• 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
Your Star said:
How are Civil Unions(with the same legal standing as marriage) different than marriage?
Click to expand...

Its not, is just a cover to be dishonest.

Currently Civil Unions are not like a marriage overall. There have been civil unions that LOST in court cases to family members on decisions of property, money and health. The Civil Union was deemed NOT a marriage so therefore not as binding etc.

Secondly and Im not saying EVERY person who is against gay marriage is like this but there are many. Currently I could marry my truck without the law involved of course and nobody would cry. Nobody would cry foul or about the BS sanctity excuse. Also I could get married tomorrow LEGALLY by anybody with a license without RELIGION and most people wouldn't cry about that either.

Its a crock, its just to TRY and validate their oppressive wants and a mask a cover what they really want to do and thats to discriminate against fellow Americans and their freedoms and rights, nothing else.
 
Kelzie said:
Gosh I know. Those whiney blacks had the exact same drinking fountains too. Who cares that they couldn't use the same ones?
Click to expand...

Exactly a name change can EASILY be argued discrimination.
 
Blackdog said:
Dude that is a load. You said it will not hurt society or probably will not, I said it would and showed why.
Click to expand...

And I dismantled all of that suppossition and assumption. I went through point by point and showed why you're full of poo, even referencing reality when all you did was make silly claims about your 1st amendment rights being infringed upon. But you're the one that wants to use government force based on supposition. This isn't us sitting around arguing whether or not the Pats will win the Super Bowl. You can say that I'm "using conjecture and supposition"; but I'm not the one trying to use government force against the rights and liberties of others. Since YOU want to do that YOU have to have something better than suppossition and assumption. You need something based on measurement. You said you had proof, I have not seen it. Proof is not a list of crazy propaganda and assumptions. It has to have measurement in there somewhere.

Face it, whenever you've been asked for anything concrete, you've deflected.

Blackdog said:
Get over the "personal freedom" crap as well. Lot of things have been taken away by the government over the years for the sake of society, rather than the individual.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Anyone else see the irony of this coming out of a "conservative"?
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
And I dismantled all of that suppossition and assumption. I went through point by point and showed why you're full of poo, even referencing reality when all you did was make silly claims about your 1st amendment rights being infringed upon.
Click to expand...

No, you presented opposing opinion. Here is the link....

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/88869-same-sex-marriage-really-64.html#post1059202063

The only thing dismantled here is that somehow based on opinion your argument is more valid than another opinion. :doh

Ikari said:
But you're the one that wants to use government force based on supposition. This isn't us sitting around arguing whether or not the Pats will win the Super Bowl. You can say that I'm "using conjecture and supposition"; but I'm not the one trying to use government force against the rights and liberties of others. Since YOU want to do that YOU have to have something better than suppossition and assumption. You need something based on measurement. You said you had proof, I have not seen it. Proof is not a list of crazy propaganda and assumptions. It has to have measurement in there somewhere.
Click to expand...

I am not using government force for anything. You are trying to use government force to get others to accept your interpretation of what marriage should be.

Ikari said:
Face it, whenever you've been asked for anything concrete, you've deflected.
Click to expand...

Only when I have already answered the question ohhh around 30 times already. So I say go back and read or do a search. Not my fault you did not see it.

Ikari said:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Anyone else see the irony of this coming out of a "conservative"?
Click to expand...

So you see it as ironic that conservative people would support the values of current society? And want to enforce those we see as a benefit? :lol:
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
No, you presented opposing opinion. Here is the link....

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/88869-same-sex-marriage-really-64.html#post1059202063

The only thing dismantled here is that somehow based on opinion your argument is more valid than another opinion. :doh
Click to expand...

And it was taken apart using real world examples. We don't regulated the KKK, tell them what they can or can't say, just because we recognized equal rights for black people. All the stuff in that list was conjecture, suppostition and assumption.

Blackdog said:
I am not using government force for anything. You are trying to use government force to get others to accept your interpretation of what marriage should be.

Face it, whenever you've been asked for anything concrete, you've deflected.
Click to expand...

No I haven't, I've dealt with everthing head on. I'm not trying to use government force. I'm not saying you should be fined if you speak out against same sex marriage, I'm not saying you should face ANY legal consequence for not liking gays. You are the one who is saying that gay people should face legal consequence because they are gay. So don't be stupid, quit using this horribly ill thought out deflect.

Blackdog said:
So you see it as ironic that conservative people would support the values of current society? And want to enforce those we see as a benefit? :lol:
Click to expand...

I see irony of pushing "greater good" arguments and societal concerns over properly restrained government coming from "conservatives". A real conservative once knew the proper limits of government, they didn't use socialist arguments and basically say "**** rights, it's for the good of society" arguments.
 
Ikari said:
And it was taken apart using real world examples. We don't regulated the KKK, tell them what they can or can't say, just because we recognized equal rights for black people. All the stuff in that list was conjecture, suppostition and assumption.
Click to expand...

So it is freedom that a private company can't say who they hire or a school who it lets in? I mean it is a fairly big list including imminent domain now for private interests etc.

That is also an example and a real world example. In the end it is still my opinion vs many others and not really anything more.

Until we can see into the future, we can't know what will be the effects. So we take a guess.

Ikari said:
No I haven't, I've dealt with everthing head on. I'm not trying to use government force. I'm not saying you should be fined if you speak out against same sex marriage, I'm not saying you should face ANY legal consequence for not liking gays. You are the one who is saying that gay people should face legal consequence because they are gay. So don't be stupid, quit using this horribly ill thought out deflect.
Click to expand...

#1 This has nothing to do with me liking or disliking gays. I don't care if someone is gay or not. I judge people by their character, not their sexual preference.

#2 I did not say you have not dealt with it head on. My point is you keep saying the same things over and over again (worded differently in some cases) that I have already responded to directly in previous posts. I get bored going over the same things over and over again.

#3 I am not saying and have not said anything about gays facing legal consequences because they are gay. Where the hell did you come up with that???

I am saying marriage should not be redefined for the sake of homosexuality, polygamy or incest etc. It should not be for any reason.

So please stop with the deflecting garbage as it is not the case.

Ikari said:
I see irony of pushing "greater good" arguments and societal concerns over properly restrained government coming from "conservatives".
Click to expand...

I have been a team player in one form or another all my life including a majority of governmental groups. I think I have greater incite (purely anecdotal for certain) on the affects of changes to large groups as I have seen it good and bad.

Ikari said:
A real conservative once knew the proper limits of government, they didn't use socialist arguments and basically say "**** rights, it's for the good of society" arguments.
Click to expand...

So now you are the judge of what a "real" conservative is? Sorry can't agree with that.
 
Blackdog said:
So it is freedom that a private company can't say who they hire or a school who it lets in? I mean it is a fairly big list including imminent domain now for private interests etc.

That is also an example and a real world example. In the end it is still my opinion vs many others and not really anything more.

Until we can see into the future, we can't know what will be the effects. So we take a guess.
Click to expand...

You're talking about a separate issue here. That is discrimination laws. Those also encompass protections of race, religion, and gender (to name a few). If you don't want the government to protect people from discrimination, then fight those laws. Either you are against government protection against discrimination or you are for it only based on your criteria of who should be protected. The first one is at least fair to everyone (although it is easily argued that some people need protection). The second is discrimination, whether you wish to see it or not. While some discrimination is okay, it should have a rational basis for that discrimination. No one has shown a rational basis yet to discriminate against homosexuals.

And arguing discrimination laws will force people to accept homosexuality legally is not a rational basis. That same argument could be used for race as well. "If we give everyone the right to marry whichever race they want, then companies will be forced to recognize those marriages even if they don't agree with those marriages. Schools will be forced to teach that such unions are okay, no matter how the parents feel about these couples. How is that right?"

Tell me the difference between what you stated against same sex marriage and my argument above against interracial marriage.


Blackdog said:
I am saying marriage should not be redefined for the sake of homosexuality, polygamy or incest etc. It should not be for any reason.

So please stop with the deflecting garbage as it is not the case.
Click to expand...

Legal marriage should be redefined as necessary anytime it discriminates against people without a rational basis for doing so.

Legal marriage is a contractual union between two people (currently limited by the gender of the two people wishing to be involved in the contract). That contract sets up legal rights and responsibilities to those people involved in the contract, including making those two people each other's closest legal relative. This designation benefits both the couple and the government/society.

Polygamy involves more than one person, so therefore would not legally set up who was actually the closest legal relative of all those involved, including who would have final say on legal/medical decisions or who would inherit what without a will. The marriage contract, as it currently is, would not provide most of those same benefits to both the group or government/society as it does when the contract is between just two people. More paperwork/contracts would be necessary beyond the marriage license to actually set up who the one true closest relative is for a person in a polygamy marriage situation.

Incest would involve two people who already are considered legal family. It is not comparable to same sex marriage because the two people who wish to be married in a same sex marriage are not already a legal part of each others families. There are certain legal rights that come from being a family member, including visitation rights and legal say in certain matters.

Same sex couples fit legally right into the legal contract of marriage and they legitimately need it. There is no other way for them to become each others legal family member with the same benefits, rights, and responsibilities (completely) as a legal marriage. The only thing that makes such couples different from opposite sex couples is the gender of the two people involved, just as the only thing that made interracial couples different was the race of the two people involved.
 
roguenuke said:
You're talking about a separate issue here.
Click to expand...

It is exactly the same issue. Either you are for personal freedom or you are not, right? I mean Ikari whom I was referring to said this many times. I don't see you correcting him?

roguenuke said:
While some discrimination is okay
Click to expand...

This pretty much sums up your post. It is OK as long as you agree with it.

No problem.
 
I am completely bored with this. I have repeated myself way to many times to continue. Most of what you will ask or try and refute has already been answered so..

Have a good one and God bless.
 
Blackdog said:
It is exactly the same issue. Either you are for personal freedom or you are not, right? I mean Ikari whom I was referring to said this many times. I don't see you correcting him?
Click to expand...

Are you going to address the points or not?

Not too hard to see what I was saying. I know what others have said, I want to know your views on how discrimination laws should apply overall. Should they apply to just those that you think they should, or should it apply to everyone?


Blackdog said:
This pretty much sums up your post. It is OK as long as you agree with it.

No problem.
Click to expand...

Got context?

I specifically stated that any discrimination should be have a rational basis. Here are some examples. Not allowing women to serve in combat units. Rational basis is that the benefits (fairness, greater opportunity for women, more people to be in those positions) are outweighed by the many drawbacks (men taught to protect women, women are inherently weaker (although some could do the job), separate facilities in the field would cause issues). Discrimination within jobs based on certain disabilities. If a person cannot do the job, then they should not be able to claim discrimination based on their disability. A person without an arm cannot lift boxes and/or other heavy objects. It's just how it is.

Now, you need to show an actual rational reason to discriminate against same sex couples when it comes to marriage, as it specifically relates to marriage and the discrimination based on the genders of those involved.
 
Blackdog said:
So it is freedom that a private company can't say who they hire or a school who it lets in? I mean it is a fairly big list including imminent domain now for private interests etc.

That is also an example and a real world example. In the end it is still my opinion vs many others and not really anything more.

Until we can see into the future, we can't know what will be the effects. So we take a guess.
Click to expand...

True, you have to take a guess. But you need proof to actually infringe upon the rights of others with government force. So I guess we're at the stage where you can't come up with legitimate reasons why to stop it; thus we should allow it and see what happens. Once a measurement is taken, we can say more definitely.

Blackdog said:
#1 This has nothing to do with me liking or disliking gays. I don't care if someone is gay or not. I judge people by their character, not their sexual preference.
Click to expand...

It is when you claim I'm trying to use government force to get others to accept your interpretation of what marriage should be. Which is what you said. You said, I'm trying to use government force to push acceptance. In that case, it is up to what you want. BTW, you are the one using government force to push your interpretation of what marriage should be. I'll let the individual decide for themselves what marriage should be. And if you don't think gay marriage is what marriage is, then don't gay marry. Simple as that.

Blackdog said:
#2 I did not say you have not dealt with it head on. My point is you keep saying the same things over and over again (worded differently in some cases) that I have already responded to directly in previous posts. I get bored going over the same things over and over again.
Click to expand...

You said a deflected, deflection tactics are not addressing points head on. You have not responded DIRECTLY IN PREVIOUS POSTS my dismantling of your "proof" against gay marriage. All YOU did was to say "that's your opinion" and run away. You never ONCE addressed the points I took apart. You say the same things over and over again because all you can say over and over again is "that's your opinion" and run away. You never provide anything concrete, you never defend your arguments. You make supposition and assumption and then pretend that's a valid argument to excuse government force. That's all you've done. Don't sit there and pretend you've made some all inclusive argument rooted on the rights of the individual and through rational thought. You've done nothing of the sort.

Blackdog said:
#3 I am not saying and have not said anything about gays facing legal consequences because they are gay. Where the hell did you come up with that???
Click to expand...

You are making them face legal consequences for them being gay. Gay people want to marry same sex, just like straight people want to marry opposite sex. There is a contract called the Marriage License which legally holds that agreement and comes with a multitude of privilege and ability because of it. People have the right to contract. You wish to infringe upon that right of contract. You wish to say gay people cannot engage in that contract the way they want because of the way they want to engage in it, i.e. same sex marriage. You think it's wrong. So you will use government force against that right, you will prevent them from legally having a recognized marriage and legally from being able to enjoy all the privilege and ability the Marriage License grants. This is because the innate way in which gay people would act and marry is a way you don't like and thus you will make them face legal consequences. Those legal consequences being the inability to have their union legally recognized. Can you not see what you even call for? At least be honest for God's sake.

Blackdog said:
I am saying marriage should not be redefined for the sake of homosexuality, polygamy or incest etc. It should not be for any reason.
Click to expand...

Which is your OPINION, and from conversation firmly rooted in your religious beliefs. But your OPINION does not make proper basis for LEGAL LAW. Those are two different things. If you want to use your OPINION to create LAW; then you have to show PROOF. And proof is not assumption and supposition, it is factual, concrete, and measurable. Until you can produce that proof, your call for the oppression of the rights of others is a form of tyranny.

Blackdog said:
So please stop with the deflecting garbage as it is not the case.
Click to expand...

None of it was garbage, it all came from you.

Blackdog said:
I have been a team player in one form or another all my life including a majority of governmental groups. I think I have greater incite (purely anecdotal for certain) on the affects of changes to large groups as I have seen it good and bad.
Click to expand...

Psst...insight is what you were looking for. And no, I don't think you do. I think you have your predetermined ideals and morals and want to force the rest of us into that mold. I have seen no other indication that you desire something else.

Blackdog said:
So now you are the judge of what a "real" conservative is? Sorry can't agree with that.
Click to expand...

Yes, real conservatives knew small government, proper roles of government, and why it was to be restrained. They didn't use socialistic arguments like "greater good". They used rights and liberties. There's a lot you won't agree with me on, but that just makes you wrong on a lot of counts.

As I said before, this comes down to resolve for freedom. Some people have it and will take the consequences. Others don't and wish to impose their own morality and definitions upon the rest of us.
 
Blackdog said:
I am completely bored with this. I have repeated myself way to many times to continue. Most of what you will ask or try and refute has already been answered so..

Have a good one and God bless.
Click to expand...

Haha, this is how I feel about this issue right now too. Except you know, from the opposite view point. I guess some times people just won't agree.
 
roguenuke said:
Now, you need to show an actual rational reason to discriminate against same sex couples when it comes to marriage, as it specifically relates to marriage and the discrimination based on the genders of those involved.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I mean. I have done this many MANY times in this thread and others. So that is that, look it up I am going to play with my parrot for a bit. :2wave:
 
Blackdog said:
This is exactly what I mean. I have done this many MANY times in this thread and others. So that is that, look it up I am going to play with my parrot for a bit. :2wave:
Click to expand...

And this is where we will never agree, what you think is rationale, and reasonable reasons to deny SSM, I, and others don't think that they are reasonable, and rationale. It's simple really.
 
Dutch said:
I tend to view the issue as a political payoff for support of the democratic party and it's use of identity politics. Why didn't you include that as an option?
Click to expand...

Because that would fall under one of the answers.
 
Laila said:
Civil unions is equal protection. The same benefits straight couples have should be afforded to them.

Marriage is a religious institution at its root. If Gays want civil unions, fair enough. But marriage is religious domain and if the religious do not want to let them in. They should accept it, be happy with civil unions and move on.
Click to expand...

So you're worried about semantics?
 
Your Star said:
And this is where we will never agree, what you think is rationale, and reasonable reasons to deny SSM, I, and others don't think that they are reasonable, and rationale. It's simple really.
Click to expand...

And this is where we will never agree, what you think is rationale, and reasonable reasons to institute SSM, I, and others don't think that they are reasonable, and rationale. It's simple really.

Yes, yes it is.
 
Dutch said:
You mean by forcing the issue on the american people whether they support it or not. Pity.
Click to expand...

How would it force you to do anything? You have said this in numerous threads, explain.
 
spud_meister said:
Equal protection, why should men be allowed to marry women, but women can't.
Click to expand...

Would you mind if we used your question to play some silly games? 'Cuz I like silly games, but if you don't want to play that's fine too.
 
Blackdog said:
And this is where we will never agree, what you think is rationale, and reasonable reasons to institute SSM, I, and others don't think that they are reasonable, and rationale. It's simple really.

Yes, yes it is.
Click to expand...

We don't need a reasonable rationale to institute SSM. It is the government that needs a reasonable rationale to prevent it. That is what the 9th Amendment in the Constitution is about, rights that weren't specifically addressed by the Constitution.
 
roguenuke said:
We don't need a reasonable rationale to institute SSM.
Click to expand...

Yes we do. Then again you think "some discrimination" is OK as long as you agree with it.

roguenuke said:
It is the government that needs a reasonable rationale to prevent it. That is what the 9th Amendment in the Constitution is about, rights that weren't specifically addressed by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Marriage for 2 men or women is not a right just like polygamy etc.
 
Blackdog said:
Yes we do. Then again you think "some discrimination" is OK as long as you agree with it.
Click to expand...

And not allowing SSM isn't discriminatory how?

Blackdog said:
Marriage for 2 men or women is not a right just like polygamy etc.
Click to expand...

I actually don't see any real problem with polygamy either though I know that's not the norm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom