• 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!

Consenting Adults

Babykat said:
And they had same sex marriages in Ancient Rome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

And , it Tibet, they practice polyandry
 
Eriech said:
To answer the original post. I do not care about what others do. I do care that the meaning of marriage was muddied by the court.
All they (gay lobby) needed to do to win me is come up with another term, not that acceptance matters.





Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Why don't you come up with another term? Homosexuals and heterosexuals get to call their union a marriage. And you can call yours whatever you want.
 
RAMOSS said:
So what?? A good old traditional marriage is between a man, a woman, and his concubine.
Click to expand...

Correction:

A man, his property, and his other property.

To secure a military alliance.
 
Eriech said:
Marriage is between one man and one woman. If we called it something else I'd be fine. Corporate marriage as in Robert Rimmer would be fine with me......any configuration.
The issue should have been decided by an elected legislature not a judge. Maine had gay marriage. It was a justification for nationwide gay marriage. Maine has constitutional carry. The exact same rational could be used for a national constitutional carry. Constitutional carry should be thr law of the land like gay marriage.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You don't own the word marriage, which has had plenty of other meanings, including including same sex couples.

And we should have concealed carry laws that cross borders. If you are licensed in one state, then it should carry over to the others. Of course marriage, once completed is not permission for anything. It is a legal agreement of kinship. The only thing the "license" does in marriage is authorize the marriage to happen. It basically transforms into a kinship agreement once it is signed and approved by the clerks/state/county.
 
Babykat said:
All I’m saying is while same sex marriage should be legal. You shouldn’t be able to force an individual to take part in a same sex marriage that doesn’t agree with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No one is forced to take part in any arrangement they don't agree with. They are only forced to do what they already agreed to do, serve the public, if they own a business that might cater to weddings or married people and they may not agree with certain people who are married.

It is funny to me how people say this now, yet there was little to no discussion about such things when it came to those against interracial marriages having to provide cakes or flowers or photography services or any other type of services to interracial couples. Hell, we even had staunch opponents of same sex marriage stand up and say "you can't do that" when it was revealed that a Justice of the Peace in Louisiana had been sending interracial couples elsewhere to get married because he "didn't agree" with their lifestyle choices, felt it was harmful to children.

Louisiana justice who refused interracial marriage resigns - CNN.com

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has said he believed Bardwell should lose his license, and the National Urban League called for an investigation into the incident by the U.S. Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, saying in a statement that Bardwell's actions were "a huge step backward in social justice."
Click to expand...

Jindal was (and likely is still) against same sex marriage and would support someone in Bardwell's place who refused same sex couples.

Jindal offended by same-sex marriage question

Like most, he dodges questions that reflect the hypocrisy here. According to many who disagree with interracial marriages, it is against their beliefs. Those aren't popular beliefs, but that, to some, justifies saying "well that is different". It isn't different at all. It is the same thing, beliefs that are being used to prevent others from entering into marriages that they believe are "wrong", a sin to God. Hell there are many religions/beliefs that say people should only marry within their own faith. So would it be okay for someone to refuse to offer some sort of service to an interfaith couple?
 
Eriech said:
To answer the original post. I do not care about what others do. I do care that the meaning of marriage was muddied by the court.
All they (gay lobby) needed to do to win me is come up with another term, not that acceptance matters.


Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The meaning of marriage was not "muddled" by any court. It has always included other things, even if you don't wish to accept that. At times, the legal meaning of marriage has been different than simply "one man and one woman" as well. It was limited far further than that and even before this country, it was opened to include much more. The meaning changed with time, as it should. Just as it used to specifically restrict those who were of two different races or at least who were white from marrying someone who wasn't. That too was changed by the courts, not the people voting for it all over the US.
 
Eriech said:
Marriage "or" whatever (name to be determined) under the law to be equal works or rather would have worked.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't have worked. Because it would have been a waste of money and led to several more lawsuits. Again, you nor those who are in an opposite sex marriage own the word "marriage", regardless of how much you believe you do. You don't have a right to keep it from changing meaning, to include those who are of the same sex entering into the same familial relationship.
 
roguenuke said:
The meaning of marriage was not "muddled" by any court. It has always included other things, even if you don't wish to accept that. At times, the legal meaning of marriage has been different than simply "one man and one woman" as well. It was limited far further than that and even before this country, it was opened to include much more. The meaning changed with time, as it should. Just as it used to specifically restrict those who were of two different races or at least who were white from marrying someone who wasn't. That too was changed by the courts, not the people voting for it all over the US.
Click to expand...
Maybe so....

Don't like it. Doubt it. I am not alone on this.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
Eriech said:
Maybe so....

Don't like it. Doubt it. I am not alone on this.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Does my personal disapproval in of itself create sufficient grounds for the US government to deny you a marriage certificate?
 
Eriech said:
Maybe so....

Don't like it. Doubt it. I am not alone on this.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Not being alone on whether you like that the definition of marriage includes same sex couples doesn't make your view correct or even something that will last. There are plenty of people that do not like interracial couples still today. I met a few in the military (mainly Marines and Soldiers), so around my age, my generation, who have issues with two people of the different races getting together. But that viewpoint is dying out slowing with each new generation. Just as the viewpoint that same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to get married or call their marriage "marriage" will die out as well. Every newer generation has fewer and fewer people who agree with you on this issue. And considering my experience in high school when debating this issue (in the 90s), I am really happy that this viewpoint is dying out. It was sad to see that viewpoint even as a teen when I was surrounded by it.
 
Eriech said:
Maybe so....

Don't like it. Doubt it. I am not alone on this.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Flat earthers arent alone either lol thats doesnt help your failed claims
 
roguenuke said:
No one is forced to take part in any arrangement they don't agree with. They are only forced to do what they already agreed to do, serve the public, if they own a business that might cater to weddings or married people and they may not agree with certain people who are married.

It is funny to me how people say this now, yet there was little to no discussion about such things when it came to those against interracial marriages having to provide cakes or flowers or photography services or any other type of services to interracial couples. Hell, we even had staunch opponents of same sex marriage stand up and say "you can't do that" when it was revealed that a Justice of the Peace in Louisiana had been sending interracial couples elsewhere to get married because he "didn't agree" with their lifestyle choices, felt it was harmful to children.

Louisiana justice who refused interracial marriage resigns - CNN.com



Jindal was (and likely is still) against same sex marriage and would support someone in Bardwell's place who refused same sex couples.

Jindal offended by same-sex marriage question

Like most, he dodges questions that reflect the hypocrisy here. According to many who disagree with interracial marriages, it is against their beliefs. Those aren't popular beliefs, but that, to some, justifies saying "well that is different". It isn't different at all. It is the same thing, beliefs that are being used to prevent others from entering into marriages that they believe are "wrong", a sin to God. Hell there are many religions/beliefs that say people should only marry within their own faith. So would it be okay for someone to refuse to offer some sort of service to an interfaith couple?
Click to expand...

FYI I support same sex marriage. Not just accept it, I support it. But I also support the right of individual.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Babykat said:
FYI I support same sex marriage. Not just accept it, I support it. But I also support the right of individual.
Click to expand...

its a good thing those are not in conflict ;)
 
roguenuke said:
No it wouldn't have worked. Because it would have been a waste of money and led to several more lawsuits. Again, you nor those who are in an opposite sex marriage own the word "marriage", regardless of how much you believe you do. You don't have a right to keep it from changing meaning, to include those who are of the same sex entering into the same familial relationship.
Click to expand...
36 years married; 2 kids, 2 grandchildren so far.
One of my daughter's kindergarten classmates "married" her teacher. Each had a baby artificiality inseminated and gave birth within a month. "Divorced " now. Made for a nice story though in the local paper. Not relevant to topic but relative to my mindset on topic.
Don't care.... just call it something else

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
Eriech said:
Don't care.... just call it something else

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Request denied.
You call yours something else.
 
Babykat said:
FYI I support same sex marriage. Not just accept it, I support it. But I also support the right of individual.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Rights of individuals are always limited to an extent, depending on the circumstances. We limit the rights of individuals to refuse to provide service for certain reasons now, even to certain types of couples/events. Why should a caterer have to provide some sort of service (even if they don't themselves attend) to an interracial marriage/wedding or interfaith marriage/wedding, but not to a same sex marriage/wedding when all could be refused for the same reason, religious beliefs? I feel that if you have any doubts about who you would serve in a business capacity that you are entering into, then you should probably not do business that way. Find another way to make money.
 
Eriech said:
36 years married; 2 kids, 2 grandchildren so far.
One of my daughter's kindergarten classmates "married" her teacher. Each had a baby artificiality inseminated and gave birth within a month. "Divorced " now. Made for a nice story though in the local paper. Not relevant to topic but relative to my mindset on topic.
Don't care.... just call it something else

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No, they don't have to call it something else, we who support them don't have to call it something else. You will simply have to deal with it being called marriage.
 
Eriech said:
36 years married; 2 kids, 2 grandchildren so far.
One of my daughter's kindergarten classmates "married" her teacher. Each had a baby artificiality inseminated and gave birth within a month. "Divorced " now. Made for a nice story though in the local paper. Not relevant to topic but relative to my mindset on topic.
Don't care.... just call it something else

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No need to call it anything else its factually called the right thing.
name one logical reason why the name of the legal contract should be changed . . . ONE
 
Very similar to my debate with Lursa on abortion.

The court decided. I (we) lost. Deal with it.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
Rights of individuals are always limited to an extent, depending on the circumstances. We limit the rights of individuals to refuse to provide service for certain reasons now, even to certain types of couples/events. Why should a caterer have to provide some sort of service (even if they don't themselves attend) to an interracial marriage/wedding or interfaith marriage/wedding, but not to a same sex marriage/wedding when all could be refused for the same reason, religious beliefs? I feel that if you have any doubts about who you would serve in a business capacity that you are entering into, then you should probably not do business that way. Find another way to make money.
Click to expand...

I really look at these issues from the prospective of a transgender. I’m not homosexual and those I fall into a unprotected group. In many cases it’s legal to refuse me service or employment. But when you consider capitalism most of the businesses that refuse me service will go out of business because I and many like me want do business with them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Eriech said:
Just telling you my thoughts on issue. Traditional marriage lost in the court. I know that. I accept that. I do not like it and feel it is bad for society.
3/5 was a compromise for apportioning representation that ultimately benefited slaves. Had the south been able to count slaves as 1 in the census there would have been many more representatives in slave states. Not germain to this issue but interesting aside.......




Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Traditional marriage didnt go anywhere. How did marriage between a man and a woman change?
 
Eriech said:
Marriage "or" whatever (name to be determined) under the law to be equal works or rather would have worked.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

'Separate but equal' was determined unConstitutional.
 
Babykat said:
Lursa your home page is very miss leading. I thought you opposed abortion based on your home page.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I have a home page? Where?
 
Lursa said:
I have a home page? Where?
Click to expand...

03c937e31376f1246e3f9d6ad3e45951.jpg




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom