• 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!

Same Sex Marriage

Treating things differently that are different is perfectly is perfectly acceptable. Anyway, I suppose you don't have to care about anyone but yourself, but it's not going to mend any bridges either.

The people who denied me my rights and equal protection under the law had every chance to "treat things differently that are different" but instead they constitutionally banned civil unions and any other legal recognition of same-sex relationships in my state. Did they care about me? Did you? How interested have they been in mending bridges in North Carolina where they stripped all local antidiscrimination protections for LGBT? How many bridges are they mending by trying to pass FADA laws to legalize discrimination against my husband and I because we are married?
 
It was an institution between a man and woman, not now it can between two people of the same sex as well That is redefining marriage.



I did, so...

We redefine things all the time. "Career" doesn't mean what it did twenty years ago. It used to mean one job for one comapny. Now its one job you will do for any number of employers during your working life.
 
The people who denied me my rights and equal protection under the law had every chance to "treat things differently that are different" but instead they constitutionally banned civil unions and any other legal recognition of same-sex relationships in my state. Did they care about me? Did you? How interested have they been in mending bridges in North Carolina where they stripped all local antidiscrimination protections for LGBT? How many bridges are they mending by trying to pass FADA laws to legalize discrimination against my husband and I because we are married?

What the state cares to recognize is their decision and there is nothing in these developments that changes that.

Why do you think you are owed the property and labor of other human beings? I'm pretty sure I'm seeing your lean right, but your argument doesn't appear to be speaking towards it.
 
Nope. It was redefined socially and legally.

It was not redefined socially. People's personal definition of marriage did not change with SCOTUS' ruling.


No, it's really not. If you're saying the law is discriminatory it's a perfectly fine argument to throw a hole in it.

That's one of the dumbest argument ever. That doesn't even throw a hole in it at all.

The fact is is that two people of the SAME gender are bring denied the ability to get married to each other, which is discriminatory against them.
 
It was not redefined socially. People's personal definition of marriage did not change with SCOTUS' ruling.

Law has a tendency to change such matters.

That's one of the dumbest argument ever. That doesn't even throw a hole in it at all.

The fact is is that two people of the SAME gender are bring denied the ability to get married to each other, which is discriminatory against them.

The law never spoke towards that union. :shrug: All you're doing here is adding in a union that has nothing to do with what the law was.
 
Don't you actually have to pay to get the license? Wouldn't the charge actually cover the cost in time?



How is that working for abortion and every welfare program on the books? Guess what? Nothing is ever over. People that think things are over just want to keep with the status quo.

The cost of a marriage license goes to the state, not the federal government and covers only paperwork and basic clerk time, not the laws associated with the union.

And those things you mentioned are not accurately comparable to same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is most similarly compared to interracial marriage, and that's doing just fine.
 
Treating things differently that are different is perfectly is perfectly acceptable. Anyway, I suppose you don't have to care about anyone but yourself, but it's not going to mend any bridges either.

Legally same sex marriage is not different from opposite sex marriage.
 
I believe that gay marriage is part of living in a free nation. I also believe that religious owned institutions should have the right not to violate their conscience. A christian baker should be allowed to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding but that gay couple should also be allowed to marry.

congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion nor limit the free exercise thereof

-1st ammendment of the US constitution regarding freedom of religion
 
What the state cares to recognize is their decision and there is nothing in these developments that changes that.

Why do you think you are owed the property and labor of other human beings? I'm pretty sure I'm seeing your lean right, but your argument doesn't appear to be speaking towards it.

Meh, show me an olive branch instead of demanding one. Most so called "religous liberty" bills are not about free exercise of religion but about freedom to discriminate. I am perfectly fine with a Christian baker refusing services for a same-sex wedding, but I do not think state agencies and those who work for them should be free to discriminate, or in the case of HB2, asked to discriminate.
 
I believe that gay marriage is part of living in a free nation. I also believe that religious owned institutions should have the right not to violate their conscience. A christian baker should be allowed to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding but that gay couple should also be allowed to marry.

congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion nor limit the free exercise thereof

-1st ammendment of the US constitution regarding freedom of religion

The 1st Anendment protects people from being persecuted specifically for their religion, not protect them from having to obey secular laws. If someone believes women should not be allowed to make purchases because of their religious beliefs they are not allowed to deny services to women just because they hold that belief. A Jewish grocer cannot refuse to sell kosher pickles to nonJews, but agree to sell them to Jews.
 
What the state calls the arrangement doesn't make bit of difference to anything outside of it. Really, both sides are being stubborn over the issue and neither side should care that much. Still, I don't think people are asking for too much by suggesting the gay community could at least accept a different word to legally call their union.

If the legal word changes then it changes for all. All legal unions, same or opposite sex are then called civil unions, or whatever.
 
And yet words throughout our American nomenclature are avoided by polite company.

Most notably, the "N" word is avoided. There are various gender and/sexual preference words that are avoided as well.

We, as a society, have demonstrated our willingness to amend meanings and avoid words to favor population segments.

Why is this word singled out by you and others to have the meaning expanded while that expansion is offensive to some? What is the difference between the use of the "N" word and the expansion of the meaning of this word? Why must this word be changed to please while the "N" word must be avoided?

Is the offense of one group desired while the offense of another is to be avoided? What is the dual standard you are hoping to define? Why is offense of one group desired while offense of another group is to be avoided?
The meaning was never expanded. The word marriage is a versatile one referring to more than just people. "His creation was a marriage between art and science." Only within a given context was it limited and others wanted to expand the context, specifically, religious, to cover other areas, specifically civil law.
 
Nope. It was redefined socially and legally.

No, it's really not. If you're saying the law is discriminatory it's a perfectly fine argument to throw a hole in it.

Socially, and religiously, same sex marriages were happening all the time.
 
Meh, show me an olive branch instead of demanding one. Most so called "religous liberty" bills are not about free exercise of religion but about freedom to discriminate. I am perfectly fine with a Christian baker refusing services for a same-sex wedding, but I do not think state agencies and those who work for them should be free to discriminate, or in the case of HB2, asked to discriminate.

I think you will find that most, although not all obviously, who advocate that private businesses be allowed to discriminate on any basis, do not believe government should.
 
The meaning was never expanded. The word marriage is a versatile one referring to more than just people. "His creation was a marriage between art and science." Only within a given context was it limited and others wanted to expand the context, specifically, religious, to cover other areas, specifically civil law.

I see...

So you care nothing about offending anyone due to the choice of the words.

Good luck using that N word liberally in your normal conversation. This will also show that group that it's only a word.

Or is it just that you don't care about offending those who will do you no harm as a result of the offense?

Offending Christians is really a no-lose proposition. You curry favor with the other high minded elitists and don't need to fear any retribution.

Maybe you should also start wearing a T-shirt with a cartoon of Mohammed on it. This is also a religious group that has staked out a position that is not logical in our society.

It is the context in which to use that it can be offensive. Why are you demanding to be allowed to offend this group? Isn't CONTEXT ALWAYS the defining factor in any offense?

If you want to offend ALL groups to demonstrate both your superiority and their inferiority, that is fine. If you cower from offending some small minded due to the retribution that will rise from that offense, then you are employing a double standard.

If you care nothing about offending anybody, then your position is firm. If you selectively offend due to the group being offended, then you have joined a long and proud procession of other hate mongers.

Why do you feel the need to offend when this offense is so easily avoided?
 
I see...

So you care nothing about offending anyone due to the choice of the words.

Good luck using that N word liberally in your normal conversation. This will also show that group that it's only a word.

Or is it just that you don't care about offending those who will do you no harm as a result of the offense?

Offending Christians is really a no-lose proposition. You curry favor with the other high minded elitists and don't need to fear any retribution.

Maybe you should also start wearing a T-shirt with a cartoon of Mohammed on it. This is also a religious group that has staked out a position that is not logical in our society.

It is the context in which to use that it can be offensive. Why are you demanding to be allowed to offend this group? Isn't CONTEXT ALWAYS the defining factor in any offense?

If you want to offend ALL groups to demonstrate both your superiority and their inferiority, that is fine. If you cower from offending some small minded due to the retribution that will rise from that offense, then you are employing a double standard.

If you care nothing about offending anybody, then your position is firm. If you selectively offend due to the group being offended, then you have joined a long and proud procession of other hate mongers.

Why do you feel the need to offend when this offense is so easily avoided?

You don't own the word marriage. It is not being used in describing same sex couples in a union to specifically offend you or any Christian, unlike using the N word or any other type offensive word. When directed towards a specific person, or group, that is reason to be offended. When someone simply uses a word to describe themselves that you find offensive, that is your issue.

You cannot do most things without offending someone, somewhere. It is reasonable to avoid specifically offending people by calling them or a specific group a particular word, going out of your way just to offend them, and that is the reason for using the word. This is not the case when it comes to using the word "marriage" for marriages that some religions simply don't approve of. That is the issue of the religion, or those religious people, not the person who is simply using language that they know.
 
Why does it seem that people, especially the Church at large, want to make it as though Marriage is all about religion? Marriage in this country is a civil institution that can be given religious connotations, but is overall a legal institution. I personally believe that marriage is a civil right and shouldn't be denied anyone, and when granted it shouldn't be ridiculed and judged by people who are SUPPOSED to love everyone. So I am asking what are you guys' opinions regarding same sex marriage and the Constitutionality of denying/ or granting marriages between people of the same sex.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

Marriage between one man and one woman is a fundamental right in this country, and it always has been. No other form of marriage raises a constitutional question, and therefore states should be free, as they always had been before Anthony Kennedy's edict last June, to exclude any or all other types of partners in its marriage laws. Children of five are not allowed to marry; neither are persons more closely related by blood than some specified degree; neither are persons who are already married; and neither are multiple partners. If marriage "shouldn't be denied anyone," states are still cruelly denying the rights of all those types of partners, just as they've been doing from the beginning.
 
I see...

So you care nothing about offending anyone due to the choice of the words.

Who I care whether I offend or not varies with who they are. Some people I am very careful with, and others I could. To give an airborne fornication about.

Good luck using that N word liberally in your normal conversation. This will also show that group that it's only a word.

Indeed nigger is only a word, and its use is quite common today. Its insult/offensiveness value is subjective. You honestly don't know whether I am black or white, or something else altogether. Even then, there are plenty of whites who call their friends "my nigger" because that is how that particular of friends rolls. It is usually a cultural thing. Of course if you want to make the argument the the meaning of "marriage" cannot change, then neither can the meaning of "nigger" which was initially "ignorant person" and had nothing to do with race. If you are going to accept that nigger has changed definitions then you have to accept that marriage can also.


Or is it just that you don't care about offending those who will do you no harm as a result of the offense?

See above.

Offending Christians is really a no-lose proposition. You curry favor with the other high minded elitists and don't need to fear any retribution.

I have no problem offending other Christians, being one myself. After all if they wish to offend others, then they should expect to be treated as they have treated others

Maybe you should also start wearing a T-shirt with a cartoon of Mohammed on it. This is also a religious group that has staked out a position that is not logical in our society.

If I felt the need to do so, then I would. I would also likely not do so around any of my Islamic friends, as I find them worthy of not insulting. If I run into any Islamic arseholes, I might well do that.

It is the context in which to use that it can be offensive. Why are you demanding to be allowed to offend this group? Isn't CONTEXT ALWAYS the defining factor in any offense?

Context and subjectivity. They go hand in hand here. Let's go back to "nigger", for example. Now most people would say that a white guy saying "nigger" to a black guy would be offensive, while a black guy saying it to a black guy would not. Context. But if the black guy does not think the white guy is trying to be offensive, such as using it as his other black friends do, then he does not find it offensive even if his other black friends do find it offensive. Subjectivity.

You ask why are we demanding to offend this group, by which I can only assume Christianity. Feel free to correct me if wrong. However regardless of the group, why does that group demand to offend me and mine by limiting the definition, legally, of marriage? It is a two way street.

If you want to offend ALL groups to demonstrate both your superiority and their inferiority, that is fine. If you cower from offending some small minded due to the retribution that will rise from that offense, then you are employing a double standard.

I don't typically offend any particular group, save maybe as a sub group of another group. WBC as opposed to Christianity as a whole for example. I save my intentional offenses, and/or lack of concern for those twat waffles who have earned such. If they want to cluster together in their own little sub group, that is their problem.

If you care nothing about offending anybody, then your position is firm. If you selectively offend due to the group being offended, then you have joined a long and proud procession of other hate mongers.

Why do you feel the need to offend when this offense is so easily avoided?

Once again it is a two way street. Why does anyone feel the need to offend me and mine by limiting our choices on whom we legally marry, when it is so easily avoided? Note that none of us are calling for religious institutions to be forced to change their stance, although many have. We are, as a majority, not offended that other feel that we are not married before their God. After all they aren't married before the Goddess. In a land of religious freedom, religious definitions of a given word are moot in the context of law.
 
Marriage between one man and one woman is a fundamental right in this country, and it always has been. No other form of marriage raises a constitutional question, and therefore states should be free, as they always had been before Anthony Kennedy's edict last June, to exclude any or all other types of partners in its marriage laws. Children of five are not allowed to marry; neither are persons more closely related by blood than some specified degree; neither are persons who are already married; and neither are multiple partners. If marriage "shouldn't be denied anyone," states are still cruelly denying the rights of all those types of partners, just as they've been doing from the beginning.

The only ones I don't agree are being denied a right are the children. The legal separation point between a minor and an adult is the only age distinction that should be considered by law. Legal marriage is something that needs to be entered into with a comprehension of what one is doing, the same as any contract. It is the same principle as why one cannot legally enter into a contract while drugged or intoxicated or otherwise coerced. Since legal marriage has nothing to do with either sex or children, as evidenced by a lack of requirement for these things, there is no real reason to deny the institution to any two consenting adults. As far as multiple partners goes, while true we are being denied a right to have our other partners (I currently am in a quad) recognized, there is a lot more that needs to be changed infrastructure wise before that can be reinstated. To allow any two consenting adult to marry requires no changes to anything save that which limits which two consenting adults.

There is no reason why any law should ever mention race, gender, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age (save the distinction between minor and adult), religion, or ethnicity for any reason. The only other dinstiction that should be allowed in law is the distinction between citizen and non-citizen.
 
The only ones I don't agree are being denied a right are the children. The legal separation point between a minor and an adult is the only age distinction that should be considered by law. Legal marriage is something that needs to be entered into with a comprehension of what one is doing, the same as any contract. It is the same principle as why one cannot legally enter into a contract while drugged or intoxicated or otherwise coerced. Since legal marriage has nothing to do with either sex or children, as evidenced by a lack of requirement for these things, there is no real reason to deny the institution to any two consenting adults. As far as multiple partners goes, while true we are being denied a right to have our other partners (I currently am in a quad) recognized, there is a lot more that needs to be changed infrastructure wise before that can be reinstated. To allow any two consenting adult to marry requires no changes to anything save that which limits which two consenting adults.

There is no reason why any law should ever mention race, gender, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age (save the distinction between minor and adult), religion, or ethnicity for any reason. The only other dinstiction that should be allowed in law is the distinction between citizen and non-citizen.

If that's what you think, then you're free to support changes in your own state's laws that reflect your view. But you don't explain what part of the Constitution states are violating by continuing to exclude the types of partners I mentioned. The "It's All Good Clause?" The "No One Should Feel Invalidated Clause," maybe?
 
You don't own the word marriage. It is not being used in describing same sex couples in a union to specifically offend you or any Christian, unlike using the N word or any other type offensive word. When directed towards a specific person, or group, that is reason to be offended. When someone simply uses a word to describe themselves that you find offensive, that is your issue.

You cannot do most things without offending someone, somewhere. It is reasonable to avoid specifically offending people by calling them or a specific group a particular word, going out of your way just to offend them, and that is the reason for using the word. This is not the case when it comes to using the word "marriage" for marriages that some religions simply don't approve of. That is the issue of the religion, or those religious people, not the person who is simply using language that they know.

You are only justifying offending this group.

Why do you insist that offending this group is not offending this group?
 
You are only justifying offending this group.

Why do you insist that offending this group is not offending this group?

I don't care if it offends this group, just like I don't care if Frozen offends certain people or the Muppets offends certain people, or if violence on TV offends certain people or Justin Timberlake pulling off someone's shirt to show her breast offended certain people. Those things are problems with those people. If they are offended, that is their problem, not the rest of society's.

Should I change myself if my not wearing makeup or wearing pants offends people? Why or why not?
 
Who I care whether I offend or not varies with who they are. Some people I am very careful with, and others I could. To give an airborne fornication about.



Indeed nigger is only a word, and its use is quite common today. Its insult/offensiveness value is subjective. You honestly don't know whether I am black or white, or something else altogether. Even then, there are plenty of whites who call their friends "my nigger" because that is how that particular of friends rolls. It is usually a cultural thing. Of course if you want to make the argument the the meaning of "marriage" cannot change, then neither can the meaning of "nigger" which was initially "ignorant person" and had nothing to do with race. If you are going to accept that nigger has changed definitions then you have to accept that marriage can also.




See above.



I have no problem offending other Christians, being one myself. After all if they wish to offend others, then they should expect to be treated as they have treated others



If I felt the need to do so, then I would. I would also likely not do so around any of my Islamic friends, as I find them worthy of not insulting. If I run into any Islamic arseholes, I might well do that.



Context and subjectivity. They go hand in hand here. Let's go back to "nigger", for example. Now most people would say that a white guy saying "nigger" to a black guy would be offensive, while a black guy saying it to a black guy would not. Context. But if the black guy does not think the white guy is trying to be offensive, such as using it as his other black friends do, then he does not find it offensive even if his other black friends do find it offensive. Subjectivity.

You ask why are we demanding to offend this group, by which I can only assume Christianity. Feel free to correct me if wrong. However regardless of the group, why does that group demand to offend me and mine by limiting the definition, legally, of marriage? It is a two way street.



I don't typically offend any particular group, save maybe as a sub group of another group. WBC as opposed to Christianity as a whole for example. I save my intentional offenses, and/or lack of concern for those twat waffles who have earned such. If they want to cluster together in their own little sub group, that is their problem.



Once again it is a two way street. Why does anyone feel the need to offend me and mine by limiting our choices on whom we legally marry, when it is so easily avoided? Note that none of us are calling for religious institutions to be forced to change their stance, although many have. We are, as a majority, not offended that other feel that we are not married before their God. After all they aren't married before the Goddess. In a land of religious freedom, religious definitions of a given word are moot in the context of law.

I'm not really surprised that you don't know the entymology of the word, but this might enlighten you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger

<snip>
Etymology and history
Main article: Negro
The variants neger and negar, derive from the Spanish and Portuguese word negro (black), and from the now-pejorative French nègre (negro). Etymologically, negro, noir, nègre, and nigger ultimately derive from nigrum, the stem of the Latin niger (black) (pronounced [ˈniɡer] which, in every other grammatical case, grammatical gender, and grammatical number besides nominative masculine singular, is nigr-, the r is trilled).
<snip>

The root has nothing to do with intelligence. It rises from words describing color and has evolved from various languages.

You seem to be saying that the offended have no right to be offended. That's interesting. I don't happen to agree. Unintentional offenses are the most usual sort. Intentional offense can be avoided if one has the slightest amount of self control.

If it does not hurt you to understand that offense is taken, then why persist in offending? It seems to me that this is simply common courtesy.

By the way, who you are, what you are, where you come from or any other defining feature of your self definition makes no difference in whether or not you have offended someone. If they are offended, they are offended.
 
I'm not really surprised that you don't know the entymology of the word, but this might enlighten you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger

<snip>
Etymology and history
Main article: Negro
The variants neger and negar, derive from the Spanish and Portuguese word negro (black), and from the now-pejorative French nègre (negro). Etymologically, negro, noir, nègre, and nigger ultimately derive from nigrum, the stem of the Latin niger (black) (pronounced [ˈniɡer] which, in every other grammatical case, grammatical gender, and grammatical number besides nominative masculine singular, is nigr-, the r is trilled).
<snip>

The root has nothing to do with intelligence. It rises from words describing color and has evolved from various languages.

You seem to be saying that the offended have no right to be offended. That's interesting. I don't happen to agree. Unintentional offenses are the most usual sort. Intentional offense can be avoided if one has the slightest amount of self control.

If it does not hurt you to understand that offense is taken, then why persist in offending? It seems to me that this is simply common courtesy.

By the way, who you are, what you are, where you come from or any other defining feature of your self definition makes no difference in whether or not you have offended someone. If they are offended, they are offended.

Because we went out of our way to make sure to never offend anyone, it would be an impossible task. Some people are offended by others just being who they are.
 
I don't care if it offends this group, just like I don't care if Frozen offends certain people or the Muppets offends certain people, or if violence on TV offends certain people or Justin Timberlake pulling off someone's shirt to show her breast offended certain people. Those things are problems with those people. If they are offended, that is their problem, not the rest of society's.

Should I change myself if my not wearing makeup or wearing pants offends people? Why or why not?

If your action offends someone and you know with certainty that it does and ceasing the activity diminishes you in no way whatever, then why would you insist on the continuance of that action?

This is a mystery to me.

The wardrobe malfunction was in very bad taste, but it is what it is.

I'm not familiar with the offenses you offer by the examples of Frozen or the Muppets.

We live in a society, like it or not. What you do in private makes no difference to me. Wearing make up? Is that going to offend anyone? Not sure what point you are trying to make here.

Wearing pants normally does not offend anyone. Again, what point is being made?

I happen to find it baseless to deny the rights of any couple based on the genders of the members. I feel that it's unjust. However, offending people who treasure a particular word is not essential to righting that wrong.

Again, why do you feel that offending this group is essential?
 
Back
Top Bottom