• 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!

[W:363]accepting gay as normal

Status
Not open for further replies.
dixon01767 said:
That's at the most ONE of the gay couple and a third person procreating. Not the gay couple. And while heterosexual sex has a tendency to lead to procreation, homosexual sex has no tendency to lead to surrogacy or sperm donors.
Click to expand...

That's by and large true, but heterosexual sex also has a tendency to lead to unwanted procreation. In any way you go about it, a gay couple has to go through a lot more steps to have children and its a VERY deliberate process at that. Therefore many homosexual couples (including the vast majority of gay male couples) usually do adoption. Most gay people who do chose to raise children don't do the procreating part themselves. This is actually suggested to be partly the cause of homosexuality in species because of a need for there to be members of the species that can adopt young that for one reason or another do not have a mother/father to care for them. More research is still being conducted on this but it's fascinating to look into if you get a chance.
 
dixon01767 said:
There are literally 1000s of laws that discriminate between married and unmarried couples. Are you going to continue with the stupid act and pretend you are not aware of any of them? For purpose of discussion lets use the exemption from estate taxes upon the death of one of a married couple, not available to unmarried couples. Did you have some point you wanted to make about this discrimination in the law or just stupid questions unrelated to any relevant point in an attempt to hide the fact that you have nothing relevant to contribute?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what tangent you are going on or why... I said that it is not equal to allow heterosexuals to get married and then to deny homosexuals from getting married... but you keep having whatever internal discussions you are having and keep attributing them to me! :lol:
 
dixon01767 said:
No its saying homosexual couples don't procreate. A gay man and a gay or lesbian woman procreate just fine.
Click to expand...

Not with the partner they are are including in the nuclear family..

Call me crazy this should not be an issue...

The whole fight here is over trying to apply a negative or positive meaning to a neutral word..


It is a neural descriptive term.....

modern family people/gay rights groups/exc are applying a positive meaning to the word, and deciding they want in the car, so the definition should be expanded to include them too...

When nuclear family doesn’t mean good.. it means “the simplest form of a family”.. the minimum required to make one..

Man , woman and the children they produce, assuming they stay together of course..


We call step/gay/exc parents a modern family.. now there is nothing modern about it... they are old as anything else, but it is just the terminology used..


Imho .....


How many people on the fence have been flipped to the “dark side” do to silly and irrelevant examples of “over reach”.

For example...

The gay rights movement started out asking for civil unions, right??

But the conservatives held out for so long being stubborn that public opinion had shifted enough for them to win expanding the definition of marriage to include gay couples as well...

(Something I could not possible care less about..... just so you don’t think I am against it or something... I am absolutely not.. this is an example.)


Well how much play has the conservative side gotten off of the “gay marriage” narrative???

How many people on the fence might not have bought into their garbage without them being able to point to the expansion of marriage to include gays as an example of over reach??




History is a wash , rinse repeat of revolution and counter revolution..

2 steps forward and one step back..

The smallest and silliest examples of over reach become the fuel that powers the the counter revolution that erases half the progress made.. and offer the examples of over reach are fabricated, so giving them low hanging fruit is crazy.
 
ArtemisBarca said:
Not with the partner they are are including in the nuclear family.. .
Click to expand...

I can see that you finally gave up on your misunderstanding of what a nuclear family is... my question though is this:

Do you understand why you were wrong or are you merely running away from the argument that you lost and being intellectually dishonest by not admitting you error?
 
ArtemisBarca said:
(Something I could not possible care less about..... just so you don’t think I am against it or something... I am absolutely not.. this is an example.)
Click to expand...

You obviously care or you would not be arguing against such a simple thing as a change in definition, as I posted about the British changing their definition of marriage to include homosexual marriages. :shrug:

You care a lot that homosexuals are not included as a nuclear family... I wonder what your agenda is and why you hold ill will against homosexuals and equal rights.
 
Bodhisattva said:
You obviously care or you would not be arguing against such a simple thing as a change in definition, as I posted about the British changing their definition of marriage to include homosexual marriages. :shrug:

You care a lot that homosexuals are not included as a nuclear family... I wonder what your agenda is and why you hold ill will against homosexuals and equal rights.
Click to expand...

No I am not..

I just don’t think the propaganda victory for conservatives, “covered the spread” on the “upgrade” from civil unions to marriage..

The legality side actually mattered, insisting states expand the definition of marriage is a social/emotional/propaganda/moral victory.. I’m not Sure which is fairly applied as all could be considered positive , negative or neutral.. I mean them in the neutral sense.


I am not religious.. for me marriage and civil unions would be a actually be morally and legally equivalent, rather than me just saying that , then whispering slurs under my breath..


I think changing the definitions of long standing words is a mistake guaranteed to be easily propagandized into over reach...


Sometimes the moral victory is not worth the functional price paid...

I could be totally wrong, god knows there is no way to know, but I bet if we had gone Civil Unions or some other title people decided on as a descriptive term. The anti-gay marriage movement loses 15% of its donations..



CONCLUSION) conservatives are so easily propagandized that ANY “low hanging fruit” concerning government/liberal overreach will get beaten like a dead horse..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Bodhisattva said:
You obviously care or you would not be arguing against such a simple thing as a change in definition, as I posted about the British changing their definition of marriage to include homosexual marriages. :shrug:

You care a lot that homosexuals are not included as a nuclear family... I wonder what your agenda is and why you hold ill will against homosexuals and equal rights.
Click to expand...

No I’m just willing to concede a nonsense point that is irrelevant to the larger issue..


Nuclear family= mom, dad, kid..

Modern family= all the other flavors..

Mormon family= dad, mom, mom , mom, mom, mom, mom , kids... lol

If the dad of the nuclear family is a pedophile raping and beating the wife an kids... it is still a nuclear family because , if the family being is garbage or not is not being addressed in the definition...

Biological (usually) Mom, dad and kid , but mom is a crackhead turning tricks for drug money behind the back of her SUPER hen pecked husband???

Still a nuclear family..




Modern family is perfect, it is still a modern family????

Modern family are abusive alcoholics???

Still a modern family.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ArtemisBarca said:
No I’m just willing to concede a nonsense point that is irrelevant to the larger issue..


Nuclear family= mom, dad, kid..

Modern family= all the other flavors..

Mormon family= dad, mom, mom , mom, mom, mom, mom , kids... lol

If the dad of the nuclear family is a pedophile raping and beating the wife an kids... it is still a nuclear family because , if the family being is garbage or not is not being addressed in the definition...

Biological (usually) Mom, dad and kid , but mom is a crackhead turning tricks for drug money behind the back of her SUPER hen pecked husband???

Still a nuclear family..




Modern family is perfect, it is still a modern family????

Modern family are abusive alcoholics???

Still a modern family.


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

You are still wrong but I appreciate your humour! :lol: Seriously...
 
ArtemisBarca said:
No I am not..

I just don’t think the propaganda victory for conservatives, “covered the spread” on the “upgrade” from civil unions to marriage..

The legality side actually mattered, insisting states expand the definition of marriage is a social/emotional/propaganda/moral victory.. I’m not Sure which is fairly applied as all could be considered positive , negative or neutral.. I mean them in the neutral sense.


I am not religious.. for me marriage and civil unions would be a actually be morally and legally equivalent, rather than me just saying that , then whispering slurs under my breath..


I think changing the definitions of long standing words is a mistake guaranteed to be easily propagandized into over reach...


Sometimes the moral victory is not worth the functional price paid...

I could be totally wrong, god knows there is no way to know, but I bet if we had gone Civil Unions or some other title people decided on as a descriptive term. The anti-gay marriage movement loses 15% of its donations..



CONCLUSION) conservatives are so easily propagandized that ANY “low hanging fruit” concerning government/liberal overreach will get beaten like a dead horse..


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

Ya know, from a legal and technical standpoint, Civil Unions in theory COULD work. Disregarding the separate-but-unequal terminology of Civil Unions versus marriage, there is a more fundamental reason as to why civil unions were destined to fail in practice. It would have required doing the same legislation for marriage all over again for civil unions.

This might not sound hard - just basically copy and paste - but there was effectively zero political motivation to do so. In most of the few state legislatures that did sign civil unions into law, they gave gay couples some of the big ticket items such as death certificates, living wills, and hospital visits, but they largely left out thousands of other small things that are less talked about but were nonetheless still important. Because there is SO SO SO much stuff that marriage encompasses legally, it would have taken massive amounts of legislation to do the same for civil marriages.

And there simply was and is never going to be enough political influence and push for politicians to legislate everything that would be needed to make civil unions and marriage be legally equivalent. Even now I couldn't see it be done in states as liberal as Hawaii or Vermont simply because it would such a huge draw on resources for state legislatures.

The only real way to avoid this legal nightmare would be to just include same-sex couples in the group of people who are able to get a marriage license. Some states such as Illinois and Minnesota signed bills into laws to accomplish this. But in most states it was done either through state Supreme courts, Federal courts, or through the decision of Obergefell v Hodges in SCOTUS in 2015.

But in theory as a hypothetical, yes it would have been possible, but in practice it was never going to happen. (And nothing you say is going to convince me that states like Alabama and Oklahoma would have jumped on board the civil union train).
 
CBuckets said:
Ya know, from a legal and technical standpoint, Civil Unions in theory COULD work. Disregarding the separate-but-unequal terminology of Civil Unions versus marriage, there is a more fundamental reason as to why civil unions were destined to fail in practice. It would have required doing the same legislation for marriage all over again for civil unions.

This might not sound hard - just basically copy and paste - but there was effectively zero political motivation to do so. In most of the few state legislatures that did sign civil unions into law, they gave gay couples some of the big ticket items such as death certificates, living wills, and hospital visits, but they largely left out thousands of other small things that are less talked about but were nonetheless still important. Because there is SO SO SO much stuff that marriage encompasses legally, it would have taken massive amounts of legislation to do the same for civil marriages.

And there simply was and is never going to be enough political influence and push for politicians to legislate everything that would be needed to make civil unions and marriage be legally equivalent. Even now I couldn't see it be done in states as liberal as Hawaii or Vermont simply because it would such a huge draw on resources for state legislatures.

The only real way to avoid this legal nightmare would be to just include same-sex couples in the group of people who are able to get a marriage license. Some states such as Illinois and Minnesota signed bills into laws to accomplish this. But in most states it was done either through state Supreme courts, Federal courts, or through the decision of Obergefell v Hodges in SCOTUS in 2015.

But in theory as a hypothetical, yes it would have been possible, but in practice it was never going to happen. (And nothing you say is going to convince me that states like Alabama and Oklahoma would have jumped on board the civil union train).
Click to expand...

Nevada did it simply with one law. They said anywhere the word marriage was in law or state policy then civil unions would also apply.


Done
 
vegas giants said:
Nevada did it simply with one law. They said anywhere the word marriage was in law or state policy then civil unions would also apply.


Done
Click to expand...

Close. There were a few things that were left out from that law but the most prominent one was that it didn't require government or private employers to extend health care benefits to the partner of an employee, even if that employer did provide health benefits to different sex spouses of employees. And when that bill was passed by the legislature, it still got vetoed by the state's then-governor and was only overridden by the slimmest possible margins for a veto override. Additionally since that law was passed in 2009, it's provisions had effectively no legal standing both for the federal government and with other states. So a person's domestic partnership would basically be recognized by Nevada and only Nevada and if you were to enter a different state, then your domestic partnership would not be recognized.
 
dixon01767 said:
The statistics. Children born to single mothers have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquency, drug and alcohol abuse, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal conviction as an adult when compared to children born to their married mother and father.
Click to expand...
Single mothers are not the only alternative. I specifically mentioned extended families. And there are other family types as well.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
dixon01767 said:
That would apply to any two consenting adults who desire the tax breaks of marriage,... joint health care coverage from employers. Or joint custody of any children. Or anything pertaining to written wills and property. What would be the justification for such discrimination? I know a life long couple in their 60s, together since their teens, 3 grown kids. She is an enthusiastic feminist and atheist that views marriage as some evil patriarchal institution imposed by religion to empower men over women. What justification does government have to discriminate against them for all those benefits you speak of. If government wants to discriminate they must have some justification for doing so.
Click to expand...

The couple you describe is allowed to get married, but chooses not to. Just like the woman who refuses to join the military is not being discriminated against by the military for her not wanting to join.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
CBuckets said:
Simple. They don't want what the government is offering them. By definition, someone (or in this case the government) can't be discriminating against you if you are refusing that person's offer. If the government says it is offering a certain benefit to everyone who asks, but then refuses to give that benefit to you when you ask and says that it isn't offering that benefit to you for X arbitrary reason, then that would be discrimination.
Click to expand...

They do want what the gov is offering and that's not justification for the discrimination.
 
vegas giants said:
Actually it is
Click to expand...

Could use the exact same argument regarding gays before marriage was extended to them. They choose not to enter a marriage with someone of the opposite sex but are free to do so. Its their choice.
 
dixon01767 said:
Could use the exact same argument regarding gays before marriage was extended to them. They choose not to enter a marriage with someone of the opposite sex but are free to do so. Its their choice.
Click to expand...

Not really. We are basically saying if you want this right...just fill out the forms. Let it be open to anyone.

Want a tax refund? Fill out the forms. Same thing
 
CBuckets said:
Ya know, from a legal and technical standpoint, Civil Unions in theory COULD work. Disregarding the separate-but-unequal terminology of Civil Unions versus marriage, there is a more fundamental reason as to why civil unions were destined to fail in practice. It would have required doing the same legislation for marriage all over again for civil unions.

This might not sound hard - just basically copy and paste - but there was effectively zero political motivation to do so. In most of the few state legislatures that did sign civil unions into law, they gave gay couples some of the big ticket items such as death certificates, living wills, and hospital visits, but they largely left out thousands of other small things that are less talked about but were nonetheless still important. Because there is SO SO SO much stuff that marriage encompasses legally, it would have taken massive amounts of legislation to do the same for civil marriages.

And there simply was and is never going to be enough political influence and push for politicians to legislate everything that would be needed to make civil unions and marriage be legally equivalent. Even now I couldn't see it be done in states as liberal as Hawaii or Vermont simply because it would such a huge draw on resources for state legislatures.

The only real way to avoid this legal nightmare would be to just include same-sex couples in the group of people who are able to get a marriage license. Some states such as Illinois and Minnesota signed bills into laws to accomplish this. But in most states it was done either through state Supreme courts, Federal courts, or through the decision of Obergefell v Hodges in SCOTUS in 2015.

But in theory as a hypothetical, yes it would have been possible, but in practice it was never going to happen. (And nothing you say is going to convince me that states like Alabama and Oklahoma would have jumped on board the civil union train).
Click to expand...

A) is the legal definition of marriage later out in the constitution??

I am not disagreeing with your point, as expanding marriage could have been the far easier route legally.. I am unfamiliar with where the legality of marriage is laid out, in the fed or states.


Plus you have the fact it was decided by Supreme Court , hypothetically negating the chance for a legislation... from the political will stand point..



Assuming that is the case, it would “cover the spread” imho, but it still becomes a fairly major propaganda victory..

The average lay person isn’t going to know the minutia...

They will just see a centuries old definition be changed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
The couple you describe is allowed to get married, but chooses not to. Just like the woman who refuses to join the military is not being discriminated against by the military for her not wanting to join.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Your just restating what the discrimination is. What justification does the government have to deny those who choose not to marry the 1000s of benefits of marriage?
 
vegas giants said:
Not really. We are basically saying if you want this right...just fill out the forms. Let it be open to anyone.

Want a tax refund? Fill out the forms. Same thing
Click to expand...

Closely related couples are excluded because they might procreate....even though marriage is claimed to have nothing to do with procreation.
 
roguenuke said:
Single mothers are not the only alternative.
Click to expand...

The statistics show that single mothers are the most common alternative. Birth of a child only obligates two people in the world, the woman who gave birth and the man that caused her to do so. Presumed to be the husband if she is married. Without them the child has only the hope that someone else will voluntarily assume those responsibilities. Frequently no one does so.

roguenuke said:
I specifically mentioned extended families. And there are other family types as well.
Click to expand...

Like the single mother and grandmother down the street, joined together for over a decade since their father died to provide and care for the children. In fact a single mother and grandparent is one of those most common alternatives to single mothers. Grandmother has adopted the children, they own their home in a joint tenancy. Have complimentary wills if one of them were to die. But government in all 50 states prevents them from marrying because they might procreate with detrimental genetic effects...…. even though marriage now has nothing to do with procreation.
 
dixon01767 said:
Closely related couples are excluded because they might procreate....even though marriage is claimed to have nothing to do with procreation.
Click to expand...

Then let's change that. Fine with me.


See...working together we can solve anything
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom