely bothered who rubber-stamps marriage certificates. If the state wants to do it or the various chuches/temples/whatever so be it. What I don't want to see is that certain domestic arrangements are rewarded by tax-payers money, while others are not. That's the business the state should have no hand in.

100% agree. the state of your relationship should have no bearing on your taxes./
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Not true, as is evidenced by the fact that so many of those bans getting struck down now included anything resembling marriage, by another name. That is a claim only being made recently when the writing on the wall could easily be seen by those conservatives who were in a frenzy to ensure no recognition was given just a decade or so before in so many states.

links?


Neither religion nor opposite sex couples own exclusive rights to the meaning of the word marriage or what it is used to describe, who can use that word for their relationship.


ok...... that's what I am saying. I am also saying you END the controversy by getting the government 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

Religion does not own the word marriage, for anyone. It doesn't matter how much they want to claim it so there is absolutely no reason to change what we call legally recognized unions, now known as "marriages", just to appease those too petty to share a word.



so, it's not about two same sex people, loving each other, and having the very same rights a man and a woman has, it's about the word I see. It's more about "winning" the semantics game than equal rights.


I want everyone treated the same, I don't care personally what the government calls it. But if you removed the government from the equation, it wouldn't be an issue.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

And years from now, people will think it absurd that we actually criminalized what two consenting adults do with each others body parts even in the privacy of their own home.



yeah, but on the flipside, everyone will have a government monitoring camera in thier home!
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

which ones?
Georgia, Ohio, North Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Idaho, North Carolina, Arizona, Kansas, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Texas, Michigan, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Dakota, Nebraska all passed laws that restricted marriage to one man and one woman, and also barred any other type of civil union. (By now, most have been found unconstitutional.) Typical language is "A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized."

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While the handful of libertarian-leaners don't care about SSM, it's pretty clear that many conservatives do not want same-sex civil unions.

I also think your purported fix is absurd, and fools no one. You want to confer the exact same rights, powers, abilities and meaning to a same-sex civil union, as long as they don't refer to it with the word "marriage?" Great. Does that mean I can snort cocaine, as long as I refer to it as "Bolivian Marching Powder"? Can I solicit a prostitute, as long as I call it "walking the dog?"

And in terms of government staying out: You can already perform a legally meaningless ritual symbolizing commitment with as many people of whatever gender you want. Utah tried to outlaw such rituals recently (to prevent legally meaningless polygamist marriages) and was shot down in the courts. But...

Do you not want your spouse to visit you in the hospital? Should your spouse not be empowered to make medical decisions for you, if you are incapacitated? If you divorce in a contentious manner, should the state play no role whatsoever as a neutral arbitrator? Should the surviving spouses of a soldier who is KIA be cut adrift?

The reality is that we don't live in band-level societies anymore, with informal laws and information institutions. Modern life is too complex, too impersonal, too formalized to merely say "government should stay out of marriage."
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

When the anti-gay crowd's argument is reduced to fighting about a noun, you know the battle for them is lost.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

That's exactly what I am advocating, government makes no distinction, everyone is a civil union. let, churches, groups, etc call what their ceremonies do whatever they want, it's none of our business.

what amazes me is the number of people who suddenly started advocating it once gays/lesbians were allowed to marry. Somehow, before that, it never came up. (I don't know if you earlier advocated having civil unions for all; I never saw it being advocated in general until SSM started happening)

Pretty selfish. Not wanting to share "marriage" with others. doesn't hurt current marriages to have more people marry.

ps - I've ALWAYS hated having govt in the business of marriage licenses; having to "legally" commit to someone to get benefits - and responsibilities. But given that's the way it is, all couples, same gender or opposite genders, should be able to do it.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

lol, indeed, screw them, keep marriage and the marriage penalty a part of government and make teh gays have to pay it too. ;)


if all else fails, I agree with you, I'd simply like to see government out of dictating what is and what is not a marriage and how much that's going to cost you.

The government doesn't dictate what is and isn't marriage, actually, it just determines what marriage is if you want its benefits. By all means if you don't want the government marriage don't get it, and get the religious one instead (or the one at Burning Man or whatever). Sure, the government may not recognize it, but if your goal is to not have government in marriage then you've attained that goal, haven't you?
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

The government doesn't dictate what is and isn't marriage, actually, it just determines what marriage is if you want its benefits. By all means if you don't want the government marriage don't get it, and get the religious one instead (or the one at Burning Man or whatever). Sure, the government may not recognize it, but if your goal is to not have government in marriage then you've attained that goal, haven't you?

Good point. people can get married all they want if they aren't doing it through the government. Jump over a broomstick. But they won't get the benefits that legally married couples get. Which may be fine for them.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Good point. people can get married all they want if they aren't doing it through the government. Jump over a broomstick. But they won't get the benefits that legally married couples get. Which may be fine for them.

Of course, but as the suggestion to get government out of marriage literally only ever comes up during discussions on gay marriage it's obviously a smokescreen. I would be hard put to put it into exact words but if I had to guess, they just don't want to live under a system in which gay marriage is universally recognized as the same as hetero marriage in all fifty states, and that they, also being married under that system, must then somehow be forced to recognize those marriages as equal to their own. If I've got this wrong a bigot is more than free to come in and correct me.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Of course, but as the suggestion to get government out of marriage literally only ever comes up during discussions on gay marriage it's obviously a smokescreen. I would be hard put to put it into exact words but if I had to guess, they just don't want to live under a system in which gay marriage is universally recognized as the same as hetero marriage in all fifty states, and that they, also being married under that system, must then somehow be forced to recognize those marriages as equal to their own. If I've got this wrong a bigot is more than free to come in and correct me.

I agree. The whole "get govt out of marriage" never came up once until gays/lesbians wanted to marry.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

It's a stupid notion besides.

Government will never be *out* of marriage.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

so, it's not about two same sex people, loving each other, and having the very same rights a man and a woman has, it's about the word I see. It's more about "winning" the semantics game than equal rights.


I want everyone treated the same, I don't care personally what the government calls it. But if you removed the government from the equation, it wouldn't be an issue.

If everyone is allowed to marry, then everyone is treated the same.

If anyone is trying to win the semantics argument it is those that think it matters what the government calls legal unions of same sex couples. Since it is already legally called "marriage", then it is a stupid waste of time and money to change it to something else just because some people don't like certain groups using that word too. It isn't about "winning" but rather practicality. It cost money to make that change.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I support gay marriage. I always have, you can search my posts. I simply think that if you get the government out of the marriage business and have it's ONLY role is to register "civil unions" for census or whatever purposes, you take the wind out of the anti-gay marriage bigots.
There's no reason to change the word.

How does what I propose do this? anybody is free to call thier whatever, a marriage.

Great. And if religious folks don't want their union to share a word with those filthy homosexuals, they can call their marriages something else.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Well... at least you recognize it's a perversion.

Just as much as straight people marrying...as stated.

I dont believe it but apparently you believe both are perversions. Not sure why we bother caring about marriage in the US at all then.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Georgia, Ohio, North Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Idaho, North Carolina, Arizona, Kansas, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Texas, Michigan, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Dakota, Nebraska all passed laws that restricted marriage to one man and one woman, and also barred any other type of civil union. (By now, most have been found unconstitutional.) Typical language is "A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized."

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While the handful of libertarian-leaners don't care about SSM, it's pretty clear that many conservatives do not want same-sex civil unions.

I also think your purported fix is absurd, and fools no one. You want to confer the exact same rights, powers, abilities and meaning to a same-sex civil union, as long as they don't refer to it with the word "marriage?" Great. Does that mean I can snort cocaine, as long as I refer to it as "Bolivian Marching Powder"? Can I solicit a prostitute, as long as I call it "walking the dog?"

And in terms of government staying out: You can already perform a legally meaningless ritual symbolizing commitment with as many people of whatever gender you want. Utah tried to outlaw such rituals recently (to prevent legally meaningless polygamist marriages) and was shot down in the courts. But...

Do you not want your spouse to visit you in the hospital? Should your spouse not be empowered to make medical decisions for you, if you are incapacitated? If you divorce in a contentious manner, should the state play no role whatsoever as a neutral arbitrator? Should the surviving spouses of a soldier who is KIA be cut adrift?

The reality is that we don't live in band-level societies anymore, with informal laws and information institutions. Modern life is too complex, too impersonal, too formalized to merely say "government should stay out of 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.

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.

This does a couple things. one it takes the wind out of anti-gay marriage types, (100% of course not but it's a HUGE chunk). now you have "civil unions". states CANNOT deny ones partner from seeing thier loved ones as it would then violate the 14th amendment.


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

When the anti-gay crowd's argument is reduced to fighting about a noun, you know the battle for them is lost.


*sigh* I'm sorry I am looking at solutions, compromises, and ways to move forward. Like I said, I support gay marriage and don't care what you call it. I can't repeat that long enough.





what amazes me is the number of people who suddenly started advocating it once gays/lesbians were allowed to marry. Somehow, before that, it never came up. (I don't know if you earlier advocated having civil unions for all; I never saw it being advocated in general until SSM started happening)


I've been advocating this for years, I am a libertarian. who you marry is none of my business, and getting government out of your businsess here to me is the libertarian solution to this inequality we have.


2010: (a little bit of a baity thread but I kept it civil.;) )

http://www.debatepolitics.com/law-a...e-between-man-and-woman-2.html#post1059100674

It also alludes to preveious posts for that. There was another forum, I can't remember now, as far back as 2004 I was advocating this. (my entire online forum life).

so on this forum, easily proven since 2010 here (5 years), you see this is what I advocated, if you feel the need you can search further and find for the last 11 years, I've advocated the same online.


Pretty selfish. Not wanting to share "marriage" with others. doesn't hurt current marriages to have more people marry.

I will agian repeat, I don't care what you call it. My position is a solution to get everyone the equal rights they deserve.


ps - I've ALWAYS hated having govt in the business of marriage licenses; having to "legally" commit to someone to get benefits - and responsibilities. But given that's the way it is, all couples, same gender or opposite genders, should be able to do it.


I agree, I think changing it all to civil unions takes a big blow to the anti-gay marriage types. That's all I've been saying. remove the government, let them "log" "marrigaes", "civil unions" whatever, but have it have no bearing on anything other than that logging.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

The government doesn't dictate what is and isn't marriage, actually, it just determines what marriage is if you want its benefits. By all means if you don't want the government marriage don't get it, and get the religious one instead (or the one at Burning Man or whatever). Sure, the government may not recognize it, but if your goal is to not have government in marriage then you've attained that goal, haven't you?

no,

tax issues,
POA issues
inheritence issues


et al. which is why they should be out of it,
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

If everyone is allowed to marry, then everyone is treated the same.

If anyone is trying to win the semantics argument it is those that think it matters what the government calls legal unions of same sex couples. Since it is already legally called "marriage", then it is a stupid waste of time and money to change it to something else just because some people don't like certain groups using that word too. It isn't about "winning" but rather practicality. It cost money to make that change.


it is about winning. the government shouldn't be in the marriage business, why get tax breaks/penalties because you decided to "marry" someone?
 
Back
Top Bottom