• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Question for people opposed to gay marriage

vash1012

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Lets say the hypothetical situation occurred where the federal government had never passed DOMA and instead had decide to call any marriage contract that 2 consenting adults entered into a domestic partnership. Domestic partnerships would have conveyed all the federal benefits for marriage that we have now without distinguishing between the sexual or religious orientation of the 2 parties. The term marriage would then only be applied to the ceremonial aspect of the union between 2 adults and it would be left to the priests, notaries, etc. to decide if they were comfortable with marrying people who lead lifestyles they disagree with. In this case, gay marriage wouldn't be legal or illegal. Marriage law at the federal level would just be recognized as essentially what it is, which is contract law.

I think much of the problem with gay marriage comes from the use of the term marriage which many people take to have a religious connotation. Calling only gay marriages civil unions is considered discriminatory. Would you, who are opposed to legally sanctioned gay marriage, have an issue with federal benefits being attached to the partnership contract for all couples and having the federal government not say one way or another if gay "marriage" was legal? This is just out of curiosity and not meant to be accusatory or questioning anyones beliefs.
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
"Many people take to have a religious connotation." Too bad for them. They don't get to enforce that religious connection on the rest of us. Not on members of religions that don't care about marriage. Not on the non-religious. And not on members of religions that support same sex marriage.
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Lets say the hypothetical situation occurred where the federal government had never passed DOMA and instead had decide to call any marriage contract that 2 consenting adults entered into a domestic partnership. Domestic partnerships would have conveyed all the federal benefits for marriage that we have now without distinguishing between the sexual or religious orientation of the 2 parties. The term marriage would then only be applied to the ceremonial aspect of the union between 2 adults and it would be left to the priests, notaries, etc. to decide if they were comfortable with marrying people who lead lifestyles they disagree with. In this case, gay marriage wouldn't be legal or illegal. Marriage law at the federal level would just be recognized as essentially what it is, which is contract law.

I think much of the problem with gay marriage comes from the use of the term marriage which many people take to have a religious connotation. Calling only gay marriages civil unions is considered discriminatory. Would you, who are opposed to legally sanctioned gay marriage, have an issue with federal benefits being attached to the partnership contract for all couples and having the federal government not say one way or another if gay "marriage" was legal? This is just out of curiosity and not meant to be accusatory or questioning anyones beliefs.
In such a hypothetical society, I would have had no problem with it.
 

Samhain

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
4,939
Reaction score
2,131
Location
Northern Ohio
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
"Many people take to have a religious connotation." Too bad for them. They don't get to enforce that religious connection on the rest of us. Not on members of religions that don't care about marriage. Not on the non-religious. And not on members of religions that support same sex marriage.
Should be interesting to see if the feds revoke the ability for churches/synagogues/temples/etc to perform weddings, since we both know they have, and continue to, reject attempts to have marriages within their domain that don't conform to their dogma.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
"Many people take to have a religious connotation." Too bad for them. They don't get to enforce that religious connection on the rest of us. Not on members of religions that don't care about marriage. Not on the non-religious. And not on members of religions that support same sex marriage.
the SCOTUS just said 29 states can, so the rubber has hit the road on that.........
 

AGENT J

"I'm kind of a big deal"
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
59,336
Reaction score
16,876
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"Many people take to have a religious connotation." Too bad for them. They don't get to enforce that religious connection on the rest of us. Not on members of religions that don't care about marriage. Not on the non-religious. And not on members of religions that support same sex marriage.
:yt

basic common sense

i dont care about anybodys extra sensitive, irrational, unrealistic, illogical, hurt feelings and false perceptions when it comes to equality and ridding ourselves of discriminaiton
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
75,619
Reaction score
55,359
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Should be interesting to see if the feds revoke the ability for churches/synagogues/temples/etc to perform weddings, since we both know they have, and continue to, reject attempts to have marriages within their domain that don't conform to their dogma.
Separation of church and state. Also, as government marriage licenses and church marriage ceremonies are different things, it would make about as much sense for the government to forces churches to perform marriages as it would for them to force me to perform them, and in my own home noless. Utterly asinine.

Out of curiosity, within the states that have legalized gay marriage, have any churches been forced by the government to perform marriages they don't agree with?
 

AGENT J

"I'm kind of a big deal"
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
59,336
Reaction score
16,876
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Should be interesting to see if the feds revoke the ability for churches/synagogues/temples/etc to perform weddings, since we both know they have, and continue to, reject attempts to have marriages within their domain that don't conform to their dogma.
churches are free to discriminate as they wish this is a protected right and its not in any reality based danger, thinking otherwise is nonsensical
 

FilmFestGuy

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
2,120
Reaction score
1,244
Location
Nashville, TN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Should be interesting to see if the feds revoke the ability for churches/synagogues/temples/etc to perform weddings, since we both know they have, and continue to, reject attempts to have marriages within their domain that don't conform to their dogma.
They won't.

I know in the world of the paranoid, that's what they think. But that won't happen.

Name one court or government that's made a Jewish temple marry two Christians or two Muslims?
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
75,619
Reaction score
55,359
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think much of the problem with gay marriage comes from the use of the term marriage which many people take to have a religious connotation.
Tell you what: you get "marriage," and the rest of us get all the verbs and definite articles.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,643
Reaction score
37,842
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Lets say the hypothetical situation occurred where the federal government had never passed DOMA and instead had decide to call any marriage contract that 2 consenting adults entered into a domestic partnership. Domestic partnerships would have conveyed all the federal benefits for marriage that we have now without distinguishing between the sexual or religious orientation of the 2 parties. The term marriage would then only be applied to the ceremonial aspect of the union between 2 adults and it would be left to the priests, notaries, etc. to decide if they were comfortable with marrying people who lead lifestyles they disagree with. In this case, gay marriage wouldn't be legal or illegal. Marriage law at the federal level would just be recognized as essentially what it is, which is contract law.

I think much of the problem with gay marriage comes from the use of the term marriage which many people take to have a religious connotation. Calling only gay marriages civil unions is considered discriminatory. Would you, who are opposed to legally sanctioned gay marriage, have an issue with federal benefits being attached to the partnership contract for all couples and having the federal government not say one way or another if gay "marriage" was legal? This is just out of curiosity and not meant to be accusatory or questioning anyones beliefs.
The federal gov't could call it treefrog, but that still does not mean that any state would have to start issuing treefrog contracts.
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,577
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Should be interesting to see if the feds revoke the ability for churches/synagogues/temples/etc to perform weddings, since we both know they have, and continue to, reject attempts to have marriages within their domain that don't conform to their dogma.
hey, if it makes you feel any better, they will always be able to perform marriages in god's eyes just like gays were always able to be married in the name of god, just not the state. If that is your fear then you can take solace in the same crap you told gays to.
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Should be interesting to see if the feds revoke the ability for churches/synagogues/temples/etc to perform weddings, since we both know they have, and continue to, reject attempts to have marriages within their domain that don't conform to their dogma.
Marriage ceremonies aren't where the legal status is established. You can have any kind of ceremony you want. But a state can't refuse a marriage license for unconstitutional reasons.

the SCOTUS just said 29 states can, so the rubber has hit the road on that.........
No, it declined to say that they couldn't. There is a big difference.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,648
Reaction score
33,247
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Should be interesting to see if the feds revoke the ability for churches/synagogues/temples/etc to perform weddings, since we both know they have, and continue to, reject attempts to have marriages within their domain that don't conform to their dogma.
You've been listening to way too much propaganda from NOM.
 
Top Bottom