Gay marriage opponents' strategy uncertain in 2015
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:49:46 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Gay marriage opponents' strategy uncertain in 2015
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10
Author Topic: Gay marriage opponents' strategy uncertain in 2015  (Read 19257 times)
CountryClassSF
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,530


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: April 25, 2015, 12:01:12 PM »

Do gays even have a right to form a domestic partnership/civil union anymore? Or are we forced to get a SSM if we oppose it? I can't find any information on it, at least in California
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: April 25, 2015, 12:19:50 PM »

Do gays even have a right to form a domestic partnership/civil union anymore? Or are we forced to get a SSM if we oppose it? I can't find any information on it, at least in California
In California, yes. However, we straights are forced to marry unless we're 62 or older. (It's a way to get the benefits of marriage without triggering some side effects towards Federal benefits. So I guess in California, domestic partnerships are now a substitute for SSM: Social Security Marriage.)
http://www.sos.ca.gov/registries/domestic-partners-registry/
Logged
CountryClassSF
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,530


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: April 25, 2015, 12:33:25 PM »

Do gays even have a right to form a domestic partnership/civil union anymore? Or are we forced to get a SSM if we oppose it? I can't find any information on it, at least in California
In California, yes. However, we straights are forced to marry unless we're 62 or older. (It's a way to get the benefits of marriage without triggering some side effects towards Federal benefits. So I guess in California, domestic partnerships are now a substitute for SSM: Social Security Marriage.)
http://www.sos.ca.gov/registries/domestic-partners-registry/

Thanks TF!
Logged
Brewer
BrewerPaul
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,622


Political Matrix
E: -6.90, S: -6.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: April 25, 2015, 01:00:53 PM »

Crusading against the evil forces of straights shoving mandatory marriage down the throats of gay people in America?! Now that's a platform I can get behind! CountryClass is a true champion for gay rights!
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: April 25, 2015, 01:11:46 PM »

As much as I usually hate cliches, the "if you don't like same sex marriage, don't have one" line is concise and gets right at the heart of the matter and why the opponents of SSM are losing. SSM opponents can...not get married to a same-sex spouse. You could even call it a boycott!
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: April 25, 2015, 01:32:26 PM »

As much as I usually hate cliches, the "if you don't like same sex marriage, don't have one" line is concise and gets right at the heart of the matter and why the opponents of SSM are losing. SSM opponents can...not get married to a same-sex spouse. You could even call it a boycott!
By that logic, we should also legalize polygamy (because you can...not have a polygamous marriage!) and public nudity (because you can...wear clothes!).
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: April 25, 2015, 03:40:30 PM »

As much as I usually hate cliches, the "if you don't like same sex marriage, don't have one" line is concise and gets right at the heart of the matter and why the opponents of SSM are losing. SSM opponents can...not get married to a same-sex spouse. You could even call it a boycott!
By that logic, we should also legalize polygamy (because you can...not have a polygamous marriage!) and public nudity (because you can...wear clothes!).

Why are you now replying to threads on gay marriage, after refusing to respond to rebuttals of your position on the issue?  Weak, dude.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: April 25, 2015, 04:18:57 PM »
« Edited: April 25, 2015, 04:21:34 PM by Wulfric »

As much as I usually hate cliches, the "if you don't like same sex marriage, don't have one" line is concise and gets right at the heart of the matter and why the opponents of SSM are losing. SSM opponents can...not get married to a same-sex spouse. You could even call it a boycott!
By that logic, we should also legalize polygamy (because you can...not have a polygamous marriage!) and public nudity (because you can...wear clothes!).

Why are you now replying to threads on gay marriage, after refusing to respond to rebuttals of your position on the issue?  Weak, dude.

I'm not going to respond with a long effortpost here, simply because people take this issue way too seriously here, as if it's the most important issue in existence. But, to respond to your earlier post fairly quickly...

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


- I realize that couples marry out of love for each other and not just out of a desire to have children, but the state obviously incentivizes it mainly because of the procreation aspect. Even though not all of the benefits of marriage clearly benefit the child, the state still offers these benefits to attract couples to marriage, which makes it more likely that they will choose to have a child. Obviously, the state has a limited amount of money, so it only makes sense to fully incentivize the marriages that most promote its interest in procreation, and that is opposite sex couples, who unlike most gay couples, can typically reproduce and can therefore have children regardless of the availability of adopting children.

- So, then, why do I support civil unions and gay adoption? Because, ultimately, raising children in a same sex home is probably a better situation than raising them in an orphanage, and it only makes sense to provide some limited incentives to get that adoption to happen. But since it is not the type of relationship that is most beneficial to the state's interest in procreation, it should not be treated as equal to an opposite sex marriage.

- I don't support reducing benefits for say, opposite sex marriages created in poverty, because it still upholds the state's interest in procreation by being an opposite sex marriage, rather than a same sex marriage. Opposite sex marriages are always more beneficial to the state interest in procreation than same sex marriage because opposite sex marriages are much more likely to be able to reproduce on their own.

- As I've stated earlier, I don't support reducing benefits for infertile opposite sex couples because that would require providing one's full medical record to be allowed to marry, which I believe is a clear violation of privacy.

- And finally (this isn't an argument against ssm, just pointing this out), if you guys are so confident that your arguments for same sex marriage are inconquerable, then you should do it through legislatures and voters and not through courts. There'll be absolutely no risk of some future court case to reverse the one that legalizes it (say, scotus rules in favor of ssm in 2015, a republican president gets elected in 2016, ginsburg retires and is replaced by an anti-ssm justice, roberts decides to reject ssm as well, and then I'll bet you anything that a case would be at the court in a matter of 2 years or so to reverse the 2015 decision and re-prohibit ssm, setting you guys right back at close to square 1.), and there will be more satisfaction with ssm legalization in general. you should be begging the supreme court to rule against ssm for this reason alone.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,835


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: April 25, 2015, 04:29:46 PM »

What has marriage got to do with encouraging procreation when 41% of all new mothers in the USA are single or unmarried?
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: April 25, 2015, 04:31:51 PM »

What has marriage got to do with encouraging procreation when 41% of all new mothers in the USA are single or unmarried?

Assuming you're correct on that statistic, that still means 59% of all new mothers are married, meaning that marriage still makes procreation more likely.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: April 25, 2015, 04:32:43 PM »
« Edited: April 25, 2015, 04:46:31 PM by The Mikado »

As much as I usually hate cliches, the "if you don't like same sex marriage, don't have one" line is concise and gets right at the heart of the matter and why the opponents of SSM are losing. SSM opponents can...not get married to a same-sex spouse. You could even call it a boycott!
By that logic, we should also legalize polygamy (because you can...not have a polygamous marriage!) and public nudity (because you can...wear clothes!).

I fail to see the problem with the former, and there are important sanitary and health concerns with public nudity (especially the barefoot aspect...broken glass on the sidewalk leads to litigation against the city etc.)

Public nudity: leaving people outside without identification, money, keys, or any of the other essentials for being outside. Totally safe and totally similar to SSM.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,043
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: April 25, 2015, 04:57:59 PM »

Why does (or should) the state have any interest in procreation?  For the sake of the planet, and almost every species on it, we should be more interested in decreasing the population.  But that's a different topic.

Anyway, gay couples can have children.  Via unconventional methods, but it happens all the time.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,835


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: April 25, 2015, 05:22:28 PM »

What has marriage got to do with encouraging procreation when 41% of all new mothers in the USA are single or unmarried?

Assuming you're correct on that statistic, that still means 59% of all new mothers are married, meaning that marriage still makes procreation more likely.

No it doesn't. It demonstrates that there is no causal link and that in fact the only thing that 'encourages procreation' is sex.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,835


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: April 25, 2015, 05:27:50 PM »

And from today's rally, the anti SSM movement today;





Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: April 25, 2015, 05:54:50 PM »



Even as an SSM opponent, this argument is beyond silly.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: April 25, 2015, 06:00:00 PM »

We don't need public policy on creating an environment for procreation. There are people living in piles of trash in third world countries having children. It's one of the few things humans don't have to be coaxed into doing.
Logged
CountryClassSF
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,530


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: April 25, 2015, 06:54:07 PM »

Like I said earlier in the thread, there is no strategy - because marriage will be radically redefined for us by black robed judges  - us peons have no recourse other than a Federal Marriage Amendment, which the Republicans have given up on
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,220
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: April 25, 2015, 07:55:05 PM »

Like I said earlier in the thread, there is no strategy - because marriage will be radically redefined for us by black robed judges  - us peons have no recourse other than a Federal Marriage Amendment, which the Republicans have given up on

If it's that big of a deal to you, you can always move to Russia, which is a Republican's wet dream nowadays.
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: April 25, 2015, 08:01:54 PM »

Like I said earlier in the thread, there is no strategy - because marriage will be radically redefined for us by black robed judges  - us peons have no recourse other than a Federal Marriage Amendment, which the Republicans have given up on

If it's that big of a deal to you, you can always move to Russia, which is a Republican's wet dream nowadays.

Israel is a much nicer option.
Logged
CountryClassSF
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,530


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: April 25, 2015, 08:09:34 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Totally agree!
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: April 25, 2015, 08:46:45 PM »
« Edited: April 25, 2015, 09:18:00 PM by True Federalist »

Afleitch has already pretty much demolished the "procreation" argument here, so I'm going to go onto this little gem:

- And finally (this isn't an argument against ssm, just pointing this out), if you guys are so confident that your arguments for same sex marriage are inconquerable, then you should do it through legislatures and voters and not through courts. There'll be absolutely no risk of some future court case to reverse the one that legalizes it (say, scotus rules in favor of ssm in 2015, a republican president gets elected in 2016, ginsburg retires and is replaced by an anti-ssm justice, roberts decides to reject ssm as well, and then I'll bet you anything that a case would be at the court in a matter of 2 years or so to reverse the 2015 decision and re-prohibit ssm, setting you guys right back at close to square 1.), and there will be more satisfaction with ssm legalization in general. you should be begging the supreme court to rule against ssm for this reason alone.

Beg me French, BUT WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN!

This reminds me of all the arguments that I vaguely recall being made by a non-avatar during 2011 that the Democrats should just give up 2012 and 2016 so that the GOP could be blamed for anything that goes wrong and they can claim a veto proof supermajority in Congress!  I mean seriously bro, this makes no damn sense!  I repeat THIS MAKES NO DAMN SENSE!

I would think the fundamental objective of PRO-GAY MARRIAGE folks is to LEGALIZE GAY MARRIAGE, not to harken back to the moderate hero Stephen A. Douglas position on every big social issue in order to avoid being associated with the consequences!  I don't think people who are as adamant about gay marriage really care at this point how it gets done, just that it gets done.  That is what happened in Loving v. Virginia and that is what is happening now.

There are just some issues that should not be trusted to state legislatures and the rule of the majority.  This issue is one of them.

If you don't like that, tough.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: April 25, 2015, 09:27:12 PM »

Afleitch has already pretty much demolished the "procreation" argument here, so I'm going to go onto this little gem:

- And finally (this isn't an argument against ssm, just pointing this out), if you guys are so confident that your arguments for same sex marriage are inconquerable, then you should do it through legislatures and voters and not through courts. There'll be absolutely no risk of some future court case to reverse the one that legalizes it (say, scotus rules in favor of ssm in 2015, a republican president gets elected in 2016, ginsburg retires and is replaced by an anti-ssm justice, roberts decides to reject ssm as well, and then I'll bet you anything that a case would be at the court in a matter of 2 years or so to reverse the 2015 decision and re-prohibit ssm, setting you guys right back at close to square 1.), and there will be more satisfaction with ssm legalization in general. you should be begging the supreme court to rule against ssm for this reason alone.

Beg me French, BUT WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN!

This reminds me of all the arguments that I vaguely recall being made by a non-avatar during 2011 that the Democrats should just give up 2012 and 2016 so that the GOP could be blamed for anything that goes wrong and they can claim a veto proof supermajority in Congress!  I mean seriously bro, this makes no damn sense!  I repeat THIS MAKES NO DAMN SENSE!

I would think the fundamental objective of PRO-GAY MARRIAGE folks is to LEGALIZE GAY MARRIAGE, not to harken back to the moderate hero Stephen A. Douglas position on every big social issue in order to avoid being associated with the consequences!  I don't think people who are as adamant about gay marriage really care at this point how it gets done, just that it gets done.  That is what happened in Loving v. Virginia and that is what is happening now.

There are just some issues that should not be trusted to state legislatures and the rule of the majority.  This issue is one of them.

If you don't like that, tough.

So much for you being a conservative.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: April 25, 2015, 09:28:57 PM »

Afleitch has already pretty much demolished the "procreation" argument here, so I'm going to go onto this little gem:

- And finally (this isn't an argument against ssm, just pointing this out), if you guys are so confident that your arguments for same sex marriage are inconquerable, then you should do it through legislatures and voters and not through courts. There'll be absolutely no risk of some future court case to reverse the one that legalizes it (say, scotus rules in favor of ssm in 2015, a republican president gets elected in 2016, ginsburg retires and is replaced by an anti-ssm justice, roberts decides to reject ssm as well, and then I'll bet you anything that a case would be at the court in a matter of 2 years or so to reverse the 2015 decision and re-prohibit ssm, setting you guys right back at close to square 1.), and there will be more satisfaction with ssm legalization in general. you should be begging the supreme court to rule against ssm for this reason alone.

Beg me French, BUT WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN!

This reminds me of all the arguments that I vaguely recall being made by a non-avatar during 2011 that the Democrats should just give up 2012 and 2016 so that the GOP could be blamed for anything that goes wrong and they can claim a veto proof supermajority in Congress!  I mean seriously bro, this makes no damn sense!  I repeat THIS MAKES NO DAMN SENSE!

I would think the fundamental objective of PRO-GAY MARRIAGE folks is to LEGALIZE GAY MARRIAGE, not to harken back to the moderate hero Stephen A. Douglas position on every big social issue in order to avoid being associated with the consequences!  I don't think people who are as adamant about gay marriage really care at this point how it gets done, just that it gets done.  That is what happened in Loving v. Virginia and that is what is happening now.

There are just some issues that should not be trusted to state legislatures and the rule of the majority.  This issue is one of them.

If you don't like that, tough.

So much for you being a conservative.

Mecha is a lefty.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: April 25, 2015, 09:31:08 PM »

Afleitch has already pretty much demolished the "procreation" argument here, so I'm going to go onto this little gem:

- And finally (this isn't an argument against ssm, just pointing this out), if you guys are so confident that your arguments for same sex marriage are inconquerable, then you should do it through legislatures and voters and not through courts. There'll be absolutely no risk of some future court case to reverse the one that legalizes it (say, scotus rules in favor of ssm in 2015, a republican president gets elected in 2016, ginsburg retires and is replaced by an anti-ssm justice, roberts decides to reject ssm as well, and then I'll bet you anything that a case would be at the court in a matter of 2 years or so to reverse the 2015 decision and re-prohibit ssm, setting you guys right back at close to square 1.), and there will be more satisfaction with ssm legalization in general. you should be begging the supreme court to rule against ssm for this reason alone.

Beg me French, BUT WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN!

This reminds me of all the arguments that I vaguely recall being made by a non-avatar during 2011 that the Democrats should just give up 2012 and 2016 so that the GOP could be blamed for anything that goes wrong and they can claim a veto proof supermajority in Congress!  I mean seriously bro, this makes no damn sense!  I repeat THIS MAKES NO DAMN SENSE!

I would think the fundamental objective of PRO-GAY MARRIAGE folks is to LEGALIZE GAY MARRIAGE, not to harken back to the moderate hero Stephen A. Douglas position on every big social issue in order to avoid being associated with the consequences!  I don't think people who are as adamant about gay marriage really care at this point how it gets done, just that it gets done.  That is what happened in Loving v. Virginia and that is what is happening now.

There are just some issues that should not be trusted to state legislatures and the rule of the majority.  This issue is one of them.

If you don't like that, tough.

So much for you being a conservative.

Mecha is a lefty.

Then why does he have a republican avatar?
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,043
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: April 25, 2015, 11:23:14 PM »

Maybe spend less time worrying about why people choose the avatars they have and more time focusing on your flawed arguments on this topic...?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 12 queries.