- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
blah blah blah blah blah, trolling , trolling, meaningless point, meaningless point, off topic, off topic, doesn't matter doesn't matter, blah blah blah blah
Name one thing that that I, as a straight male, am allowed to do that a gay male is not allowed to do.
"Get married to the person you love" comes to mind.
In my perfect world, the following would be the case:
No marriage as currently defined - replaced with exclusively legal/financial "civil unions" or the like.
The above mentioned legal joining is available to everyone.
Any tax breaks and the like are given if the legally joined persons meet standards set for such by the government offering them.
Note: As I understand it, the tax breaks were originally meant to promote stable families and homes, but that may be different now.
No restrictions except a requirement for mutual consent on religious/social/personal marriage between two or more persons - issues must be resolved between the individuals and/or religious entities involved, within the boundaries of law of course (as in, don't kill anyone, ect.).
The latter, obviously...How the hell did you think I meant the former?So in your perfect world you would choose to discriminate?
Or
are you saying from here on out there are no more "marriages" and you calll them all civil unions
because it didnt seem clear to me if you meant ALL or just meant "civil unions" and Marriage will be available, sorry thats why I asked thoughThe latter, obviously...How the hell did you think I meant the former?
Or rather, as I suggested, marriages are exclusively a personal/religious matter, with no legal/financial/government involvement.
Edit: And as a side note, if the government chose to discriminate on some grounds in regards to granting tax breaks, that would be fine - depending on the grounds, of course.
I am opposed to separating the concept of State-recognized "civil unions" from personal/religious "marriages". The State's recognition of and involvement in marriage stems from marriage being a vital social institution that must be protected, not only by churches and social pressures, but by the law. Marriage must be upheld as a social norm, regardless of whether homosexuals are allowed to participate in it or not.
Basically, my thought is to separate the legal and social/religious parts of marriage, to try and side-step the whole religious aspect of the gay marriage issue.Because it didn’t seem clear to me if you meant ALL or just meant "civil unions" and Marriage will be available, sorry that’s why I asked though
figured that be better than assuming
It is directly related to the OP, in that it directly ties in with my stance on the poll question.Well I think your stance is off topic per the OP but since you seem to just bring it up rationally and unemotionally and aren’t a troll lets discuss it
As above, to side-step the whole religious aspect of the gay marriage debate - hopefully a majority of people who are currently opposed because of such will stop being opposed, or at least start sounding even more unreasonable.Ok why do you suggest this course?
As I see it, if you separate the legal/financial aspects of the current marriage setup from the religious/social aspects, you can then allow gay couples to acquire the legal aspects of marriage (which as I understand it, is one of the main reasons they want to be allowed to marry under the law) without upsetting those who are opposed to the religious/social aspect of same-sex marriage.How would this possibly be easier?
Yes and no.What about all the people already married under the law, do we take away their title and now call then civil unions.
Interesting point.I am opposed to separating the concept of State-recognized "civil unions" from personal/religious "marriages". The State's recognition of and involvement in marriage stems from marriage being a vital social institution that must be protected, not only by churches and social pressures, but by the law. Marriage must be upheld as a social norm, regardless of whether homosexuals are allowed to participate in it or not.
I tend to agree for multiple reasons
just easier to keep the same terminology and stop discriminating
the law is already written for marriage
changing the word will only incite MORE outrage IMO because it will obviously and legitimately be argued that it was changed just because of gays and is discrimination
but i wanted to ask him anyway to see his answers
Basically, my thought is to separate the legal and social/religious parts of marriage, to try and side-step the whole religious aspect of the gay marriage issue.
Ill give you indirectly at best hence removing marriage negates the question, so it cant be directly relatedIt is directly related to the OP, in that it directly ties in with my stance on the poll question.
As above, to side-step the whole religious aspect of the gay marriage debate - hopefully a majority of people who are currently opposed because of such will stop being opposed, or at least start sounding even more unreasonable.
As I see it, if you separate the legal/financial aspects of the current marriage setup from the religious/social aspects, you can then allow gay couples to acquire the legal aspects of marriage (which as I understand it, is one of the main reasons they want to be allowed to marry under the law) without upsetting those who are opposed to the religious/social aspect of same-sex marriage.
Yes and no.
Yes we change the legal term and call it civil unions, no we don't take away their title.
As the matter of that title (as I assume you were talking about "marriage") would be a personal/religious matter if my thoughts became law, it wouldn’t be anyone's business except theirs.
I still don't see how you repeatedly seem to think that changing a title = discrimination.
If everyone falls under the same title, how does it discriminate?
Well, as you may have guessed from my previous posts, I am of the opinion that marriage has two parts, the legal and the religious.Don’t see how that would though since gays can already get married, just not legally. Marriage is a law thing not a religious. Take the law away and everybody and anybody is married EQUALLY still so people crying that it disgraces the word would still have the same thing to cry about as they do now hence ONE of the reasons I never understood that argument.
Excellent.I’ll give you indirectly at best hence removing marriage negates the question, so it can’t be directly related
Well, that would be the effect, but I’m actually supporting it more so that no one can obtain that lawful title.You could be right but IMO I think the exact opposite would happen as most would view the name change as to not allow gays to ever obtain that lawful title
Trying to correct your English usage in sentences really messes with my responses…But here goes:Why cater to people who want to discriminate?
And also don’t you think this would upset many gays as it would be an obvious dodge from owing up to equal rights?
Actually, if they insist that the same word be used, they are no better than those who insist the word has religious meaning. It’s just a damn word, and you can use it all you want. Hell, you can even call the legal “civil union” a marriage if you want; no one will be able to say **** about it legally, which is the whole issue anyway.And that’s exactly why I think it would cause more problems as it would be very transparent that it was changed only to not allow to have gays use the word marriage.
Not at all obvious, as my previous responses show (IMO, of course).Like I said it would be obviously done to appease the group of discriminators as opposed to practicing equal rights.
Ok, what’s with the “(of any large part)” bit? Don’t get that.For example what if blacks (of any large part) weren’t allowed to be president (but there was no laws saying people couldn’t vote for them).
Obama wins and they were forced to do something about it.
“No!” some people cry the word president is sacred it can’t be associated with blacks, so instead of just using equal rights they cater to discriminators and change the word to something else it doesn’t matter like CEA, Chief Executive of America
Perhaps.You telling me that’s not discrimination on any level and people would not have a legit gripe?
I agree if the word marriage never exists then no discrimination but CHANGING it because now it’s going to allow blacks or gays etc can EASILY be argued has such.
That would be discrimination. Again, a poor parallel IMO.So lady you can’t be CEO because you’re a women but we will let you run the company and now we’re are going to call it group leader from now on because CEO is to good for you.
i dont think your nuts has i like many point you make in posts in general but in this case you are just wrong because marriage can in fact just have one partWell, as you may have guessed from my previous posts, I am of the opinion that marriage has two parts, the legal and the religious.
Partly because of this, I don’t think government should be involved in ANY marriages (the whole separation of church and state bit).
Perhaps I’m nuts….
thought you'd like thatExcellent.
i get that but like i said i think that adds to the problem not solves it.Well, that would be the effect, but I’m actually supporting it more so that no one can obtain that lawful title.
its really not that bad, i could try to slow down but on a message board its hard to for me, im also usually multitasking, but as you pointed out, im doing it poorly i guessTrying to correct your English usage in sentences really messes with my responses…But here goes:
and you think that people will buy this?It’s not catering to people who want to discriminate, it’s eliminating any real connection between religious marriage and legal marriage by changing the title of legal marriage, thus (IMO) nixing the whole “The word “marriage” is a sacred religious thingy and forcing us to accept those disgusting gays using the word would violate separation of church and state” pseudo-argument”.
As to it being an obvious dodge, I don’t see it that way at all. I see it as granting those rights completely.
they want the word cause that is the current legal standard so i dont think it make them equal to the ones that want them to not use it. In fact I find them hypocritical because the word in the non legal sense is ALREADY used for gays has no one has controlled over the word being usedI see it as granting those rights completely.actually, if they insist that the same word be used, they are no better than those who insist the word has religious meaning. It’s just a damn word, and you can use it all you want. Hell, you can even call the legal “civil union” a marriage if you want; no one will be able to say **** about it legally, which is the whole issue anyway.
yes it is just opinion of course has is mine but i seriously doubt the masses would buy itNot at all obvious, as my previous responses show (IMO, of course).
did that because didnt want some saying "technically we all might be black" of that obama isnt full black etc.Ok, what’s with the “(of any large part)” bit? Don’t get that.
well like you siad I totally disagree because religion plays no rule nor should it when it comes to discrimination which is the issueBut on to your point: Not a good example, as the presidency has no religious aspect, and thus (IMO) no even tentative reason to complain on religious grounds. And I consider the religious aspect slightly applicable to the gay marriage bit. But we’ve been over that, if memory serves.
so whether the discrimination storm instead of doinf somthing that gets rid of the storm all together, thats why i dont think that makes sensePerhaps
But if eliminating marriage from government control (except the legal equivalent of it, obviously) requires weathering that storm, so be it..
very equal since that could be based on religion also BUT again its not about religion its about discrimination whcih you agree that would be sorry but IMO thats VERY hypocritical of you on this issue, VERYThat would be discrimination. Again, a poor parallel IMO.
Basically, I see some validity in the argument that:
Granting the ability to enter into a legal contract entitled “marriage” would in effect force people who disagree with that interpretation of the word to accept it against their religious views. Thus, IMO, violating the whole separation of church and state bit.
But I don’t think you agree, as we’ve been over that.
Awhile ago, too.
Bla.
I think we’ve been over this already.I don’t think your nuts has I like many point you make in posts in general but in this case you are just wrong because marriage can in fact just have one part.
How so?I get that but like I said I think that adds to the problem not solves it.
Hey, I prefaced this whole bit with “in my perfect world”.And you think that people will buy this?
Well, yeah, this topic is far too useful for an actual solution to be reached any time soon.I’m not knocking your logic at its foundation I’m asking you to think about it in the reality of America. Even now in politics blue and red are the devil to each other and I think this will not work.
And I’m saying take the legal usage away from everyone, and obviously make no laws restricting the non-legal usage…As that would be unconstitutional, methinks.They want the word cause that is the current legal standard so I don’t think it make them equal to the ones that want them to not use it. In fact I find them hypocritical because the word in the non legal sense is ALREADY used for gays as no one has control over the word being used
Well, it’s my perfect world, so I say they will. :mrgreen:Yes it is just opinion of course has is mine but I seriously doubt the masses would buy it
Uhh…Ok, whatever.Did that because didn’t want some saying "technically we all might be black" of that Obama isn’t full black etc.
You know somebody might have lol
In a secular sense, discrimination based on reasons other than ability I disagree with and think should be eliminated (or as close as possible to such).Well like you said I totally disagree because religion plays no rule nor should it when it comes to discrimination which is the issue
ALSO id have to disagree because many people used religion to keep women and minorities down, the reasons didn’t apply then and should now.
So actually my example could very well be based on religion.
Nothing will get rid of discrimination altogether, and I have no idea what you think will.so whether the discrimination storm instead of doing something that gets rid of the storm all together, that’s why I don’t think that makes sense
It’s the religious aspect we seem to disagree on here – I see it as existing, you do not.Very equal since that could be based on religion also BUT again it’s not about religion it’s about discrimination which you agree that would be sorry but IMO that’s VERY hypocritical of you on this issue, VERY
We’ve rehashed this a couple times already…I don’t agree as there is huge evidence that shows this is NOT the case at all and all validity can be shot down.
If it was that simple many things already violate that, non legal seen marriage which is already going on. So by default this argument is hugely hypocritical too
Example
Religious marriage alone has no legal rights
Marriage is not owned by religion
The argument that the word is sacred is invalid for many reasons, a couple being right now gays can get married just not legally recognized. Two the state already marries people WITHOUT religion. So is that marriage being forced on you?
Also if you think they are "separate" then legal marriage has nothing to do with religion which is true, but you want it too. You want the legal to ONLY reflect religion, that would already go against what you are saying hence the hypocrisy.
well this isnt about convincing or disagreeing it a simple factI think we’ve been over this already.
Not that I recall the details.
I disagree with you, and you disagree with me.
Each seems unable to convince the other.
So…Meh.
because theres no reason to think that this will make the people being discriminated against just now be quite i think it will create the opposite effect like my women ceo and black president example.How so?
lol fair enough i guessOf course they will, it’s my world.
agreed this is why i want to just make it equal forget the assholesWell, yeah, this topic is far too useful for an actual solution to be reached any time soon.
Assholes.
In a secular sense, discrimination based on reasons other than ability I disagree with and think should be eliminated (or as close as possible to such).
In the religious sense, trying to eliminate discrimination internal to a religion is up to the religion, and no one else (albeit lessening of membership may nudge them in the right direction)..
i agree but that doesnt mean we should chip away at it every chance we get this is americaNothing will get rid of discrimination altogether, and I have no idea what you think will..
thats because it doesnt based on any existing logic over discriminationIt’s the religious aspect we seem to disagree on here – I see it as existing, you do not.
IWe’ve rehashed this a couple times already…
I see an argument in it that you do not accept, and thus our disagreement.
It’ll have to wait till Monday, as the weekend approaches and I will be on hiatus from the forum during it.
Marriage is between one man and one woman.
Other than that it is a union.
"Get married to the person you love" comes to mind.
Also join the army comes to mind? =]
Glad I could amuse.LMAO!
you are funny and now its confirmed you must be trolling. blah blah blah etc...
Glad I could amuse.
Your lack of rebuttal is telling.
It is really pretty simple. The licensing of marriage is an innately discriminatory practice that gives some privilege over others as a reward for their sexual pairing. Allowing anyone, blacks, gays, whites, blondes, or other to participate in such a discriminatory process only spreads the discrimination around like a kid spreading his vegetables around on his plate. The vegetables are still there no matter how you arrange them.
The only real solution is to abolish the licensing of marriage altogether. If, as I heard so many people say, its none of the governments business if two consenting adults want to get married, then it should be NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S business, and they should stay out of it altogether.
Allowing the government to license marriage is an admission that it IS the governments business, and as such the arbitrary criteria for determining who can marry who is completely at the discretion of the slimeball politicians pandering to their respective bases.
It should be no one's business but the people getting married.
I love my mom. I'm not allowed to marry her. I love my dad, I;m not allowed to marry him. I love my brother and sister, and I'm not allowed to marry either of them. I have no more interest in marrying a girl right now than a gay man does.
Clearly your response is inaccurate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?