• 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!

On same sex marriage and propriatary brand names

translation: you have nothing, but we knew that already

your failed insults show your desperation to deflect since your failed and inane logic cant be supported by any facts or reality.

No, my insults show my refusal to debate this philosophical topic with a philosophical know-nothing.
 
NIce try, now let me educate you on why it utterly fails.

Progressing from slavery to freedom is morally good. Therefore, no moral or religious argument could logically be made to keep men slaves, because it is immoral to enslave. How do I know this is a moral issue? Because even our country's founders recognized "freedom" to be a right given to humanity, NOT BY GOVERNMENT, but BY GOD.

The example of SSM is precisely the opposite. Progression from hetero "marriage" to "hetero and homo" marriage would be morally wrong. Therefore, a moral argument can still be made that even if the secular government grants legal status to homosexual couples called "marriage", it doesn't change the immoral nature of homosexuality. Which is why the founders didn't say God gave man the inalienable rights of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and homosexual marriage.

more OPINION based on ZERO facts, so the failure is yours
its halarious that in a free country you some how think that only your opinions/morals matter and others morals dont. If you are an american that is called hypcrisy
 
Soooo, liberty to kill is good? Liberty to steal is good? Liberty to beat your wife is good? Liberty to abuse your children is good? Liberty to drive drunk is good? Liberty to cheat on your taxes is good?

Again, some people simply do not think before they speak. Total liberty to do what ever one pleases is "chaos", and if men were angels, no law would be necessary. But reality is, men aren't angels, we're far from it. In the context of what's good for society, there's no rational argument for total liberty, for it is an argument for chaos. Total liberty within the definition of marriage creates chaos within the institution of marriage, which makes way for men marrying 47 women, their daughters, minors, animals, etc. When there is total liberty to marry "whomever you love", what is the logical argument against a man marrying 47 different women "whom he loves"????

Again, this debate requires you not only to think, but to think philosophically and logically. If you can't do that, you have no business debating the definition of such an important institution like marriage.

Lol gay marriage is like murder now?

Crazy.
 
It appears that we are now down to discussing each others' shortcomings rather than the issue of gay marriage.

See how divisive this one little word has become?

If the government can call prisoners of war "enemy combatants", if it can call something as unpatriotic as the Patriot Act what they did, why not just rename gay marriage? It will still be the same thing, just with a different name, just like my soft drink that is identical to Coca Cola.

What should I call it, I wonder? If I make it in California, I can call it Cali Cola, but then, I'd be stuck with California and its taxes and regulations. This issue needs more thought.
 
No, my insults show my refusal to debate this philosophical topic with a philosophical know-nothing.

translation: you still have nothing and have stated nothing but your unsupported opinion

let us know when that changes
 
Were I to start a soft drink company, I could market a product identical to Coca Cola. It could taste like it, look like it, smell like it, even have the identical chemical composition.

But, I could not call it Coca Cola. I'd have to come up with a new name, as that brand is already taken.

Now, gays want to take over the brand name enjoyed by heterosexuals: Marriage.

Gays should have the same rights as anyone else. They have every right to have civil unions with all of the rights and responsibilities, not to mention the pitfalls, of marriage.

But, why do they have to call it that? That brand is already taken.

They can have a wedding, a honeymoon, call each other husband, wife, spouse, whatever they like.

The only dispute is over one word: Marriage.

And, while the government should not be in the marriage business, the fact is that it is and isn't likely to get out of it any time soon. The government has a history of applying a new name to the same old thing, and pretending it is something new. So, why not do so in the marriage debate?

California's Proposition 8 redefined, or perhaps confirmed the definition would be a better term, of one word: Marriage. It left intact civil unions with the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. It didn't address words like weddings, spouses, husbands, or wives.

So, why not simply compromise: People who oppose gay marriage can have their brand name, but the gays get their civil unions with the same meaning as marriage. They get to have as splashy and showy a wedding as they wish to have. They can have a wedding license. They can call each other whatever they choose.

Seems to me a good compromise, and one that can put an end to a debate that boils down to much ado about one word.
No, same-sex marriage is more like cherry coke. Same brand name, just a bit less common. People against calling same-sex marriage "marriage" would = Pepsi demanding that Coca-cola call cherry coke "cherry juice."
 
Were I to start a soft drink company, I could market a product identical to Coca Cola. It could taste like it, look like it, smell like it, even have the identical chemical composition.

But, I could not call it Coca Cola. I'd have to come up with a new name, as that brand is already taken.

Now, gays want to take over the brand name enjoyed by heterosexuals: Marriage.

First problem is if you knew anything about law it doesn't work that way with brand names. When Apple came into existence did we all have to stop using the word apple? Do Apple Pie companies have to ask apple for the rights to use the word apple? It very simply does not work that way. Also, to get a brand name requires you do a few things first, and no one has actually done that.

Your second stupid is not thinking your idea all the way through. Marriage involves a wedding. Straight marriage often involves a woman who has been programmed from birth tot hink that this is the best day in her life when she gets to be the princess at her own fabulous extravaganza. And who out there makes fabulous fabulous? You got it, faggots. If straight people want to own marriage, fags will most certainly own fabulous. (By fags I am not referring to your standard gay guy, but your over the top flamboyant fairy type of gay, and yes they do exist, and there are good people) You will not be able to satisfy your women without the help of faggots. You really do not want to offend them either because without gays she is going to want to talk to you about wedding things, and you do not want to hear that. The reality is if gays have their own weddings, women, especially the hot ones, are going to want gay weddings.

Gays should have the same rights as anyone else. They have every right to have civil unions with all of the rights and responsibilities, not to mention the pitfalls, of marriage.

Shouldn't gays get to make the name of their marriages? How christian of you to name them for gays, but I am sure gays would call them something better than civil unions.
But, why do they have to call it that? That brand is already taken.

You see, the brand is not taken because you have to do something to make it a brand. In the end it is not just gays who will be on your case if you make the attempt to brand name it. Because we all klnow this is a christian thing and they share like a two year old. You are going to have to fight with atheists, jews, muslims, hindus, and every other damned religion on the planet to get that brand name to discriminate. I am going to tell you something, if it could be done the sceinos would have already owned it because those are some legal knowledge having crazies.
They can have a wedding, a honeymoon, call each other husband, wife, spouse, whatever they like.

Really? Do you really think it would just end there? this is not about the use of a word at all. They do not want gays being married. They are out there talking about god smiting us all for this, and I am sure it is not over a word. This is because they do not want gays forming a family union. You would call it civil unions and people like you would still have a huge problem with it because you simply do not like gays.
The only dispute is over one word: Marriage.

Yeah, you have completely misrepresented the entire argument, and are deliberately trying to mislead others into thinking gays are the unreasonable ones. You should run for congress with that.
And, while the government should not be in the marriage business, the fact is that it is and isn't likely to get out of it any time soon. The government has a history of applying a new name to the same old thing, and pretending it is something new. So, why not do so in the marriage debate?

Actually, the government is in the civil dispute business, which puts it into the business of dissolving partnerships and contracts. In order to get them out of the marriage business you would have to stop people from joining assets and stop giving them benefits. Plus you would have to have some way to divide up the children without a fight. The government will be in that business until people can stop behaving like spoiled brats when they break up. In other words they are never getting out of it, and that is because of straight people.
California's Proposition 8 redefined, or perhaps confirmed the definition would be a better term, of one word: Marriage. It left intact civil unions with the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. It didn't address words like weddings, spouses, husbands, or wives.

So, why not simply compromise: People who oppose gay marriage can have their brand name, but the gays get their civil unions with the same meaning as marriage. They get to have as splashy and showy a wedding as they wish to have. They can have a wedding license. They can call each other whatever they choose.

Seems to me a good compromise, and one that can put an end to a debate that boils down to much ado about one word.

Oh, how presumptuous of you to tell us all you can end the debate. news flash for you, you are a nobody and no one needs to compromise with you. I have a deal for you, you give us a call when you are worth compromising with, and we won't hold our breath waiting until the twelfth of never for that to happen.
 
It appears that we are now down to discussing each others' shortcomings rather than the issue of gay marriage.

See how divisive this one little word has become?

If the government can call prisoners of war "enemy combatants", if it can call something as unpatriotic as the Patriot Act what they did, why not just rename gay marriage? It will still be the same thing, just with a different name, just like my soft drink that is identical to Coca Cola.

What should I call it, I wonder? If I make it in California, I can call it Cali Cola, but then, I'd be stuck with California and its taxes and regulations. This issue needs more thought.
Because the only reason for the distinction is because some people don't like the idea of gays getting married. Too bad. That is not grounds to have two licenses that are exactly the same. How about we call interracial marriage "interracial unions" to please the racists?
 
That's a completely asinine argument.

It's like arguing that black people shouldn't really want to consider themselves "free" because freedom is a white concept and there are hundreds of years of white history and tradition built upon the back of the institution of freedom.

Black people should stop being so uppity and satisfy themselves with the term "non-property". It means the same thing, they have all the same rights as whites, but they really go too far with their selfishness when they demand to be called "free".

The bottom line is that you, and anyone else would would stand in the way of full and fair marriage rights for all adult homosexuals is a bigot.

You're right. Gay married couples would take NOTHING away from my secular or legal rights. That's correct. But that is not, nor has it ever been my argument. I'm not arguing against secular and legal equality of same sex couples. In fact, I say give it to them.

Just because gay "marriage" didn't strip me of any legal or civil right, doesn't mean it doesn't violate other aspects of marriage. It demeans the full meaning of marriage. It diminishes the importance of heterosexual marriage. These things are not good for the wellbeing of society. You have to have studied these philosophies to even begin to understand what I'm saying to you.

I'll ask you the same question. What is your opinion up nexts to Socrates? Plato? John Locke? Do you even know who these men were? So, next time you say, "that's just your opinion or religious belief", stop to remember that no, it's not just "my" opinion, but the opinion of historical theologians, philosophers, and scholars. What is your opinion on the matter compared to theirs?

Only your arrogance exceeds your ignorance.
 
Because the only reason for the distinction is because some people don't like the idea of gays getting married. Too bad. That is not grounds to have two licenses that are exactly the same. How about we call interracial marriage "interracial unions" to please the racists?

As long as they had equal protection under the law, what would be wrong with it? Are you THAT concerned about what it's called? Or are you more concerned about the actual equality as all of you are claiming?
 
What more to marriage is there, other than the civil nature then? You tell me.....

it depends on the couple. some same sex couples are also religious. to these couples, there's a religious aspect to it, as well.

You are excluding the other aspects of marriage. I know this because you support SSM. One couldn't logically call it "marriage" if it violates the aspects of marriage. lol....

again, your opinion.

Not only is it my opinion, but the opinion of the United States Government for over 200 years, countless theologians, countless philosophers. But the truth is, people like you don't care a single bit about the opinions of greater men than yourself. YOUR opinion is the only one that matters. THAT'S modern day society.

your opinion matters, i just disagree with it. as for precedence, i could argue that plenty of opinions of the US government have changed as society has evolved; slavery, the right of racial minorities to be considered full humans, the right of women to vote, etc.

We are the least educated society in the last 1000 years. By throwing off all the wisdom and knowledge of yesteryear, modern society has relegated itself to a bunch of uneducated people with even stronger opinions on matters they haven't studied for more than 1 hour in their lifetime.

i'm somewhat stunned that you are arguing this. we live in one of the most fascinating and technologically developed moments in the entirety of human history. also, those who argued the cases and rendered yesterday's decisions are extremely educated.

What's your opinion on social philosophy compared to Socrates, Plato, or even John Locke? All of which recognized the sacred nature of heterosexual marriage as a fundamental cornerstone of human civilization. What's your opinion next to theirs?

i'm not arguing that marriage is not an important part of civilization. i find it a positive thing that now more homosexuals are allowed to participate in the institution.

Pffff....the only thing that exceeds your ignorance is your arrogance.

and this dig does nothing to bolster your argument.
 
First problem is if you knew anything about law it doesn't work that way with brand names. When Apple came into existence did we all have to stop using the word apple? Do Apple Pie companies have to ask apple for the rights to use the word apple? It very simply does not work that way. Also, to get a brand name requires you do a few things first, and no one has actually done that.

Your second stupid is not thinking your idea all the way through. Marriage involves a wedding. Straight marriage often involves a woman who has been programmed from birth tot hink that this is the best day in her life when she gets to be the princess at her own fabulous extravaganza. And who out there makes fabulous fabulous? You got it, faggots. If straight people want to own marriage, fags will most certainly own fabulous. (By fags I am not referring to your standard gay guy, but your over the top flamboyant fairy type of gay, and yes they do exist, and there are good people) You will not be able to satisfy your women without the help of faggots. You really do not want to offend them either because without gays she is going to want to talk to you about wedding things, and you do not want to hear that. The reality is if gays have their own weddings, women, especially the hot ones, are going to want gay weddings.



Shouldn't gays get to make the name of their marriages? How christian of you to name them for gays, but I am sure gays would call them something better than civil unions.


You see, the brand is not taken because you have to do something to make it a brand. In the end it is not just gays who will be on your case if you make the attempt to brand name it. Because we all klnow this is a christian thing and they share like a two year old. You are going to have to fight with atheists, jews, muslims, hindus, and every other damned religion on the planet to get that brand name to discriminate. I am going to tell you something, if it could be done the sceinos would have already owned it because those are some legal knowledge having crazies.


Really? Do you really think it would just end there? this is not about the use of a word at all. They do not want gays being married. They are out there talking about god smiting us all for this, and I am sure it is not over a word. This is because they do not want gays forming a family union. You would call it civil unions and people like you would still have a huge problem with it because you simply do not like gays.


Yeah, you have completely misrepresented the entire argument, and are deliberately trying to mislead others into thinking gays are the unreasonable ones. You should run for congress with that.


Actually, the government is in the civil dispute business, which puts it into the business of dissolving partnerships and contracts. In order to get them out of the marriage business you would have to stop people from joining assets and stop giving them benefits. Plus you would have to have some way to divide up the children without a fight. The government will be in that business until people can stop behaving like spoiled brats when they break up. In other words they are never getting out of it, and that is because of straight people.


Oh, how presumptuous of you to tell us all you can end the debate. news flash for you, you are a nobody and no one needs to compromise with you. I have a deal for you, you give us a call when you are worth compromising with, and we won't hold our breath waiting until the twelfth of never for that to happen.

How about people like you tell the truth for once in your life on this subject. You're not after legal equality, you're after morality and what is defined as immoral and moral within society. Specifically, you're after Christian morality. You wan't to see it diminished, probably even abolished.

Just be who you are.
 
Like which ones? The fact that homosexuals cannot procreate? The fact that human being's sexual organs were designed for men to have sex with women by nature? The fact that historically, every religion in the world denounced homosexuality as immoral or wrong? The fact that heterosexual marriage is widely understood by philosophers to be a cornerstone of civilization?

These types of facts? Or am I speaking over your head now?
Homosexuals are not sterile, we can and do procreate using the same methods that some heterosexuals use.
The human mouth was made for the intake of nourishment, that doesn't stop people from using it for other reasons. Not to mention that sex is way more fun when it involves more penile to vaginal penetration.
Religions do not write the laws of this country, and even if they did, who says it would be YOUR particular brand of religion.
 
See? Already three pages of debate on both sides of the issue, and all over a single word. It would be so simple to just rename homosexual unions and be done with it. As it is, the anti gay marriage people will never give up their fight.

It would make an interesting case should a church group or someone with similar interests should start a copyright infringement sort of lawsuit against gay marriage, wouldn't it? I wonder what the result of that would be?

California's Proposition 8 centered around that one word, marriage, which is why the constitutional challenge to it was so absurd. The lawsuit, as I recall it, had to do with substantial changes to the (state) constitution, which this was not. Now, the will of the people has been overturned by the court, and that's a fact whether or not you think the will of the people was good, moral, right, or whether you think it was wrong and bigoted.

The case would be laughed out of court since no religion or person owns the word marriage.
 
As long as they had equal protection under the law, what would be wrong with it? Are you THAT concerned about what it's called? Or are you more concerned about the actual equality as all of you are claiming?
I said what's wrong with it. Having two licenses that offer the exact same thing doesn't make any sense. Its stupid and offensive. There is no rational basis for doing so. It suggests that gays are secondary class citizens, and seeks to make distinctions when for all legal purposes no distinction exists. That is not the equality under the law. That is separate and unequal. How about this: get rid of the term marriage and call everything a civil union. Let people call it what they want outside of the law in their churches and communities.
 
How about people like you tell the truth for once in your life on this subject. You're not after legal equality, you're after morality and what is defined as immoral and moral within society. Specifically, you're after Christian morality. You wan't to see it diminished, probably even abolished.

Just be who you are.

you should be a fiction writer with all the stuff you make up.
 
it depends on the couple. some same sex couples are also religious. to these couples, there's a religious aspect to it, as well.



again, your opinion.



your opinion matters, i just disagree with it. as for precedence, i could argue that plenty of opinions of the US government have changed as society has evolved; slavery, the right of racial minorities to be considered full humans, the right of women to vote, etc.



i'm somewhat stunned that you are arguing this. we live in one of the most fascinating and technologically developed moments in the entirety of human history. also, those who argued the cases and rendered yesterday's decisions are extremely educated.



i'm not arguing that marriage is not an important part of civilization. i find it a positive thing that now more homosexuals are allowed to participate in the institution.



and this dig does nothing to bolster your argument.

It wasn't a dig, it was a statement of observational truth. You said that opinions are important, yet you conclude your opinion on the matter is more important than 1500 years of historical knowledge and philosophy. AKA.....arrogance. I'm just the vessel in which historical philosophy is coming to this debate today. Do you realize that? Do you realize you really aren't debating me, but over 1000 years of philosophical understanding and logic? You're debating Socrates, Plato, John Locke. If you know that, yet you still disagree, proves just how arrogant you are.

You've provided no philosophical rebuttal. You've offered up no explanation as to "why" they're wrong and you're right. I have. In other words, if this were a real legitimate debate, it would have already been decided. When one side presents sound arguments, and the other side sticks with, "nuh uh, that's just your opinion", that side losed rather quickly.

In court, when the prosecution stands before the court, offers up mountains of evidence for the jury to examine, and the defense stands up and says, "nuh uh, that's just the prosecution's opinion", guess what happens?

Problem is, you don't view the studied opinions of famous philosophers to be any more important than your own. In fact, you think less of them. If this doesn't define arrogance, what does?

You also don't see that changing the dynamics of an institution changes that institution. Changing the definition of "pi" by one number would dramatically change algebraic function would it not? Changing water's boiling point by one degree is the difference in really hot water, and boiling water. Changing the dynamics of marriage changes the institution of marriage.
 
You're right. Gay married couples would take NOTHING away from my secular or legal rights. That's correct. But that is not, nor has it ever been my argument. I'm not arguing against secular and legal equality of same sex couples. In fact, I say give it to them.

Just because gay "marriage" didn't strip me of any legal or civil right, doesn't mean it doesn't violate other aspects of marriage. It demeans the full meaning of marriage. It diminishes the importance of heterosexual marriage. These things are not good for the wellbeing of society. You have to have studied these philosophies to even begin to understand what I'm saying to you.

I'll ask you the same question. What is your opinion up nexts to Socrates? Plato? John Locke? Do you even know who these men were? So, next time you say, "that's just your opinion or religious belief", stop to remember that no, it's not just "my" opinion, but the opinion of historical theologians, philosophers, and scholars. What is your opinion on the matter compared to theirs?

Only your arrogance exceeds your ignorance.

How does my marriage diminish your marriage?
 
you should be a fiction writer with all the stuff you make up.

You should probably be a McDonald's cook with your education.
 
In one aspect yes.....both have been deemed immoral by God himself. Crazy huh?

Not everyone follows your religion or your idea of what god is. Sorry, but we don't make laws based on your particular brand of religion.
 
How does my marriage diminish your marriage?

In lots of ways but one. It doesn't change the secular and legal aspects of my marriage. Unless you've studied philosophy, and have at least an elementary understanding of social philosophy, I'd rather not spend the next 6 weeks trying to explain it to you.
 
Not everyone follows your religion or your idea of what god is. Sorry, but we don't make laws based on your particular brand of religion.

Yes we do.

Thou shalt not kill. God's commandment. Against OUR SECULAR LAWS to murder someone.

Though shalt not steal. God's commandment. Against OUR SECULAR LAWS to steal property.

Just a couple quick examples of how even our secular law is rooted in Judeo Christian morality.
 
In lots of ways but one. It doesn't change the secular and legal aspects of my marriage. Unless you've studied philosophy, and have at least an elementary understanding of social philosophy, I'd rather not spend the next 6 weeks trying to explain it to you.

What ways would my marriage diminish YOUR marriage?
 
Yes we do.

Thou shalt not kill. God's commandment. Against OUR SECULAR LAWS to murder someone.

Though shalt not steal. God's commandment. Against OUR SECULAR LAWS to steal property.

Just a couple quick examples of how even our secular law is rooted in Judeo Christian morality.
And they were also the laws of civilizations before christianity came into being, and in civilizations that weren't christian.
It is called living in a civilized society.
 
Back
Top Bottom