Total Posts:130|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

D.C. mayor signs same-sex marriage.

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 11:19:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The reason posted it here was to see the political thought of everyone on this subject, and it's importance in relation to it being in our nations capital.
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 9:03:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I believe that it is unconstitutional to make any law legalizing or illegalizing marriage for either heterosexual or homosexual relationships. As I believe marriage lies within the institution of religion.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 9:10:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
That's awesome. Maybe one day it'll hit Illinois and I can actually marry my girlfriend.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 9:11:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/19/2009 9:03:20 AM, johngriswald wrote:
I believe that it is unconstitutional to make any law legalizing or illegalizing marriage for either heterosexual or homosexual relationships. As I believe marriage lies within the institution of religion.

This is the kind of thing that makes absolutely no sense. Marriage is not only a religious thing. Proof? You can go to City Hall and get married by a judge. Further proof? The government gives you certain benefits, protections and rights once you're legally - not spiritually - married.

So, although religious people would like to pretend that marriage is solely a religious thing, it's not. It's infiltrated our society and our politics to the point where marriage at the very least is just as much of a political thing as it is a social thing. Why do people think that "religious institutions" reserve use of the word marriage? Dream the hell on. Seriously. No religious group owns that word, and further, religion itself is so diverse in this world that separating it would be nearly impossible. I could say that I belong to the Church of Danielle -- Should that mean that I am allowed to marry a woman because it's part of my religion? If the answer is yes, then you're acknowledging that this then (mostly) becomes a legal argument.

To take tax dollars from gay people and not give them the same opportunity to enjoy those tax breaks and benefits that marriage provides is blatant discrimination and a disgusting display of legalized bigotry and oppression. Now, if you want to give gay people the same rewards for being in the same type of relationship or commitment... then you're just changing the word "marriage" which is stupid. Do you think I'm going to ask Vi: Will you civil unionize me, baby? No. I'm going to ask her to marry me. And gay people still call their partners husbands, wives, etc. and still date and still have sex, so people need to just get over it and mind their business -- Just give us the same treatment that you give others and stay out of it.

When blacks were allowed to sit at the front of the bus, did they say "Well we don't want blacks sitting at the front so we'll just change the term to be the 'beginning' of the bus...?" No. It's retarded.
President of DDO
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 9:12:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/19/2009 9:03:20 AM, johngriswald wrote:
I believe that it is unconstitutional to make any law legalizing or illegalizing marriage for either heterosexual or homosexual relationships. As I believe marriage lies within the institution of religion.

When they take away all the tax benefits, etc, that people receive through marriage - then you can call it an institution of religion.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 9:22:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/19/2009 9:12:06 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 12/19/2009 9:03:20 AM, johngriswald wrote:
I believe that it is unconstitutional to make any law legalizing or illegalizing marriage for either heterosexual or homosexual relationships. As I believe marriage lies within the institution of religion.

When they take away all the tax benefits, etc, that people receive through marriage - then you can call it an institution of religion.

I completely agree which is why I'm for disassociating all legal benefits with marriage. I believe there are two things, a religious marriage and a civil marriage. They shouldn't be mixed yet currently one can be a substitute for another.

Here's my opinion:

I pose for clarity the following definitions:

Homosexual: A person sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. Homosexuals include males (gays) and females (lesbians).

Civil Marriage - a legal status established through a license issued by a state government. Such status grants legal rights to, and imposes legal obligations on, the 2 married partners.

Religious Marriage - considered to be a liturgical rite, a sacrament, or a solemnization of the uniting of 2 persons and is recognized by the hierarchy and adherents of that religious group. The hierarchy, clergy, and in some cases members of religious organizations, establish their own criteria and rules for who may marry within their assemblies. They are not bound by statutory definitions of marriage. Civil government entities in the United States have no authority over a religious organization's autonomy.

ARGUMENT:
Now obviously these are two very different things, however they confusingly use the same word "Marriage". There is a religious ceremony, and then there is a legal aspect to marriage. My opponent and I both agree they should remain completely separate. After all, why should religion have a say in the rights and benefits of a partnership? We all share different faiths ideas and opinions (and sometimes no faiths). Furthermore why should government have a say in a religious ceremony? After all it is unconstitutional that a government should make any law respecting that of a religion.

Therefore, logically, a civil marriage should be renamed a civil union. A civil union should be available to anyone regardless if they are homosexual or heterosexual. A Religious marriage should be called marriage. Marriage is commonly known as a religious ceremony.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 9:26:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Agree with you completely, john, but consider this: There are some churches who welcome gay members and some clergy (of various denominations) who perform gay marriages. So, what's the difference between a straight marriage and a gay marriage if both of those marriages are performed in the Church? Either way you look at it, the gays are getting married lol (as well as civil unionized).
President of DDO
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 9:32:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Oh I agree, I'm all for gay marriages within the church. I do not believe that homosexuality in any way is a sin, nor does it make any sense according to Jesus's two commandments that it is a sin.

http://www.debate.org...

I'm just against government making any law forcing religion to do one thing or the other. I think it's an argument and decision that must take place in the church and not in the government. Religious rituals belong to the church, legal statuses and benefits belong with the government.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 9:37:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/19/2009 9:32:07 AM, johngriswald wrote:
Oh I agree, I'm all for gay marriages within the church. I do not believe that homosexuality in any way is a sin, nor does it make any sense according to Jesus's two commandments that it is a sin.

http://www.debate.org...

I'm just against government making any law forcing religion to do one thing or the other. I think it's an argument and decision that must take place in the church and not in the government. Religious rituals belong to the church, legal statuses and benefits belong with the government.

Agreed - they shouldn't get any benefits if they want to call it "a religious ritual."
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 9:48:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/19/2009 9:36:06 AM, mongeese wrote:
I personally think that the legal entity itself should be abolished. It unjustly discriminates against single people.

Exactly... so why isn't anyone protesting this? It's an outrage. Only the gays seem to mind the current injustice.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 9:51:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/19/2009 9:32:07 AM, johngriswald wrote:

I'm just against government making any law forcing religion to do one thing or the other. I think it's an argument and decision that must take place in the church and not in the government. Religious rituals belong to the church, legal statuses and benefits belong with the government.

But the government wouldn't make a law demanding that churches perform same-sex marriages. The discussion right now is a LEGAL one and a legal one only. Where in the proposed legislation does it say, for instance, that Catholic Churches have to let lesbians marry? This is about legal benefits only. But, I'm just saying that if a straight person says "Well we got married in the Church..." that a gay person may also say, "I got married in the Church too..." because some churches allow it. So again, either way you look at it, equality prevails and thus I think changing the name is just sort of a moot point.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 9:52:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Because again: The "church" doesn't own the word marriage. And I can make the argument that marriages originated as a political thing rather than a religious one anyway (ie. the exchange of goods; dowries; marriages symbolizing diolpmatic bonds, and political relationships, etc.).
President of DDO
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 9:52:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/19/2009 9:36:06 AM, mongeese wrote:
I personally think that the legal entity itself should be abolished. It unjustly discriminates against single people.

I disagree, people who are in a couple are less likely to do a slew of bad things, are more likely to successful, etc.

We should reward that.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 9:53:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
All adults regardless of gender or sexuality should be allowed to get married, though preferably it is something the state should little to no involvement in it.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 9:55:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/19/2009 9:51:13 AM, theLwerd wrote:
a moot point.

Oh I agree in essence it's completely moot. However for many people this moot point is why it is opposed. Do as I suggested and it is likely that things will become fixed much quicker.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 9:58:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/19/2009 9:52:57 AM, johngriswald wrote:
At 12/19/2009 9:36:06 AM, mongeese wrote:
I personally think that the legal entity itself should be abolished. It unjustly discriminates against single people.

I disagree, people who are in a couple are less likely to do a slew of bad things, are more likely to successful, etc.

We should reward that.

It's not the government's job to reward people. I donate to charity - where's my reward? I'm faithful - where's my reward? I donate blood - where's my reward? Plus, if they don't "do bad things" then they're just acting the way they're SUPPOSED to... why should they be rewarded? Being more successful helps them in and of itself.
President of DDO
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 9:59:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/19/2009 9:52:34 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Because again: The "church" doesn't own the word marriage. And I can make the argument that marriages originated as a political thing rather than a religious one anyway (ie. the exchange of goods; dowries; marriages symbolizing diolpmatic bonds, and political relationships, etc.).

It doesn't matter a words origin. The word "faggot" originally meant a bundle of wood, and I can come up with a very good argument about the origin of that word and why it should be denoted to mean a bundle of wood. But the fact is that the main populous considers it to be a rude word for a homosexual.

A word's current meaning and use derives from the populous.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 10:00:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/19/2009 9:58:54 AM, theLwerd wrote:
It's not the government's job to reward people. I donate to charity - where's my reward? I'm faithful - where's my reward? I donate blood - where's my reward? Plus, if they don't "do bad things" then they're just acting the way they're SUPPOSED to... why should they be rewarded? Being more successful helps them in and of itself.

The benefits of having people together vs apart is a positive externality, thus it deserves to be subsidized.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 10:01:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/19/2009 9:59:03 AM, johngriswald wrote:
At 12/19/2009 9:52:34 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Because again: The "church" doesn't own the word marriage. And I can make the argument that marriages originated as a political thing rather than a religious one anyway (ie. the exchange of goods; dowries; marriages symbolizing diolpmatic bonds, and political relationships, etc.).

It doesn't matter a words origin. The word "faggot" originally meant a bundle of wood, and I can come up with a very good argument about the origin of that word and why it should be denoted to mean a bundle of wood. But the fact is that the main populous considers it to be a rude word for a homosexual.

A word's current meaning and use derives from the populous.

As I said, since marriage is just as much a legal thing (according to the populous) as it is a religious thing, then it doesn't matter. It still doesn't give "religion" a monopoly on the word - that's stupid.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 10:03:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/19/2009 10:00:29 AM, johngriswald wrote:
At 12/19/2009 9:58:54 AM, theLwerd wrote:
It's not the government's job to reward people. I donate to charity - where's my reward? I'm faithful - where's my reward? I donate blood - where's my reward? Plus, if they don't "do bad things" then they're just acting the way they're SUPPOSED to... why should they be rewarded? Being more successful helps them in and of itself.

The benefits of having people together vs apart is a positive externality, thus it deserves to be subsidized.

They benefit from that personally; it should absolutely in no way be subsidized. It's a personal decision. Giving people financial incentives to get married is ridiculous.
President of DDO
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 10:09:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think I'm going to drop my stance against gay marriage completely. It is apparent that approval among people and states is increasing for laws to pass it, so what's the point of still opposing it? In my opinion, with the way things are going now, gay marriage will be available everywhere in the U.S. (eventually) Screw it. Do what you want, I don't care anymore ;)
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 10:09:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/19/2009 10:03:51 AM, theLwerd wrote:
They benefit from that personally; it should absolutely in no way be subsidized. It's a personal decision. Giving people financial incentives to get married is ridiculous.

No other people benefit from it because they experience a lower crime rate, etc. I'm sure there are many more benefits but I'm to lazy to google them as of now
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 10:17:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/19/2009 10:09:53 AM, johngriswald wrote:
At 12/19/2009 10:03:51 AM, theLwerd wrote:
They benefit from that personally; it should absolutely in no way be subsidized. It's a personal decision. Giving people financial incentives to get married is ridiculous.

No other people benefit from it because they experience a lower crime rate, etc. I'm sure there are many more benefits but I'm to lazy to google them as of now

I am sure you can find or at least manufacture figures that show a lower rate of crime amongst people who go birdwarching, paint lead figures or collect stamps. Should they be subsidised as well?

Tax money should be given to the Government to be spent on things that require the degree of cooperation and 'neutrality' that is best provided by the Government. It is no more the right of a member of society to dictate what form marriage should take anymore than it is the responsibility for them to pay for it.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 10:34:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/19/2009 10:17:24 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

I am sure you can find or at least manufacture figures that show a lower rate of crime amongst people who go birdwarching, paint lead figures or collect stamps. Should they be subsidised as well?
99% of those people are married.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 10:45:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/19/2009 9:03:20 AM, johngriswald wrote:
I believe that it is unconstitutional to make any law legalizing or illegalizing marriage for either heterosexual or homosexual relationships. As I believe marriage lies within the institution of religion.

Is it really possible to do this?

Talk about a drastic change.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 11:15:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Queston comoncents:

Are you, or are you against, same-sex marriage being treated and respected the same as heterosexual marriages?