• 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!

If you oppose same-sex marriage, you are...

If you oppose same-sex marriage, are you...


  • Total voters
    34
Fair enough.
Do you grant the same leniency for others who oppose same-sex marriage?

I don't think I'm "granting leniency." I'm criticizing people on a certain issue. If someone is against gay-marriage I don't see them as ignorant in general, but like I said, ignorant on that issue.



It certainly matters when he is a Republican...

Well I'm just saying that if nearly every presidential candidate says that its a state issue, then we shouldn't make such a big deal about it. It should either become a federal decision or remain a state decision, we can't have a combination of both, as many candidates seem to believe.



I did and he chose to dodge the question, or so it appeared to me.

Ok so you're misinterpreting questions, misreading arguments, and it seems like you're purposely misunderstanding Ikari's posts. What's next?
 
Last edited:
I think you don't understand what the argument is and that's why you said that. You seem to have trouble comprehending what the simple sentence had said and thus lash out with insult instead of asking for clarification. Which is a lame method to produce debate. And the "lame" there is being very generous.

I asked you a question. How that translated into you saying it is beyond me? Then you act disingenuous because I thought it was lame? :lol:

Contract is a right, individuals have the right to contract. The marriage license is a contract, there's nothing religious about the marriage license. It couples in many other contracts in terms of estate and hospital visitation, insurance, etc. It's well entangled and certain contracts can only be obtained through the marriage contract. Since the marriage license is contract and individual have the right to contract, there is no logical argument I can conceive of to ban same-sex marriage. You infringe upon their right to contract by doing so. So long as the marriage license exists, this is a true statement.

The marriage license doesn't have to exist, the marriage license can be abolished. If you separate out the contracts involved and allow people to separately engage in those contracts, you have decoupled marriage from contract. If you abolish the marriage license, marriage itself returns to the churches and the individual religions can make the rules. There are logical arguments there against same-sex marriage as it is religious practice and there is freedom of religion. But that takes the untangling of the marriage license and its abolition, which is the rightful move to make though the one which no one will make. No matter what side the politicians claim, they would not want to give up the power the govenrment holds over marriage.

So again, so long as the marriage license exists, I can see no logical argument against same-sex marriage.

Anyone with a jr. high understanding of the English language would know what that sentence means. I honestly can not believe I had to explain that.

I understand your argument, and it is silly to think I don't. A bad assumption on your part.

It does not change the fact it can be abolished and that is my argument. So that makes the argument against any state sanctioned marriage viable be it gay or heterosexual.

In this country it was a religious institution like it or not. The state should have never got involved to begin with.

Whether it can can be abolished realistically or not is irrelevant. The fact that it can be makes your argument void as I see it.

Because I said "void" is that to be taken as an insult as well?
 
Ok so you're misinterpreting questions, misreading arguments, and it seems like you're purposely misunderstanding Ikari's posts. What's next?

#1 I am the one who asked the question.

#2 He is the one who assumed incorrectly that I somehow said he said something he did not.

#3 I challenge you or him to point out where I said he stated "So because it exists, this can never be changed?"

I asked a simple question.

Now please point out who misunderstood what.
 
Now please point out who misunderstood what.

Here's an example of misunderstanding:

#1 I am the one who asked the question.

#2 He is the one who assumed incorrectly that I somehow said he said something he did not.

#3 I challenge you or him to point out where I said he stated "So because it exists, this can never be changed?"

I asked a simple question.

Now please point out who misunderstood what.
 
Here's an example of misunderstanding:

This was my original reply to him....

"So because it exists, this can never be changed?" - Blackdog

This is what I was replying to....

"Fact remains though, because the marriage license does exist so long as it exists I see no logical argument against same-sex marriage." - Ikari

Now please explain how my asking the question translates into...

"Did I say that? No. I said so long as it exists, I can see no logical argument against same-sex marriage. This isn't Latin here. It's very clear. So long as the marriage license exists.....I can see no logical argument against same-sex marriage." - Ikari

Again I ask you to point out how asking a question is implying in any way he said something he did not, or I misunderstood?

Anyway, this is now again getting way off topic.
 
Last edited:
im curious what advantages there are if the marriage liscence were to be abolished?
 
Last edited:
im curious what advantages there are if the marriage liscence were to be abolished?

The body's that do marriages now would still do so. The state would receive a certificate of the marriage and that is pretty much where there involvement would end, as all states would have to recognize the marriages of other states.

In cases of divorce the civil courts would still be used to settle disputes, alimony etc.

Churches, Judges etc could marry anyone they want.

It's a win, win situation.

No government, marry who you want.
 
The body's that do marriages now would still do so. The state would receive a certificate of the marriage and that is pretty much where there involvement would end, as all states would have to recognize the marriages of other states.

In cases of divorce the civil courts would still be used to settle disputes, alimony etc.

Churches, Judges etc could marry anyone they want.

It's a win, win situation.

No government, marry who you want.

So basically it is just a procedual change?
 
I asked you a question. How that translated into you saying it is beyond me? Then you act disingenuous because I thought it was lame? :lol:

I understand your argument, and it is silly to think I don't. A bad assumption on your part.

It does not change the fact it can be abolished and that is my argument. So that makes the argument against any state sanctioned marriage viable be it gay or heterosexual.

In this country it was a religious institution like it or not. The state should have never got involved to begin with.

Whether it can can be abolished realistically or not is irrelevant. The fact that it can be makes your argument void as I see it.

Because I said "void" is that to be taken as an insult as well?

I actually don't think you're understanding yet. You insult argument without understanding the full of it. Whether the marriage license can be abolished or not is in fact extremely relevant because all further action is taken from that reality. Reality is the government is secular. While it shouldn't have taken over marriage, it did and that's reality and has to be dealt with. Because government took over marriage, it moved marriage from the realm of religion to the realm of State-issued contract. The right to contract is a fundamental right of the individual, and denying one's right to contract is an infringement upon their rights and liberties. A fundamental reason why government was made in the first place was to ensure the rights and liberties of the People.

So reality here dictates over the mandates of theocracy, and the measured world is the world by which we interact. Saying that the marriage license can be abolished doesn't negate anything, that's a simplistic overture to try to dismiss an argument you can't argue against (one rooted in the rights of the individual). What exists now, what in reality is the interaction? Marriage is mediated by the marriage license, a State-issued contract. While I agree that the correct solution is the abolition of the marriage license, that does not negate the fact that it does exist and we must deal with it as it exists. As a State-issued contract, the government is forbidden from infringing upon an individual's ability to freely engage in the contract on religious grounds. Man/woman is essentially a religious argument, as that restriction has no bearing on actual terms and execution of contract. The marriage contract contains within it many active contracts important for a person's daily life. Who gets to make life/death decisions, taxes, insurance, estate issues, etc. There's no reason why someone shouldn't be able to choose whom they want to be able to execute these positions and wield the proper authority to do so. The marriage license has entangled itself to include all these things, and as they are contracts dealing with the execution of certain desires depenant upon condition, a person is free to choose who they want heading those decisions. To deny same-sex marriage is to deny someone the ability to dictate mandates of contract over activities of their daily lives. Most certainly an infringement upon their right to contract.

That is reality, no matter how many deflection arguments you want to make or dismissive statements you want to make or how badly you'd like to call my argument "void" because you have the possibility of removing something; that's reality. We deal with reality, not delusions of grandeur. It is possible to revolt against the government and overthrow it, but that doesn't mean we sit back and watch the government spiral out of control till the point at which we must revolt. Just because there is a probability outcome doesn't mean that we must ignore the current reality, this is the breakdown of your argument and why your base assumptions are flat out wrong. There is a possibility of the marriage license being abolished, but current reality is that the marriage license exists and just because there is a possibility of X happening doesn't excuse treason and tyranny over the rights of others in the current reality. If you want to remove the marriage license, I'll be there supporting that action. I don't think it's government's place to rule over marriage, it has no business in it. But until that time we must deal with current reality of the marriage license. Marriage currently is controlled by the State, and because of that it cannot enforce religious mandate; it must act by the rights and liberties of the People. As such, my original statement in its full remains valid. While the marriage license exists, there is no logical argument against same-sex marriage. Truth and measured reality. Deal with it.
 
Last edited:
I would say unreasonable is the most accurate answer because the opponents of same-sex marriage have never put forward a valid reason for their argument.

Bigoted, ignorant, and homophobic would apply to varying degrees. At least bigoted or ignorant could probably be applied to a majority of the group for using faulty logic/reasoning or taking their position for simply hating homosexuals.
 
Yes and no. No more tax breaks for being married or any other state sanctioned benefits at all.

I think you need to think this through a little bit more. Married are more likely to pay property taxes capital gains taxes and much more. They are more likey to have serious concerns in regards to investment.
 
So reality here dictates over the mandates of theocracy, and the measured world is the world by which we interact. Saying that the marriage license can be abolished doesn't negate anything, that's a simplistic overture to try to dismiss an argument you can't argue against (one rooted in the rights of the individual). What exists now, what in reality is the interaction? Marriage is mediated by the marriage license, a State-issued contract. While I agree that the correct solution is the abolition of the marriage license, that does not negate the fact that it does exist and we must deal with it as it exists. As a State-issued contract, the government is forbidden from infringing upon an individual's ability to freely engage in the contract on religious grounds. Man/woman is essentially a religious argument, as that restriction has no bearing on actual terms and execution of contract. The marriage contract contains within it many active contracts important for a person's daily life. Who gets to make life/death decisions, taxes, insurance, estate issues, etc. There's no reason why someone shouldn't be able to choose whom they want to be able to execute these positions and wield the proper authority to do so. The marriage license has entangled itself to include all these things, and as they are contracts dealing with the execution of certain desires depenant upon condition, a person is free to choose who they want heading those decisions. To deny same-sex marriage is to deny someone the ability to dictate mandates of contract over activities of their daily lives. Most certainly an infringement upon their right to contract.

I've just grown so tired of quoting Loving, Skinner and others, which conclusivly prove you wrong, that I no longer take any of your argments seriously.
 
I actually don't think you're understanding yet. You insult argument without understanding the full of it. Whether the marriage license can be abolished or not is in fact extremely relevant because all further action is taken from that reality. Reality is the government is secular. While it shouldn't have taken over marriage, it did and that's reality and has to be dealt with. Because government took over marriage, it moved marriage from the realm of religion to the realm of State-issued contract. The right to contract is a fundamental right of the individual, and denying one's right to contract is an infringement upon their rights and liberties. A fundamental reason why government was made in the first place was to ensure the rights and liberties of the People.

So reality here dictates over the mandates of theocracy, and the measured world is the world by which we interact. Saying that the marriage license can be abolished doesn't negate anything, that's a simplistic overture to try to dismiss an argument you can't argue against (one rooted in the rights of the individual). What exists now, what in reality is the interaction? Marriage is mediated by the marriage license, a State-issued contract. While I agree that the correct solution is the abolition of the marriage license, that does not negate the fact that it does exist and we must deal with it as it exists. As a State-issued contract, the government is forbidden from infringing upon an individual's ability to freely engage in the contract on religious grounds. Man/woman is essentially a religious argument, as that restriction has no bearing on actual terms and execution of contract. The marriage contract contains within it many active contracts important for a person's daily life. Who gets to make life/death decisions, taxes, insurance, estate issues, etc. There's no reason why someone shouldn't be able to choose whom they want to be able to execute these positions and wield the proper authority to do so. The marriage license has entangled itself to include all these things, and as they are contracts dealing with the execution of certain desires depenant upon condition, a person is free to choose who they want heading those decisions. To deny same-sex marriage is to deny someone the ability to dictate mandates of contract over activities of their daily lives. Most certainly an infringement upon their right to contract.

That is reality, no matter how many deflection arguments you want to make or dismissive statements you want to make or how badly you'd like to call my argument "void" because you have the possibility of removing something; that's reality. We deal with reality, not delusions of grandeur. It is possible to revolt against the government and overthrow it, but that doesn't mean we sit back and watch the government spiral out of control till the point at which we must revolt. Just because there is a probability outcome doesn't mean that we must ignore the current reality, this is the breakdown of your argument and why your base assumptions are flat out wrong. There is a possibility of the marriage license being abolished, but current reality is that the marriage license exists and just because there is a possibility of X happening doesn't excuse treason and tyranny over the rights of others in the current reality. If you want to remove the marriage license, I'll be there supporting it. But until that time we must deal with current reality of the marriage license. Marriage currently is controlled by the State, and because of that it cannot enforce religious mandate; it must act by the rights and liberties of the People. As such, my original statement in its full remains valid. While the marriage license exists, there is no logical argument against same-sex marriage. Truth and measured reality. Deal with it.

Well put!

I will agree to disagree on the same grounds as before...

Never say never.

Forgive the simplistic answer.
 
I think you need to think this through a little bit more. Married are more likely to pay property taxes capital gains taxes and much more. They are more likey to have serious concerns in regards to investment.

Not at all, there is method to my madness.

It would make people think twice about getting married. The seriousness of the commitment mite actually take hold. People would not just get married on a whim.
 
I've just grown so tired of quoting Loving, Skinner and others, which conclusivly prove you wrong, that I no longer take any of your argments seriously.

I grow tired of useless philosophy thrown at the execution of contract and will. I will no longer take any of your arguments seriously.
 
I grow tired of useless philosophy thrown at the execution of contract and will. I will no longer take any of your arguments seriously.

Holy crap we agree on something :shock:
 
Holy crap we agree on something :shock:

He has a point Jerry. Philosophy is, as you know, dependent upon the Semantics and Premises upon which an argument is based. People get tired of dealing with the myriad premises they reject, as they are often told they are missing the point of the conclusion. Most of us don't agree upon the antecedents. There is no great surprise that we disagree on the conclusions. :) No?
 
He has a point Jerry. Philosophy is, as you know, dependent upon the Semantics and Premises upon which an argument is based. People get tired of dealing with the myriad premises they reject, as they are often told they are missing the point of the conclusion. Most of us don't agree upon the antecedents. There is no great surprise that we disagree on the conclusions. :) No?

No suprise at all, just don't assume that any part of this has to do with religion.

She called SCOTUS precident "usless philociphy", she did not say that about a religion.

At this point in the thread pro-gm has rejected SCOTUS and the law in toto, so what credability does gay marriage have left?
 
Last edited:
No suprise at all, just assume that any part of this has to do with religion.

She called SCOTUS precident "usless philociphy", she did not say that about a religion.

Even President Jefferson warned of the dangers of "precedent". Just because one set of Supreme Court Justices set a precedent as "X" doesn't mean that the next ought not assume "Y". We must always be a bit weary of the choices of our ancestors. We have not be dealt a perfect world by any means.
 
Even President Jefferson warned of the dangers of "precedent". Just because one set of Supreme Court Justices set a precedent as "X" doesn't mean that the next ought not assume "Y". We must always be a bit weary of the choices of our ancestors. We have not be dealt a perfect world by any means.

If there's an issue with a givin ruling, fine, but to toss out the entire branch of governement like that is irational.

I would no sooner dismiss the executive branch over a few executive orders, or dismiss the legislative branch for having codified Loving and Skinner since their ordering.
 
It's funny this whole debate is an enigma for me in the long run.

My secular Jeffersonian side thinks gay people should have all the benefits of marriage. My Christian side says it's wrong, so don't support it.

I agree this country is not a theocracy, but it does reflect our Christian morals to a degree. I don't think there is any problem with that as long as no one's rights are infringed upon in a secular sense. So I am conflicted in my views.

In the end though, I do side with God on this in that I think it is morally wrong. I consider God the final authority on the subject, so thats were my loyalty's lie.

You can think I am homophobic which is not really true. You can claim I want to live in a theocracy, also not true. You are free to think all of this, and God bless you for it.
 
If there's an issue with a givin ruling, fine, but to toss out the entire branch of governement like that is irational.

I would no sooner dismiss the executive branch over a few executive orders, or dismiss the legislative branch for having codified Loving and Skinner since their ordering.

I may not dismiss the whole of say the executive branch over a few executive orders, but if the executive orders are misused, I would definitely move to restrain and restrict the executive branch from being able to use EO's abusively and would hold the particular politicians whom did abuse that power responsible for that abuse. Same with any branch. I don't believe marriage is a civil right, but I do believe that contract is a fundamental right.
 
I may not dismiss the whole of say the executive branch over a few executive orders, but if the executive orders are misused, I would definitely move to restrain and restrict the executive branch from being able to use EO's abusively and would hold the particular politicians whom did abuse that power responsible for that abuse. Same with any branch. I don't believe marriage is a civil right, but I do believe that contract is a fundamental right.

You didn't take issue with Loving or Skinner, you called SCOTUS precident "usless philociphy" without any qualifyer at all.
 
It's funny this whole debate is an enigma for me in the long run.

My secular Jeffersonian side thinks gay people should have all the benefits of marriage. My Christian side says it's wrong, so don't support it.

I agree this country is not a theocracy, but it does reflect our Christian morals to a degree. I don't think there is any problem with that as long as no one's rights are infringed upon in a secular sense. So I am conflicted in my views.

In the end though, I do side with God on this in that I think it is morally wrong. I consider God the final authority on the subject, so thats were my loyalty's lie.

You can think I am homophobic which is not really true. You can claim I want to live in a theocracy, also not true. You are free to think all of this, and God bless you for it.

It's good to see I'm not the only one holding that point of view.

I'll support gay marriage if/when gays bother to make it about the family. Imo it would then be a justifyable sin similer to justifyable homicide in consept.

All this talk about civil rights, contracts, etc is just so much blah blah blah.
 
Back
Top Bottom