• 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: what is it really?

What is same sex marriage?


  • Total voters
    62
For what? The license predating the social institution? It doesn't. The founding fathers did not have to ask government's permission to get married (which is what the Marriage License really is, and what it was originally intended to be). I don't know what you want me to argue for. But whether the chicken came first or not is inconsequential to the current debate on hand.

it certainly is not. since the legal system stems from that social institution, it remains bound to it.
 
No you're correct, you caught me. I, and the American Psychological Association, were wrong.





I promise to use more credible sources like NARTH in the future.



so let me get this straight

YOU post links to Websters that did NOT support YOUR claim. I point out that what YOU posted you obviously didnt read and did NOT support YOUR claim.

So now YOU come back with NEW sources in an attempt to gloat?

LMAO
thats rich, you again fail. lol

Fact is what you posted before did NOT support your claim.:lamo
 
Last edited:
None of which is in the least relevant. Which came first means nothing. What matters is that it is not a social institution, it is a legal one currently.

no, it remains a social institution. churches are tax exempt. that doesn't mean that all they are is tax shelters; they remain social institutions which perform a host of roles. similarly marriage remains a legally recognized social institution.
 
Can anybody tell me how marriage is legally recognized?

you guessed it, by a LEGAL CONTRACT.:lamo
 
Last edited:
no, it remains a social institution. churches are tax exempt. that doesn't mean that all they are is tax shelters; they remain social institutions which perform a host of roles. similarly marriage remains a legally recognized social institution.

The part the government is involved in is not the social aspect, but the legal aspect. You cannot make that legal aspect go away. it exists, and is the part of marriage that this thread is actually discussing.
 
so let me get this straight

YOU post links to Websters that did NOT support YOUR claim. I point out that what YOU posted you obviously didnt read and did NOT support YOUR claim.

So now YOU come back with NEW sources in an attempt to gloat?

LMAO
thats rich, you again fail. lol

Fact is what you posted before did NOT support your claim.:lamo

I set you up :2wave:

Don't troll a troll :cool:
 
i thought this thread was "what is same-sex marriage". in which case you have to discuss the institution. and the government is involved in the legal aspect only to the degree and with the means by which society directs it to. the people are free to change it on the government, government is not free to change it on the people.
 
i thought this thread was "what is same-sex marriage". in which case you have to discuss the institution. and the government is involved in the legal aspect only to the degree and with the means by which society directs it to. the people are free to change it on the government, government is not free to change it on the people.

Considering the poll options, it would be about marriage as a legal construct. Rights in this country are recognized and protected by the laws of this country. Government is a tool of society and works as society directs, therefore your last sentence is meaningless. It's like saying the body changes where the hand goes, the hand is not free to change where the body goes. It's nonsense, they are both part of the same whole.
 
our representative branches work (theoretically) as we direct it, however, let's not pretend that government in all it's functions works as society directs. it is, in fact, precisely for that reason that the homosexual marriage advocates have been seeking out the least "directed" or "responsive" branch of government.
 
our representative branches work (theoretically) as we direct it, however, let's not pretend that government in all it's functions works as society directs. it is, in fact, precisely for that reason that the homosexual marriage advocates have been seeking out the least "directed" or "responsive" branch of government.

Now you are just spinning. We set out a set of rules for our society(us) that even we cannot in theory break and are under the jurisdiction of the courts. They are still safeguarding our rules. Government does not just work for us, it is part of us. This flies in the face of those who try and set government up as the enemy, but that concept is obviously retarded.
 
Now you are just spinning. We set out a set of rules for our society(us) that even we cannot in theory break and are under the jurisdiction of the courts. They are still safeguarding our rules

no, they have set themselves up as equal to those rules, and a non-representative source for them. that's the reason i bring up Cooper.

Government does not just work for us, it is part of us. This flies in the face of those who try and set government up as the enemy, but that concept is obviously retarded.

that is absolutely incorrect. government is a seperate entity from society.
 
it certainly is not. since the legal system stems from that social institution, it remains bound to it.

Ours has been seperated out, however. Society gains a lot of control and get a lot of say. But society is not allowed to infringe upon the rights of the minority to get their way. Sorry, but that's the system. Advocation for government force against the rights and liberties of the individual when said individual has not infringed upon the rights and liberties of others is nothing short of tyranny. And the very reason why the minority should be well armed.
 
similarly marriage remains a legally recognized social institution.

That was true up until the point in which the Marriage License came into existence. At that point, it left social institution behind and became contract. And the individual has right to contract.
 
that is absolutely incorrect. government is a seperate entity from society.

Make up your mind man. Either society binds the legal system, or it is seperate from it. Which one?
 
government is a tool by which society crafts legal institutions that recognize the preexistant social institution of marriage. however, tools are not one and the same as yourself; especially tools that are self-automated, such as government. that's hardly self-contraditory.
 
Considering the poll options, it would be about marriage as a legal construct. Rights in this country are recognized and protected by the laws of this country. Government is a tool of society and works as society directs, therefore your last sentence is meaningless. It's like saying the body changes where the hand goes, the hand is not free to change where the body goes. It's nonsense, they are both part of the same whole.


More common sense :D
 
That was true up until the point in which the Marriage License came into existence. At that point, it left social institution behind and became contract. And the individual has right to contract.
:applaud

good now I dont have to say the obvious :D
 
No you're correct, you caught me. I, and the American Psychological Association, were wrong.

I promise to use more credible sources like NARTH in the future.

Well, your first attempt was an utter failure...you're second is better, from a medical stand point. However, neither really touch on legal definition which is the only one that would truly matter.

However, even assuming your point is true legally...

Please explain how it is NOT gender discrimination even given your cherry picking of what definition you wish to take.

It may be sex discrimination, but discrimination can be multi-folded. IE, someone discriminating against black teenagers would be discriminating based on race and based on age.

Also, please explain how marriage would be sex discrimination, not gender discrimination in your mind.
 
:) except that substantive right to contract hasn't existed (thank you supreme court!) since the 1930's. your argument is 80 years out of date.
 
:) except that substantive right to contract hasn't existed (thank you supreme court!) since the 1930's. your argument is 80 years out of date.

Better than being rooted in the Dark Ages. Yet the right to contract does exist, and so long as the Marriage License exists; there is no rational and just argument against same sex marriage.
 
Well, your first attempt was an utter failure...you're second is better, from a medical stand point. However, neither really touch on legal definition which is the only one that would truly matter.

My first "attempt" was fine, it gave the information needed. Despite how many times you've been in threads like these you somehow never learned that there's a difference between sex and gender. Not sure how that happened but it was pointed out to me by Capt'n Courtesy a few years ago, so there was a point in time I didn't know either.

Only accounting for legal terms is just another silly game on your part, and I know this because your gender doesn't matter in determining what part of a jail you can use; that's determined by your sex. If you're a pre-op transsexual male to female, despite having always identified as a woman you will be placed with men.

Please explain how it is NOT gender discrimination even given your cherry picking of what definition you wish to take.

More silly games and trolling. I expected no better from a mod. Good to see you come down to our level. You know that I haven't cherry picked anything in years, you just like accusing people of random **** to get a rise out of them.

Anyway, I don't think I ever claimed that a gay-marriage ban discriminated against gender.

It may be sex discrimination, but discrimination can be multi-folded. IE, someone discriminating against black teenagers would be discriminating based on race and based on age.

I don't care.

Also, please explain how marriage would be sex discrimination, not gender discrimination in your mind.

The law does not require one person to identify as a man and the other to identify as a woman. The law only requires one person to have a penis and the other have a vagina. Today, a regular lesbian woman could marry a pre-op male-to-female transsexual man who identifies as a woman. No problem. Their genders are both female, but because their sexes are different they could marry.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom