• 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
Marriage has long been about power and property. It is only recently, historically speaking that marriage has been about love. Yes typically marriage is between a man and a woman because that is what also produced heirs. But there have been occasions in our history when a marriage was granted between members of the same gender or even members of the same family, not for the purpose of producing heirs, but to designate the heir and transfer money and power.
Marriage has always been about a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Anything else has never been marriage.

Your spin is irrelevent.
 
This is a nonsensical "debate" topic. Courts have to decide divisions of property and parental rights towards children of parents and legal guardians who aren't married all the time. The existence of a marriage license rarely is relevant, but when it is then statutes explain what the relevancy is.

Divisions of property and issues of children should be exactly the same - whether the parents are married or not, straight or gay, and in terms of property however many people are in the failed relationship.

Courts decide all manners of civil disputes without specific statutes, and if there are no specific statutes then the principles of "common law" is the relevant law for the court to use.

Courts involving in the economics and parentage issues in relationship break ups is NO reason for government to be involved in deciding what relationships are allowed, rewarded, punished or will be recognized by government - no more than the government has any reason to involve in private contracts - though will decide contract disputes later if brought to court.

Yes, courts do that all the time and it takes extra time, money and effort to establish there was a relationship, how long and what it consisted of. I have family in this position right now. The absence of marriage complicates. It certainly doesn't make things go silky smooth, but it establishes the relationship and rights.

I agree, they should be the same, but the hoops one must jump through are there to protect the litigants. Not just anyone can take one's property, money and kids without establishing their right to do so. Under a marriage, standing is assumed.

It favors the government and society to not permit some kinds of relationships. Polygamy, incest and adult sex with children are detrimental to society and the parties involved.

People don't always do the right thing. We have laws and use contracts so that there is legal redress for damages.
 
And by the way, when the hell did "it's too haaard" become a good argument, even assuming it actually was that hard?
When it comes to liberals saying it's "too hard" to deport the 20 million illegals who are trespassing, forging, and stealing American jobs/classrooms/other resources, committing egregious injustices against American citizens .. that's when.

The specifics in the statutes that you decry are there to promote civilized behavior in advance and instead of allowing personal/interpersonal/social/socio-economic/geopolitical boundary violations to run amuck and overflow the courts afterwards when continuations of court appearances would average three years instead of three months.

Without them, there'd likely be a culture of rape in America.
 
The US Supreme Court is presently considering a ruling that could lift opposite gender requirements for marriage in the US. Most people have firm opinions on this matter but I'm curious could our positions on the subject leave room for a compromise all could accept. If your perspective on same sex marriage is not constitutionally validated, could you accept government not recognizing any marriage as a compromise, assuming of course this wouldn't necessarily be your preferred option?
I voted "other".

We should be infinity more concerned with the divorce rate than ssm. If, however, we're going to give same-sex couples marriage rights, then it should be the full monti or nothing at all. No middle ground compromise. All or nothing.

Since both pro and con ssm are ignoring the real problem, I hope you both loose. A pox on both your houses.
 
Marriage has always been about a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Anything else has never been marriage.

Your spin is irrelevent.

Marriage has always been about one thing...until it wasn't. Slavery was always the norm, until it wasn't.

Evolve.
 
Marriage has always been about one thing...until it wasn't. Slavery was always the norm, until it wasn't.

Evolve.

I'd say marriage is/was about two things" Sex when your young and putting up with the old bag when you grow old.
 
Marriage has always been about one thing...until it wasn't. Slavery was always the norm, until it wasn't. Evolve.
No, bestowing the status of "married" on SS couples is simply dumbing-down, considering the significant differences between SS and OS couples that render inapplicable the term "marriage" to describe SS relationships.

Indeed, that would be more like devolution! :lol:
 
I have to say that if DOMA is overturned this is going to be sort of a bizarre victory. Sure, gays can get married and that's great, but what do those who opposed gay marriage lose? Nothing. It's really anticlimactic, I tell you, so I propose that if gay marriage is recognized in all fifty states, all heterosexual marriages are rendered null and void immediately.

Let's make this interesting: raise the stakes so that both parties have something concrete to lose.
 
Marriage has always been about one thing...until it wasn't. Slavery was always the norm, until it wasn't.

Evolve.

Not that I agree or disagree here, but liberals, progressives and socialists need to stop calling everything they support evolution. Everyone is aware you are doing it to gain the higher ground, so stop it.
 
Not that I agree or disagree here, but liberals, progressives and socialists need to stop calling everything they support evolution.

Leaving bigotry behind is evolution.
 
Because the government recognizes marriage, much like it does other things. Benefits are connected to it. But they do not govern the who with no justification required.

You're looking at it wrong. It is not that marriage is a constitutional right. Equality is.

You do realize that the government recognition of marriage is illegal, since the government is given boundaries by the constitution, which has nothing about marriage. Hopefully when DOMA goes to court the justices will rescind unconsitutional marriage laws.
 
Leaving bigotry behind is evolution.

Expanding the scope of government like people desire here is not evolution. Stop using the term.
 
Fun fact: I don't want to lose my right to legal married status just so some religious people can own a word. They have no right to take that away from me in order to cement a superior position in society that they are not constitutionally entitled to in the first place. They have no right to demand exclusive access to that status for only those they approve of. Religion and the religious have no special right to shape our society, government, or law over everyone else. The medical and psychological evidence is in. Homosexuality is not a disease or mental damage. The sociological evidence is in. Children do just as well from same sex households. The legal precedents are in. Marriage is a fundamental right in this country, protected by the constitution. No one has the right to take that away, nor to demand destruction of that right because they don't get to exclusively control it anymore. The time for compromise is long past.
 
Fun fact: I don't want to lose my right to legal married status just so some religious people can own a word. They have no right to take that away from me in order to cement a superior position in society that they are not constitutionally entitled to in the first place. They have no right to demand exclusive access to that status for only those they approve of. Religion and the religious have no special right to shape our society, government, or law over everyone else. The medical and psychological evidence is in. Homosexuality is not a disease or mental damage. The sociological evidence is in. Children do just as well from same sex households. The legal precedents are in. Marriage is a fundamental right in this country, protected by the constitution. No one has the right to take that away, nor to demand destruction of that right because they don't get to exclusively control it anymore. The time for compromise is long past.

Silliness. I'm just going to ignore all the hyperbole and tell you that ending governments involvement in marriage is not ending marriage nor is it telling people they can't get married. Chill out.

Btw, there is a difference between a right to marriage and a right to legal status of marriage. Guess which one the courts said you had? :lamo
 
Last edited:
No? Are you saying that things don't change?
I'm clearly saying that your over-generalization lacks the specificity for it to be relevant.

Your approach would validate puposeful global destruction and the extermination of our species and other similar ludicrous events based on "that's change!".

Ridiculous.
 
That's just the way it goes. Without the Federal government to validate it, any state can invalidate it.

I'd okay with both the federal, state and any government considering marriage a private matter just like you don't get a state issued Baptism, Confirmation or Bar Mitzvah license.
 
Fun fact: I don't want to lose my right to legal married status just so some religious people can own a word. They have no right to take that away from me in order to cement a superior position in society that they are not constitutionally entitled to in the first place. They have no right to demand exclusive access to that status for only those they approve of. Religion and the religious have no special right to shape our society, government, or law over everyone else. The medical and psychological evidence is in. Homosexuality is not a disease or mental damage. The sociological evidence is in. Children do just as well from same sex households. The legal precedents are in. Marriage is a fundamental right in this country, protected by the constitution. No one has the right to take that away, nor to demand destruction of that right because they don't get to exclusively control it anymore. The time for compromise is long past.
The reality that "marriage" is "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" has been such since just before the agricultural revolution over 12,000 years ago, and has, understandably, remained such to this day.

Obviously, the reality of what marriage is -- between a man and a woman as husband and wife -- predates the Bible, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc., all religion, and was never a religious matter.

As to the rest of your inaccuracies, both transsexulity and homosexuality are birth defects, without question, though that's neither here nor there with regard to marriage being "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

And, it is most crystal clear as I've documented multiple times in these recent threads that SS couples damage OS children's later adult romantic relationships due to aberrant romantic role-modeling by the SS parents for OS kids, romantic role-modeling that is unconsciously inculcated and emerges dysfunctionally when those kids are adults.

In addition, kids of SS couples have a higher suicide rate and other psychopathologies, as I referenced in the other thread about the damage SS couples do to kids, referencing the current study that validates that reality.

Acceptance is really for the best.
 
Actually, the 14th Amendment says "privileges or immunities," not rights. As marriage is a privilege that is recognized as special by the government, I don't see how they can deprive people of this "privilege" within the 14th Amendment.

While I understand your argument about the 10th, the 10th Amendment does not make the rest of the document irrelevant. I'm fine with certain states not allowing SSM on some level, but the Federal Government has no jurisdiction over marriage. It's also hard to jive "privileges and immunities" clause with denying that privilege to certain citizens because you don't like what they do with their genitalia.

If you plan on commenting please read everything that person has said on this poll. As I've said before no one honestly cares if you are a man and you like penis. I do have a problem with the blatant disregard for the constitution and the boundaries it has set for the government. I have also said before that the federal government has no constitutional basis to define or legislate on marriage. DOMA and all other unconstitutional marriage laws were created by the bureaucracy and until now were left unchallenged. Hopefully the SCOTUS will make such laws unconstitutional, making all of this upheaval moot.
 
Fun fact: I don't want to lose my right to legal married status just so some religious people can own a word. They have no right to take that away from me in order to cement a superior position in society that they are not constitutionally entitled to in the first place. They have no right to demand exclusive access to that status for only those they approve of. Religion and the religious have no special right to shape our society, government, or law over everyone else. The medical and psychological evidence is in. Homosexuality is not a disease or mental damage. The sociological evidence is in. Children do just as well from same sex households. The legal precedents are in. Marriage is a fundamental right in this country, protected by the constitution. No one has the right to take that away, nor to demand destruction of that right because they don't get to exclusively control it anymore. The time for compromise is long past.

For a law student, you sure do have extremely poor grammar. Just thought I'd point that out. Good day sir.
 
And if California tried to outlaw guns....guess what.....the Supremacy clause would prohibit it. As for marriage being a fundamental right....see Loving v. Virginia. Supreme Court.

Wrong about Loving v. Virginia. Justice Scalia pointed this out in oral arguments on tuesday...As I've said before, 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.
 
If you plan on commenting please read everything that person has said on this poll. As I've said before no one honestly cares if you are a man and you like penis. I do have a problem with the blatant disregard for the constitution and the boundaries it has set for the government. I have also said before that the federal government has no constitutional basis to define or legislate on marriage. DOMA and all other unconstitutional marriage laws were created by the bureaucracy and until now were left unchallenged. Hopefully the SCOTUS will make such laws unconstitutional, making all of this upheaval moot.

If you're going to quote someone, respond to what they said. It's all about the 14th Amendment extending "privileges and immunities." What the SC can do is tell a state that they are bound to the 14th Amendment and cannot exclude certain people from a privilege if they are going to extend it to anyone.
 
Locker rooms and bathrooms are more mutually agreed upon, so the same standard might not apply, but they also serve a purpose beyond mere separation, that is, protecting women from rape by giving them a safe place to do those things. It is not that discrimination is always unconstitutional, but that it is prohibited without a compelling purpose. The same is true of sports teams. Separate teams for males and females is intended to promote fairness, similar to weight classes in boxing.

Not quite. Separate bathrooms and locker rooms are to protect one gender from the other seeing them naked. That's the basic motive involved. Sports now are not just separated to promote fairness. AND they are separated in the public arena - schools. Their sports are even funded separately. Remember Title IX? That's the definition of separate yet equal.

I'm not aware of any jobs with separate standards between genders where appearance is not a part of the job (which is why you won't find male waiters at Hooters, for example), but if they are, they would be discriminatory without some compelling purpose behind them. Separation for the mere purpose of separation is unconstitutional.

Fire fighters, police, military and I'm sure there's more, that's just off the top of my head.
 
If you're going to quote someone, respond to what they said. It's all about the 14th Amendment extending "privileges and immunities." What the SC can do is tell a state that they are bound to the 14th Amendment and cannot exclude certain people from a privilege if they are going to extend it to anyone.

Ok oh wise one, how is it that marriage has become a privilege protected under the Constitution of the U.S. of A?
 
Wrong about Loving v. Virginia. Justice Scalia pointed this out in oral arguments on tuesday...As I've said before, 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.

LOL....you are relying on Scalia? Sorry...but Scalia has been wrong more often than he has been right. Loving v. Virginia, although an inter-racial marriage case recognized that the right to marry is a "Fundamental right". It then went on to say that since the right to marry is a "Fundamental right" the state must have a compelling interest in any prohbition imposed. It wasn't until this point that the court addressed the racial aspect of the case.

It doesn't change the fact that the SCOTUS now has legal precedent to follow recognizing marriage as a fundamental right. The issue before the court is whether the government has an interest that justifies disparate treatment of same sex couples in that institution.
 
Back
Top Bottom