• 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
That is what we call an "opinion". Your opinion is noted, but I disagree. You also failed in any way to actually address my counter to your claim.

Where exact did you note it?

Do you have a pic?
 
Just because you have such a negative view on marriage doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to make up my own mind on whether or not I get married.

I gave my opinion, you're not required to like it.
 
I have posted this lots of times before. I have it bookmarked on my computer at home (I'm at work), so I'll repost it later. In brief, though, marriage has been shown to produce the following benefits: increased health, positive rearing of chidren, more individual stability, and more financial stability. All of these things lead to a more stable society and a society where the rearing of children can occur in an environment that allows for the best outcome. Government sanctions marriage because in order for our nation... and hence our government to survive, a healthy, stable society, where children are reared with positive outcomes is desired. GM and traditional marriage, research has shown, meet these criteria. Polygamy, does not. Hence, governmental sanctioning of GM and TM is logical; sanctioning of PM is not.

I have seen nothing that say a polygamist marriage is somehow less stable etc. Iit as a "behavioral Pandora's box". If we accept gay marriage, what else do we need to accept? It's going to include things like polygamy. Of course some discrimination seems to be OK, as long as it is your side.

Pro-Polygamy.com ™

Marriage is not a right. It's not discrimination because the same reasons that governemnt sanctions marriage in the first place does not apply to polygamy. And as far as my position goes, we've debated this before. You don't remember?

"The case for an end to anti-bigamy laws is similar to the fight for gay marriage. The question is whether the government should be telling consenting adults whom they can love and how they should arrange their families. And the answer is that it shouldn't. Society can give its opinion. - Nontraditional marriage: 'Sister Wives' shows polygamy can have its perks | OregonLive.com

Using government force to impose your morals on something that is not your business is discrimination. The 14th amendment covers this.
 
That's human RIGHTS. I stated the human RACE. I'm not talking about rights, but the existence of the race in general.

Yeah bringing up the human race was random, I didn't know wtf you were trying to say or where I should take it. I'll be here if you're like to resume our argument.

You're arguing for the sake of arguing... which means that you are just arguing to be argumentative. You're not arguing a position. You're just arguing. If that's what you want to do, that's on you. I'm just pointing it out.

Pretty much, yeah.
 
Then you are discriminating, anti-American and against freedom, And then you must also think that marriage for a man and woman of two different races is not a right?


Yep. I'm definitely okay with discriminating.

Suggesting that being okay with discrimination, as a broad statement, is "anti-american" is ridiculous. The government discriminate based on sex in cases of alcohol, cigarettes, pornography, language, voting, and more. The government discriminates based on race in regards to things like affirmative action. The government discriminates with regards to sex on issues like females on the front lines. To suggest discrimination, blanketly, is anti-american is ridiculous.

The issue of potential "Unamerican" feelings towards discrimination is when one pushes for disrimination that is unconstitutional. Specifically, discrimination that wrongfully removes someones rights due to their sex, skin color, age, religion, etc.

In the case of marriage, sex is being discriminated against and sex holds a moderately high threshold of requirements on the part of the government to justify discrimination based on it. A threshold that I do not believe the discrimination inherent in marriage reaches.

"Number of people" is not a protected status under the Equal Protection clause. There's nothing unconstitutional in suggesting that something two people can engage in must constitutionally be allowed for three people to engage in, or four, etc. Even if it was a protected status, it would rank at the lowest tier which does not require much of a threshold to justify government discrimination against them. And considering there are significantly more issues surrounding polygamy than there is with same sex marriage as to why its in the governments interest to discriminate against it, its reasonable to suggest that needing to meet a lesser threshold with far more ammunition is likely to happen. With things such as the potential tax loophole that opens up in allowing large amounts of people to enter into a binding agreement that would allow dozens upon dozens to file taxes as a single entity requiring significant rewriting of tax laws, or issues concerning incidents where a person is married to two separate people but those people aren't married to each other creating significant court issues regarding rights to act in the middle persons steed, the issues present before the government in legalizing polygamy are far larger than there are regarding legalizing same sex marriage.

So sure....not allowing polygamists to marry multiple people is discrimination. Perfectly legally and perfectly "american" discrimination that is wholly different than the sexual discrimination present with marriage.
 
Last edited:
Yep. I'm definitely okay with discriminating.

Suggesting that being okay with discrimination, as a broad statement, is "anti-american" is ridiculous. The government discriminate based on sex in cases of alcohol, cigarettes, pornography, language, voting, and more. The government discriminates based on race in regards to things like affirmative action. The government discriminates with regards to sex on issues like females on the front lines. To suggest discrimination, blanketly, is anti-american is ridiculous.

Thank you.

The issue of potential "Unamerican" feelings towards discrimination is when one pushes for disrimination that is unconstitutional. Specifically, discrimination that wrongfully removes someones rights due to their sex, skin color, age, religion, etc.

No ones rights due to sex have been removed.

In the case of marriage, sex is being discriminated against and sex holds a moderately high threshold of requirements on the part of the government to justify discrimination based on it. A threshold that I do not believe the discrimination inherent in marriage reaches.

Agreed.

"Number of people" is not a protected status under the Equal Protection clause. There's nothing unconstitutional in suggesting that something two people can engage in must constitutionally be allowed for three people to engage in, or four, etc. Even if it was a protected status, it would rank at the lowest tier which does not require much of a threshold to justify government discrimination against them. And considering there are significantly more issues surrounding polygamy than there is with same sex marriage as to why its in the governments interest to discriminate against it, its reasonable to suggest that needing to meet a lesser threshold with far more ammunition is likely to happen. With things such as the potential tax loophole that opens up in allowing large amounts of people to enter into a binding agreement that would allow dozens upon dozens to file taxes as a single entity requiring significant rewriting of tax laws, or issues concerning incidents where a person is married to two separate people but those people aren't married to each other creating significant court issues regarding rights to act in the middle persons steed, the issues present before the government in legalizing polygamy are far larger than there are regarding legalizing same sex marriage.

I agree, but the movement will get as loud etc.

"So sure....not allowing polygamists to marry multiple people is discrimination. Perfectly legally and perfectly "american" discrimination that is wholly different than the sexual discrimination present with marriage.

Only different in that of opinion.

But you proved my point it is indeed discrimination.
 
Last edited:
Yep. I'm definitely okay with discriminating.

As am I. **** gays, the answer is no. Why? Because I'm discriminating against gays.

***
See Capt'n this is the set-up. Usually when I say something like this a few unsuspecting members will respond, at which point I take their arguments and direct them back at Zyphlin as though they're my own words. Silly games.
 
Thank you.

Your welcome.

No ones rights due to sex have been removed.

A man can do something a woman can't do, a woman can do something a man can't do.

Specifically, a man can marry a woman but a woman can't marry a woman. A woman can marry a man but a man can't marry a man.

I agree, but the movement will get as loud etc.

The loudness of a movement is irrelevant as to whether or not there's a legitimate claim for unconstitutional discrimination.

Only different in that of opinion.

But you proved my point it is indeed discrimination.

However, decisively pointed out that there's little legitimacy in suggesting discrimination in and of itself broadly is unamerican. However, legitimate question has been raised in courts as to the potential that there's sexual discrimination with regards to marriage. To my knowledge, there is currently no such situation regarding polygamy, nor have I seen any significant and factually backed argument supporting the EPC covering polygamy as I have seen with regards to same sex marriage. So a far stronger case for suggesting that discrimination is, if not unamerican, unconstitutional with regards to keeping the same sex from marrying where as I've yet to seen a legitimate case articulated for polygamy.
 
As am I. **** gays, the answer is no. Why? Because I'm discriminating against gays.

That's fine. However if your discrimination is unconstitutional, which in light of recent court cases and with regards to actual legitimate portions of constitutional law that can be pointed out an argument could be made that the current marriage system is unconstitutional, then it really doesn't matter if you're "for" discriminating against them.

Sadly "**** you all, the answer is no, I just want to discriminate you" is not a legitimate enough of a stance to even reach the level of the lowest tier of the EPC.
 
Poligamists. What you have something against Muslims? Discrimination.

Polyamorous means people who love more than one person. That would mean that my argument applies to both those who would want to marry multiple partners for love or for religious purposes. No discrimination. They should be allowed to do so with a different contract and different sets of rules concerning how such marriages would work, ensuring little to no exploitation of children and that some of the legal matters associated with the marriage contract are taken care of prior to opening up the legal recognition of such "groupings". Anything else opens up people to be taken advantage of (which is not something that should be done just for equality since it could be prevented by changing the contract).

Same sex marriages do not require such drastic changes to ensure people aren't taken advantage of because they are underage or they don't know that their spouse is in another marriage or they don't have it arranged which spouse actually does have the legal right/responsibility to make decisions in lieu of another spouse.
 
Polyamorous means people who love more than one person. That would mean that my argument applies to both those who would want to marry multiple partners for love or for religious purposes. No discrimination. They should be allowed to do so with a different contract and different sets of rules concerning how such marriages would work, ensuring little to no exploitation of children and that some of the legal matters associated with the marriage contract are taken care of prior to opening up the legal recognition of such "groupings". Anything else opens up people to be taken advantage of (which is not something that should be done just for equality since it could be prevented by changing the contract).

Same sex marriages do not require such drastic changes to ensure people aren't taken advantage of because they are underage or they don't know that their spouse is in another marriage or they don't have it arranged which spouse actually does have the legal right/responsibility to make decisions in lieu of another spouse.

"Oh, it's to difficult"....so you only support equality when it's easy. Gotcha.
 
As am I. **** gays, the answer is no. Why? Because I'm discriminating against gays.

***
See Capt'n this is the set-up. Usually when I say something like this a few unsuspecting members will respond, at which point I take their arguments and direct them back at Zyphlin as though they're my own words. Silly games.

That's fine. However if your discrimination is unconstitutional, which in light of recent court cases and with regards to actual legitimate portions of constitutional law that can be pointed out an argument could be made that the current marriage system is unconstitutional, then it really doesn't matter if you're "for" discriminating against them.

Sadly "**** you all, the answer is no, I just want to discriminate you" is not a legitimate enough of a stance to even reach the level of the lowest tier of the EPC.

To continue, Capt'n, I'm pretty much going to ignore Zyphlin's post here because I'm not fishing for his response. I'm fishing for the over-reacting pro-SSM Liberal who probably signed up in the last 72 hours.

Zyphlin, you have a sound-bite, 6-8 seconds, to sell yourself, as that's typically how long the average American is going to pay attention unless you succeed io grabbing them.
 
Last edited:
"Oh, it's to difficult"....so you only support equality when it's easy. Gotcha.

Which is not what I said at all. I stated that the changes required to meet the legal needs for a two person same sex partnership are not nearly the same as those required to meet the legal needs for any marriage partnership with more than two people. The contract already adequately covers a two person arrangement. It does not adequately cover an arrangement with more than two people, legally speaking.
 
Why? Because it will be a little more complicated? Many Mormons and Muslims would disagree.

It isn't just a little more complicated, it is generally harmful to society. You only have to look at the polygamous sects that do exist to understand why.
 
It isn't just a little more complicated, it is generally harmful to society. You only have to look at the polygamous sects that do exist to understand why.

So you are saying Muslims and Mormons are generally harmfull to society how? I mean you did say the "sects" to undersyand why? Polygamy would not have to be any more complicated. At leat no one has shown any real proof.
 
So you are saying Muslims and Mormons are generally harmfull to society how? I mean you did say the "sects" to undersyand why? Polygamy would not have to be any more complicated. At leat no one has shown any real proof.

Why wouldn't it have to be more complicated? I gave you several examples as to how just the contract and legal responsibilities/rights that come with it are not adequate for a more-than-2-people marriage.

Plus, there is only two places on a marriage license for signatures/info. The license would need to be changed to "accomodate" polygamy, to ensure that it is big enough to account for as many "partners" as possible. The only change needed to add same sex couples is change bride and groom to either bride/bride and groom/groom or partner/person 1 and partner/person 2.

Unless you think it should just be opened for a person to have multiple marriages. Although this also has several downsides. First the rights and responsibilities issues. Second, would current spouse/spouses have to sign for the marriage? Because if not, there would be serious issues with inheritance rights and in any state that still does have laws about adultery.

Either scenario has the potential to actually lead to huge multiple marriage situations in order to cheat others out of benefits and/or privileges that come with marriage.
 
So you are saying Muslims and Mormons are generally harmfull to society how? I mean you did say the "sects" to undersyand why? Polygamy would not have to be any more complicated. At leat no one has shown any real proof.

Really? It wouldn't have to be any more complicated than a two person marriage?

Man is married to woman A and woman B. Woman A and Woman B are not married to each other. Man has a child with Woman A while married to both.

If Man goes to the hospital unexpectedly and is unconscious, who has power over medical decisions...spouse A or spouse b?

If man divorces woman B, does she get half of all his and woman a's belongings since the two of them are considered married and thus shared income?

If man divorces woman A instead, does the child support that he can pay come based off simply his salary or the combined income of both Man and Woman B? Does woman B, being the wife of the Man when child was born, have any rights to the child?

For tax purposes is man able to claim woman A, woman B, and child as part of their taxes? What if woman B marries Man 2 who has two wives of his own. Can Man 2 AND Man 1 both claim woman B as part of their tax return? Could Man 2 actually claim Man 1 and Woman 1, along with the child, on his since he's connected to them through Woman B?

What about issues within the court? What if Man 1 marries Woman A who is married to Man 2, and man 2 then begins to essentially neglect Woman A with regards to finances, living off her income that she gets from Man 1...does Man 1 have any basis in court against Man 2? Does Woman A?

Seriously, are you honestly attempting to suggest that the issues presented by allowing individuals to engage in multiple marriages would not be any more complicated? Multiple ways have been suggested...rather than showing "no real proof" that nothing would be complicated, I've instead seen "no real answer" to the multiple issues that have been put forth over the years on here.

Seriously, if you're going for the devil's advocate or the "Stephen Colbert" Parody style argument, it may actually help if you actually could pull it off...your last few posts in this thread shows that rather than pulling it off you're failing at it massively.
 
Last edited:
Which is not what I said at all. I stated that the changes required to meet the legal needs for a two person same sex partnership are not nearly the same as those required to meet the legal needs for any marriage partnership with more than two people. The contract already adequately covers a two person arrangement. It does not adequately cover an arrangement with more than two people, legally speaking.

It what way(s) is the current license inadequate? Specific examples of regulation would be appreciated.
 
It isn't just a little more complicated, it is generally harmful to society. You only have to look at the polygamous sects that do exist to understand why.

Right, just like all we have to do is look at a gay-pride paraid to see that homosexuality is harmful to society.
 
Why wouldn't it have to be more complicated? I gave you several examples as to how just the contract and legal responsibilities/rights that come with it are not adequate for a more-than-2-people marriage.

Plus, there is only two places on a marriage license for signatures/info. The license would need to be changed to "accomodate" polygamy, to ensure that it is big enough to account for as many "partners" as possible. The only change needed to add same sex couples is change bride and groom to either bride/bride and groom/groom or partner/person 1 and partner/person 2.

Unless you think it should just be opened for a person to have multiple marriages. Although this also has several downsides. First the rights and responsibilities issues. Second, would current spouse/spouses have to sign for the marriage? Because if not, there would be serious issues with inheritance rights and in any state that still does have laws about adultery.

Either scenario has the potential to actually lead to huge multiple marriage situations in order to cheat others out of benefits and/or privileges that come with marriage.

No legitimate reason exist to deny it. So an increase in paperwork is a legitimate reason? Common. :roll:

I am not even going to give the "only two lines" an answer as it is just ridicules.
 
Last edited:
Really? It wouldn't have to be any more complicated than a two person marriage?

Man is married to woman A and woman B. Woman A and Woman B are not married to each other. Man has a child with Woman A while married to both.

If Man goes to the hospital unexpectedly and is unconscious, who has power over medical decisions...spouse A or spouse b? <---- The first wife has power of atturny. That's how they do it in places where it is legal.

If man divorces woman B, does she get half of all his and woman a's belongings since the two of them are considered married and thus shared income? <---- Look up the law in other country's where is is legal. If other countries can handle it I am certain we can.

If man divorces woman A instead, does the child support that he can pay come based off simply his salary or the combined income of both Man and Woman B? Does woman B, being the wife of the Man when child was born, have any rights to the child?

For tax purposes is man able to claim woman A, woman B, and child as part of their taxes? What if woman B marries Man 2 who has two wives of his own. Can Man 2 AND Man 1 both claim woman B as part of their tax return? Could Man 2 actually claim Man 1 and Woman 1, along with the child, on his since he's connected to them through Woman B?

What about issues within the court? What if Man 1 marries Woman A who is married to Man 2, and man 2 then begins to essentially neglect Woman A with regards to finances, living off her income that she gets from Man 1...does Man 1 have any basis in court against Man 2? Does Woman A?

Seriously, are you honestly attempting to suggest that the issues presented by allowing individuals to engage in multiple marriages would not be any more complicated? Multiple ways have been suggested...rather than showing "no real proof" that nothing would be complicated, I've instead seen "no real answer" to the multiple issues that have been put forth over the years on here.

Seriously, if you're going for the devil's advocate or the "Stephen Colbert" Parody style argument, it may actually help if you actually could pull it off...your last few posts in this thread shows that rather than pulling it off you're failing at it massively.

I only answered the first one because it is legal in other country's. They have laws governing all those situations. A little more complicated legally is not an excuse to deny equality under the law, period. I mean look at our tax laws now for an example.

Failing because you have no real reason do deny it? The only failure here is not applying common sense to your argument. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Why wouldn't it have to be more complicated? I gave you several examples as to how just the contract and legal responsibilities/rights that come with it are not adequate for a more-than-2-people marriage.

I apologize for having missed these examples. Would you mind re-posting them?

Plus, there is only two places on a marriage license for signatures/info.

Just as "husband" and "wife" were replaced with "person 1" and "person 2", all we have to do is add "person 3". Anyone with basic Microsoft Office Word 2011 skills can so alter a form.


The license would need to be changed to "accomodate" polygamy, to ensure that it is big enough to account for as many "partners" as possible.

I apologize but this sounds a lot like anti-SSM when they say if you let men mary men then you have to let men marry dogs. I think a limit of 4 spouses is reasonable AND established in "the traditions, history and culture of the people"; thus establishing polygamy as a basic human right.

The only change needed to add same sex couples is change bride and groom to either bride/bride and groom/groom or partner/person 1 and partner/person 2.

Just add "person 3".

Unless you think it should just be opened for a person to have multiple marriages. Although this also has several downsides. First the rights and responsibilities issues.

Present regulation regarding "Community Property" require equal shares for each spouse unless there are special considerations which require a hearing.

Second, would current spouse/spouses have to sign for the marriage?

Yes.

if you were business partners and your partner wanted to add someone as an equal, they would require your consent. This is no different.

Either scenario has the potential to actually lead to huge multiple marriage situations in order to cheat others out of benefits and/or privileges that come with marriage.

2 men rob a bank, are caught, and ordered to testify against each other or get a longer sentence. According to you, we shouldn't allow gay marriage otherwise these 2 men could marry each other to take advantage of Spousal Privilege.
 
I only answered the first one because it is legal in other country's. They have laws governing all those situations. A little more complicated legally is not an excuse to deny equality under the law, period. I mean look at our tax laws now for an example.

First, It would take a significant rework of our laws regarding marriage, from tax code to court precedence and onwards. "Other countries" having it does not in any way negate the difficulty and amount of time spent in changing THIS countries laws. The vast majority of laws would require a mere tweaking to go from allowing only opposite sex to allowing any two people. An entire rework would be needed to allow for joining of 3 or more people. Minor rewrites for something that is discriminating as a Middle Tier category, sex, is far less of an argument against EPC than major rewrites applying to discrimination that would be questionable if it even registered as a group that could be considered under the lowest tier.

Secondly, yes...the difficulties in changing a law is certainly a feasible argument for discriminating against people under the law. Especially something, such as "number of people", which would fall under the least strict tier of the EPC if it would even reach that level. It is a "rational" basis in suggesting this discrimination serves a legitimate government interest, that of spending time and money on issues at a reasonable level of importance compared to cost. Seeing as how there is no strict constitutional protection towards "Numbers of people" that can enter into a government, the amount of time and effort to go into reworking an entire section of our legal, tax, and court systems to accommodate this is not reasonable. And such is all that would be required to constitutionally allow such discrimination.

Thirdly, this is not even toughing upon the other potential issues which I'm sure others who have studied those things more would be better apt to speak on, for example regarding family units and other such matters.

Now on another note with regards to your tactics here.Seriously, you're Colbert act is rather worthless and tired and since you don't even throw random references to bears into it, it doesn't even have worth as being at least a mild form of entertainment. Your attempts to, poorly, mimic the criticisms of your own critics into a debate that is similar...but yet still remarkably different as well...are so transparently poor that you may as well be sitting around with a fisher-price toy trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. The entire thing is made even more redundant since most of the arguments which people throw against your attempts of pushing your religion through the law are in no way shape or form the same arguments I actually make, and as thus ring all the more hollow.

Your "I don't give a **** what the constitution says, all I care about is the bible and god and my interpretation of it which is infallible and thus by god the government should do what I want it to do" shtick at least came off as sincere and honest and allowed you to passionately defend it, as ridiculous as I and others may view it. At least you could put together an actual argument for it based on your actual thoughts that, while perhaps made no sense legally or constitutionally, at least made sense from the point you were arguing from. This? This is just ridiculous attempts at parroting someone elses argument in an attempt to be ironic or to show how poorly their argument is, when in reality its just showing how poor you are at this form of debating tactic while shedding absolutely no negative light upon the side you're hoping to make look bad in this.

Seriously, stop. Stick to what you actually believe is, for bringer of truthiness, you are not.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom