• 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!

Same sex marriage compromise

Could you accept no government recognized marriages as a compromise?

  • I oppose SSM but could accept no government recognized marriage as a compromise.

    Votes: 6 9.0%
  • I support SSM but could accept no government reconized marriage as a compromise

    Votes: 19 28.4%
  • I oppose SSM It's a function of government to recognize legitimate marriages. No compromise.

    Votes: 6 9.0%
  • I support SSM. It's a function of government to recognize legitimate marriages. No compromise.

    Votes: 36 53.7%

  • Total voters
    67
So, we shouldn't consider a civil union a marriage because we should quote "maintain respect for the time-honored cultural tradition that belongs to OS couples"
Your question is erroneous in its assumption that a marriage isn't already a civil union domestic partnership from government's codified perspective.

As codified by government, marriage, to government, historically is a civil union domestic partnership that is for "a man and a woman as husband and wife".


Should we have maintained "respect for the time-honored cultural tradition" of prohibition of interracial marriages?
Your question contains an oxymoron that invalidates it -- there never was a time-honored cultural tradition of prohibition of interracial marriage.

The prohibition of interracial marriages occurred in small isolated pockets throughout humanity's global history and were never part of the definition of marriage.

Regardless, at no time was the fundamental "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" ever anything but that in a marriage, and isolated pockets of violations did not have any meaning in the matter.


Should we have coined the phrase "intermarriage" between interracial couples since those marriage clearly showed a difference between the status quo?
Again, meaningless.

You simply don't understand the origin of marriage in humanity throughout the globe, that it was foundationally and remains "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

As long as the participants are "a man and a woman as husband and wife", whether inter-racially or not, it's a marriage.

When the participants are no longer a man and a woman, but two men or two women, it's simply no longer a marriage.

Thus, in the interest of making everyone happy, the latter should be called a homarriage, and afforded the same recognition/treatment by government and private enterprise as any form of civil union domestic partnership.
 
I don't recall the 14th saying anything about same-sex marriage....oh wait that's right it doesn't! It is a religious institution by the way. I would like for you to point where in the constitution it explicitly talks about marriage. Didn't think so.

The 10th however, does say that each state retains the ability to cover portions of law that are not covered by the Constitution. I agree with Perotista, where he says that states will retain the ability to make their own decisions, and as SSM slowly becomes more accepted and adopted by states, the federal government will that decide that all states have to recognize these unions as such.

And what ? Wait for Christians to "evolve" ? After 2013 years that can designated as a "pipe dream"................
 
Why should it be separate but equal to "marriage"? Marriage is not solely a religious institution.

Well actually it was and should be. The reason it is not today is because of the freaking inclination for humans to stick their noses on others business. Otherwise we would not be having this conversation today.
 
So, we shouldn't consider a civil union a marriage because we should quote "maintain respect for the time-honored cultural tradition that belongs to OS couples"

Should we have maintained "respect for the time-honored cultural tradition" of prohibition of interracial marriages?



Should we have coined the phrase "intermarriage" between interracial couples since those marriage clearly showed a difference between the status quo?

The thing is you're using the same argument that Mr. Olson was using at the hearings held by the SCOTUS, where he was using Loving v. Virginia as support. And like Justice Scalia said, they are completely different issues which do not entail the same things. You're trying to use a limited precedent set by the SCOTUS to eliminate racism and to eliminate the constant labeling of people who are not white inferior to society, to sexual preference by certain individuals.
 
Your question is erroneous in its assumption that a marriage isn't already a civil union domestic partnership from government's codified perspective.

As codified by government, marriage, to government, historically is a civil union domestic partnership that is for "a man and a woman as husband and wife".



Your question contains an oxymoron that invalidates it -- there never was a time-honored cultural tradition of prohibition of interracial marriage.

The prohibition of interracial marriages occurred in small isolated pockets throughout humanity's global history and were never part of the definition of marriage.

Regardless, at no time was the fundamental "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" ever anything but that in a marriage, and isolated pockets of violations did not have any meaning in the matter.



Again, meaningless.

You simply don't understand the origin of marriage in humanity throughout the globe, that it was foundationally and remains "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

As long as the participants are "a man and a woman as husband and wife", whether inter-racially or not, it's a marriage.

When the participants are no longer a man and a woman, but two men or two women, it's simply no longer a marriage.

Thus, in the interest of making everyone happy, the latter should be called a homarriage, and afforded the same recognition/treatment by government and private enterprise as any form of civil union domestic partnership.

So, when did this "origin of marriage in humanity throughout the globe" originate?

The Greeks had homosexual relations.

If you want to go into the Bible, we can definitely talk about what the Bible has said about marriage.
 
Well actually it was and should be. The reason it is not today is because of the freaking inclination for humans to stick their noses on others business. Otherwise we would not be having this conversation today.

I'm not a religious person. Should I not be allowed to marry?
 
And what ? Wait for Christians to "evolve" ? After 2013 years that can designated as a "pipe dream"................

I fail to understand the second portion of your response because of poor grammar....at any rate, things should be done the right way! SSM should not be shoved down the throats of the south and other regions of the country who do not support SSM just because someone wants a tax break. Hell government has no business in any marriage to begin, since they have no legal basis. What you are basically arguing is to do things just because the LGBT community wants too no matter if it is illegal and not supported under the legal umbrella of the Constitution.
 
I'm not a religious person. Should I not be allowed to marry?

You're allowed to do whatever the hell you please. You are not and should not be allowed to shove your will and the will of the LGBT down the throats of regions around the country that do not support it. That is the thinking of the SCOTUS. Marriage has no legal protection under the Constitution, which is why DOMA will fall, and why this case will just be kicked back to the district courts.

I will warn you however, that you my friend are engaging in a historically religious ceremony, which makes your decision to marry (because of you convictions) comical.
 
I don't recall the 14th saying anything about same-sex marriage....oh wait that's right it doesn't! It is a religious institution by the way. I would like for you to point where in the constitution it explicitly talks about marriage. Didn't think so.

The 14th Amendment was a rather broad amendment, and for good reason.

I don't recall the 14th Amendment saying about African-Americans and denying African-Americans civil and political rights either.
 
I fail to understand the second portion of your response because of poor grammar....at any rate, things should be done the right way! SSM should not be shoved down the throats of the south and other regions of the country who do not support SSM just because someone wants a tax break. Hell government has no business in any marriage to begin, since they have no legal basis. What you are basically arguing is to do things just because the LGBT community wants too no matter if it is illegal and not supported under the legal umbrella of the Constitution.

If the rights of gays can be left up to the mob, then everyone's rights shall be left up to the mob----------Got it ?...............
 
The thing is you're using the same argument that Mr. Olson was using at the hearings held by the SCOTUS, where he was using Loving v. Virginia as support. And like Justice Scalia said, they are completely different issues which do not entail the same things. You're trying to use a limited precedent set by the SCOTUS to eliminate racism and to eliminate the constant labeling of people who are not white inferior to society, to sexual preference by certain individuals.

I'm not using a limited anything. I'm using a broad idea.

I actually take your whole post as a compliment.
 
The 14th Amendment was a rather broad amendment, and for good reason.

I don't recall the 14th Amendment saying about African-Americans and denying African-Americans civil and political rights either.

Umm actually it does include a portion that says and I quote that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

SO in other words, if you are a citizen of the U.S. you are afforded civil and political rights....making your statement a rather ignorant one. Unless you were referring to AFRICANS and others who are NOT citizens. If thats the case, than tough tit, become a citizen if you want the benefits so bad.
 
If the rights of gays can be left up to the mob, then everyone's rights shall be left up to the mob----------Got it ?...............

You just proved my point.....if the mob, in this case the LGBT community wants things to be a certain way, than the rights of over 4/5 of the country's state which currently do not support the LEGALIZATION of gay marriage will be chucked out the window just because you do not want it to be that way. "To hell with the Constitution" is all I see coming from your posts.
 
I'm not using a limited anything. I'm using a broad idea.

I actually take your whole post as a compliment.

Well glad to hear that my comments are flattering, and gad to hear that you finally understand that this broad idea has no legal basis. :peace :2razz:
 
The 14th Amendment was a rather broad amendment, and for good reason.

I don't recall the 14th Amendment saying about African-Americans and denying African-Americans civil and political rights either.

That's because it's preceded by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which does indeed do that. The 14th basically established those changes to federal law into constitutional requirement.
 
You just proved my point.....if the mob in this case, the LGBT community, than the rights of over 4/5 of the country's state which currently do not support the LEGALIZATION of gay marriage will be chucked out the window just because you do not want it to be that way. "To hell with the Constitution" is all I see coming from your posts.

Right. Because "sane" people think laws are more important than themselves...........................
 
You're allowed to do whatever the hell you please. You are not and should not be allowed to shove your will and the will of the LGBT down the throats of regions around the country that do not support it. That is the thinking of the SCOTUS. Marriage has no legal protection under the Constitution, which is why DOMA will fall, and why this case will just be kicked back to the district courts.

I will warn you however, that you my friend are engaging in a historically religious ceremony, which makes your decision to marry (because of you convictions) comical.

Shove the will of the LGBT down your throat? What? Am I trying to force you to be gay?

Same-sex couples should have the ability to get married. Plain and simple. If this is "shoving the will of the LGBT down your throat" I really don't care.

Other than being a basic right, same-sex couples marrying has no effect on you or me. Don't act like this is going to take away your livelihood.
 
Right. Because "sane" people think laws are more important than themselves...........................

If I didn't know any better, it would seem to me that you're pouting.

At any rate, you (again) prove my point, that you just want to see things go your way, instead of seeing things done the right way. Yes I do in fact believe that laws are more important than "themselves" (whoever it is you're referring to).
 
Last edited:
Umm actually it does include a portion that says and I quote that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

SO in other words, if you are a citizen of the U.S. you are afforded civil and political rights....making your statement a rather ignorant one. Unless you were referring to AFRICANS and others who are NOT citizens. If thats the case, than tough tit, become a citizen if you want the benefits so bad.

See, when I read the 14th Amendment, I didn't come across the words "African-American" or "black" or "Hispanic" just like when you say the 14th Amendment doesn't say "same-sex marriage".
 
If I didn't know any better, it would seem to me that you're pouting.

At any rate, you (again) prove my point, that you jsut want to see things go your way, instead of seeing things done the right way. Yes I do in fact believe that laws are more important "themselves" (whoever it is you're referring to).

I personally have had it with your stupid religion and your deeply flawed "Western Law".....................
 
Shove the will of the LGBT down your throat? What? Am I trying to force you to be gay?

Same-sex couples should have the ability to get married. Plain and simple. If this is "shoving the will of the LGBT down your throat" I really don't care.

Other than being a basic right, same-sex couples marrying has no effect on you or me. Don't act like this is going to take away your livelihood.

On the contrary, it does have an effect because it is in fact such pettiness of people who are too immature to deal with things themselves and must have the government sort out their problems that is slowly eroding away our freedoms.

You being the someone who can comprehend words as I assume you can know very well what I meant by the shoving the will of the LGBT community down someones (the states) throat.

I agree with you, about SSM couples having the ability to get married, but as someone who understands the rule of law, something you clearly do not understand judging by your statement that I have emboldened further up, and as someone living in country full of children who want big daddy government to make their decisions for them, I want things done the right way.
 
See, when I read the 14th Amendment, I didn't come across the words "African-American" or "black" or "Hispanic" just like when you say the 14th Amendment doesn't say "same-sex marriage".

Read up on how and why the 14th was drafted and ratified. Answers your questions.
 
I personally have had it with your stupid religion and your deeply flawed "Western Law".....................

Well than go debate in communist China or N. Korea. I'm sure they'll share your views about how "western law" is flawed and idiotic.
 
On the contrary, it does have an effect because it is in fact such pettiness of people who are too immature to deal with things themselves and must have the government sort out their problems that is slowly eroding away our freedoms.

You being the someone who can comprehend words as I assume you can know very well what I meant by the shoving the will of the LGBT community down someones (the states) throat.

I agree with you, about SSM couples having the ability to get married, but as someone who understands the rule of law, something you clearly do not understand judging by your statement that I have emboldened further up, and as someone living in country full of children who want big daddy government to make their decisions for them, I want things done the right way.

2 questions:

1. )What does SSM have to do with eroding freedoms?

2.)Since I apparently don't understand the rule of law, how should SSM be "done the right way"?
 
See, when I read the 14th Amendment, I didn't come across the words "African-American" or "black" or "Hispanic" just like when you say the 14th Amendment doesn't say "same-sex marriage".

Yes, but I do come across the words CITIZENS!! Something you clearly are intentionally overlooking.
 
Back
Top Bottom