• 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
Jerry said:
A very good point. Slaves were considered as property just as the unborn are today.
Click to expand...

Not quite. The slaves were enshrined in the Constitution as 3/5ths of a person.

The unborn don't have it that good.
 
Jerry said:
Oh very cool....if children are involved, I trust you would have to release a child to a SSM parent should they pick up said child for, say, an appointment?
Click to expand...

There aren't generally children involved but I see what you are getting at. Someone who's job it is would have to allow children to be picked up by their parents, I have no problem with SS parents having adopted kids (and from other threads I'm pretty sure you don't have issue with it either) but even if that person did we all deal with all sorts of people regardless of comfort level, it's part of life.
 
Sean_H said:
There aren't generally children involved but I see what you are getting at. Someone who's job it is would have to allow children to be picked up by their parents, I have no problem with SS parents having adopted kids (and from other threads I'm pretty sure you don't have issue with it either) but even if that person did we all deal with all sorts of people regardless of comfort level, it's part of life.
Click to expand...

Right, and I also have no problem with this. My only point is to demonstrate that another person's marriage can "force" you to do something. Even if you agree with it, you are affected.

Some people take issue with being so "forced", hence their objection.
 
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...

But the same reason to institute SSM is the reason to institute opposite sex marriage.
 
Jerry said:
Right, and I also have no problem with this. My only point is to demonstrate that another person's marriage can "force" you to do something. Even if you agree with it, you are affected.

Some people take issue with being so "forced", hence their (false, selfish, discriminating) objection.
Click to expand...


I fixed it for you :)
Like I said in reality you aren't affected anymore than if you are a FORD person and you neighbor has a Chevy, big woop, get over it, america is free.

Damn women being able to talk in public THAT affects me
Damn minorities being able to use the same water fountain I do, THAT affects me.
Damn cut girl going out with an ugly guy THAT affects me.

sounds like a bunch of preschoolers crying that their kick ball is red and they really really really wanted the blue one. It hwurts my wittle fweelings that I have to sit here wiff my wittle red ball and he has a bwooo ballllllllll.:boohoo:waaaaaaaaaaaaaa


LOL sorry Im not buying, if you feel affected by OTHER peoples rights liberties and freedoms and would rather discriminate against them based on things of race, gender, sexuality, etc the issue is YOU not their freedoms and what they are doing.

And no im not saying you as in you specifically Jerry :D just making a general statement.
 
Centrist77 said:
I fixed it for you :)
Like I said in reality you aren't affected anymore than if you are a FORD person and you neighbor has a Chevy, big woop, get over it, america is free.

Damn women being able to talk in public THAT affects me
Damn minorities being able to use the same water fountain I do, THAT affects me.
Damn cut girl going out with an ugly guy THAT affects me.

sounds like a bunch of preschoolers crying that their kick ball is red and they really really really wanted the blue one. It hwurts my wittle fweelings that I have to sit here wiff my wittle red ball and he has a bwooo ballllllllll.:boohoo:waaaaaaaaaaaaaa


LOL sorry Im not buying, if you feel affected by OTHER peoples rights liberties and freedoms and would rather discriminate against them based on things of race, gender, sexuality, etc the issue is YOU not their freedoms and what they are doing.

And no im not saying you as in you specifically Jerry :D just making a general statement.
Click to expand...

Who even uses public drinking fountains at all anymore? Seriously.
 
Jerry said:
Who even uses public drinking fountains at all anymore? Seriously.
Click to expand...

Lots of people LOL I being its winter and only fall ball is going on I use one every sunday and wenenday win I coach :) It will be more in the spring and summer.
 
Centrist77 said:
Lots of people LOL I being its winter and only fall ball is going on I use one every sunday and wenenday win I coach :) It will be more in the spring and summer.
Click to expand...

Christ on crutches!!! I really have to stop multitasking and slow down when I type.
Maybe it was just the person I was responding too and how little importance it had ;)

I mean to say:


Lots of people LOL being its winter and only travel ball is going on I use one every Sunday and Wednesday when I coach :) It will be more in the spring and summer.
 
Centrist77 said:
Lots of people LOL I being its winter and only fall ball is going on I use one every sunday and wenenday win I coach :) It will be more in the spring and summer.
Click to expand...

...come to think of it I don't think we have any public fountains around Rapid City....at least I don't recall ever seeing one.

No, wait, a couple parks have 1 or 2.
 
Blackdog said:
Yes we do. Then again you think "some discrimination" is OK as long as you agree with it.
Click to expand...

As was already posted, the reasoning would be the same for allowing any man/woman couple to marry. Since there is no distinction of those couples having to be able to or even to want to procreate, and the ability to naturally procreate is the only actual difference between all same sex couples and many opposite sex couples.

And, I have explained, in detail, how discrimination can be OK. Like I said before, you need context when you try to post what someone else has said. I have legal basis for my discrimination, that even the SCOTUS has held up. So far, there has been no rational, legal argument to discriminate against homosexuals.

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

And then you must also think that marriage for a man and woman of two different races is not a right? There is no reason to actually endorse marriages between the races, is there? Afterall, marriage isn't a right (according to you), so why didn't the SCOTUS simply strike down laws that made it illegal for interracial couples to cohabitate. Why did they actually need the legal marriage?
 
Blackdog said:
No it is not.
Click to expand...

Why? You can't just say no, and have that be it.

The reason to institute opposite sex marriage is to legally make people family, encourage people to provide a stable home for children, etc. And those same things can be accomplished, encouraged with SSM. And that is a fact.
 
roguenuke said:
As was already posted, the reasoning would be the same for allowing any man/woman couple to marry. Since there is no distinction of those couples having to be able to or even to want to procreate, and the ability to naturally procreate is the only actual difference between all same sex couples and many opposite sex couples.
Click to expand...

As I have explained over and over and why, I do not agree.

roguenuke said:
And, I have explained, in detail, how discrimination can be OK.
Click to expand...

And I think that is bull**** and was not OK in any way. We keep seeing the effects of that stupidity today and it is not by any means OK.

roguenuke said:
Like I said before, you need context when you try to post what someone else has said. I have legal basis for my discrimination, that even the SCOTUS has held up. So far, there has been no rational, legal argument to discriminate against homosexuals.
Click to expand...

Well then I guess I also have a legal bases as it is illegal federally and in the vast majority of states.

roguenuke said:
And then you must also think that marriage for a man and woman of two different races is not a right?
Click to expand...

Please again race and sexuality are not even remotely connected.

roguenuke said:
There is no reason to actually endorse marriages between the races, is there?
Click to expand...

Not really, but it is still one man and one woman, so it is irrelevant. The only reason it even became an issue is because it was not illegal initially. Some states made it illegal much later. Homosexual marriage has never been legal in the US.

roguenuke said:
Afterall, marriage isn't a right (according to you), so why didn't the SCOTUS simply strike down laws that made it illegal for interracial couples to cohabitate. Why did they actually need the legal marriage?
Click to expand...

It is a right for one man and one woman, period.

Again race has nothing at all to do with this issue.
 
Your Star said:
Why? You can't just say no, and have that be it.
Click to expand...

Ummmm.. I can and I did. Sort of blows a hole in that theory.

Your Star said:
The reason to institute opposite sex marriage is to legally make people family, encourage people to provide a stable home for children, etc. And those same things can be accomplished, encouraged with SSM. And that is a fact.
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding? It's for the children? really?

You know as well as I do it has nothing at all to do with children.
 
CriticalThought said:
It's currently legal in sevearl states.
Click to expand...

5 small states in the east are not "several" unless you are including civil union states which I am OK with.

The majority of states have already said no or are trying to outright ban it by changing their constitutions.

Context...

Well then I guess I also have a legal bases as it is illegal federally and in the vast majority of states. - Blackdog
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Ummmm.. I can and I did. Sort of blows a hole in that theory.
Click to expand...

Just cause you can do it doesn't make it logical, or an argument with substance.

You have got to be kidding? It's for the children? really?

You know as well as I do it has nothing at all to do with children.
Click to expand...

This has everything to do with families, and children are an integral part of families. Just because you want to pretend that it doesn't have anything to do with LGBT families doesn't mean that it isn't true. The fact is that LGBT families are just as legitimate as heterosexual families, and deserve the same benefits as straight families. It is in the best interest of the nation to promote family, and a stable living conditions for children, and SSM does that. And you can't argue that unless you want to argue that opposite marriage doesn't do that as well.
 
Blackdog said:
As I have explained over and over and why, I do not agree.



And I think that is bull**** and was not OK in any way. We keep seeing the effects of that stupidity today and it is not by any means OK.



Well then I guess I also have a legal bases as it is illegal federally and in the vast majority of states.



Please again race and sexuality are not even remotely connected.



Not really, but it is still one man and one woman, so it is irrelevant. The only reason it even became an issue is because it was not illegal initially. Some states made it illegal much later. Homosexual marriage has never been legal in the US.



It is a right for one man and one woman, period.

Again race has nothing at all to do with this issue.
Click to expand...

Discrimination is not always based on race. I specifically pointed out discrimination based on sex (women in combat). Do you think women should be able to serve in combat roles right now?

Which is actually what same sex marriage discrimination is. The discrimination is about sex, not sexuality. As has been pointed out numerous times, gays can marry anyone of the opposite sex. In fact, two homosexuals can get a legal marriage. A homosexual woman can legally marry a homosexual man. There is absolutely no question on the legal marriage license about the sexuality of the two people involved. The only thing that matters is the sex of the two people involved. Which means that according to the 14th Amendment and the SCOTUS's standing that there are levels of scrutiny for the Equal Protection clause, race and religion being highest, followed by sex, then by everything else, same sex marriage should be evaluated under the middle tier scrutiny level (the government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest) since sex is the determining factor in the discrimination, not sexuality.
 
Blackdog said:
5 small states in the east are not "several" unless you are including civil union states which I am OK with.

The majority of states have already said no or are trying to outright ban it by changing their constitutions.

Context...

Well then I guess I also have a legal bases as it is illegal federally and in the vast majority of states. - Blackdog
Click to expand...

You also said it was never legal in the United States, which is a fact.
MA and CT are in no way 'small' unless you mean in terms of land size, which is irrelevant.

Until something is illegalized, you should have the right to do it. How messed up would our country be otherwise?
Until DOMA, the federal govt. did not legally define marriage.
 
Your Star said:
Just cause you can do it doesn't make it logical, or an argument with substance.
Click to expand...

Already put forth the arguments more times than I can remember. You guys don't want to accept it and I am OK with that.

Your Star said:
This has everything to do with families, and children are an integral part of families. Just because you want to pretend that it doesn't have anything to do with LGBT families doesn't mean that it isn't true. The fact is that LGBT families are just as legitimate as heterosexual families, and deserve the same benefits as straight families. It is in the best interest of the nation to promote family, and a stable living conditions for children, and SSM does that. And you can't argue that unless you want to argue that opposite marriage doesn't do that as well.
Click to expand...

It is not about families or children etc. It is about forcing acceptance on others and making it "right." It has always been about that.

Again; you know this as well as I do.
 
Blackdog said:
5 small states in the east are not "several" unless you are including civil union states which I am OK with.

The majority of states have already said no or are trying to outright ban it by changing their constitutions.

Context...

Well then I guess I also have a legal bases as it is illegal federally and in the vast majority of states. - Blackdog
Click to expand...

Actually some states recognize same sex marriage performed in other states or countries. For example, New York and New Mexico, even though same sex marriages cannot be performed in those states. So if you want to be technical, same sex marriage is legal in 9 states. I can get married to someone of the same sex in Iowa, where same sex marriages are performed and it will be recognized as marriage in Nee York.
 
Blackdog said:
It is a right for one man and one woman, period.
Click to expand...

If you're giving rights to some people, but denying them to others, well, that sounds like discrimination to me.
 
roguenuke said:
Discrimination is not always based on race. I specifically pointed out discrimination based on sex (women in combat). Do you think women should be able to serve in combat roles right now?
Click to expand...

No. But I also don't really care if they do.

roguenuke said:
Which is actually what same sex marriage discrimination is. The discrimination is about sex, not sexuality. As has been pointed out numerous times, gays can marry anyone of the opposite sex. In fact, two homosexuals can get a legal marriage. A homosexual woman can legally marry a homosexual man.
Click to expand...

To bad it would not be recognized in more states than allow it.

roguenuke said:
There is absolutely no question on the legal marriage license about the sexuality of the two people involved.
Click to expand...

Obviously that is not correct in the majority of states.

roguenuke said:
The only thing that matters is the sex of the two people involved. Which means that according to the 14th Amendment and the SCOTUS's standing that there are levels of scrutiny for the Equal Protection clause, race and religion being highest, followed by sex, then by everything else, same sex marriage should be evaluated under the middle tier scrutiny level (the government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest) since sex is the determining factor in the discrimination, not sexuality.
Click to expand...

And yet it is not legal Federally and most states? Sorry no dice.
 
Blackdog said:
Well then I guess I also have a legal bases as it is illegal federally and in the vast majority of states. - Blackdog
Click to expand...

This is wrong as well. DOMA only makes it so the federal government doesn't recognize same sex marriage, it does not make it illegal. Hence why same sex marriage is legal in several states.
 
Blackdog said:
Already put forth the arguments more times than I can remember. You guys don't want to accept it and I am OK with that.
Click to expand...

You're right, I'll never accept subpar arguments, that will deny me rights.

It is not about families or children etc. It is about forcing acceptance on others and making it "right." It has always been about that.

Again; you know this as well as I do.
Click to expand...

No, it was/is always about families, and children, and never about forcing acceptance, or making it right. Allowing SSM doesn't force you to accept homosexuality as right, it just allows me, and many other LGBT people who wish to form families to do so with all the benefits, and advantages that are give to heterosexual families. Being against SSM, is being anti-family, and there is no way around it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom