Black_Zawisza
Banned
- Joined
- May 11, 2010
- Messages
- 606
- Reaction score
- 259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Whether you support or oppose it, how angry would you be if your federal/state government rejected your position?
I don't think that governments ought to get out of the marriage business, for two reasons: a) I don't think it should be involved in it, and b) I think it's the only compromise that both proponents and opponents might accept, aside from the civil union/marriage distinction (which in my experience many anti-SSM folks seem cool with but many that are pro-SSM seem opposed). People should just call themselves married if they feel like it.
I believe that SSM is a grave sin, but I oppose any attempt to criminalize it because people have to right to choose self-destruction; I don't see why opponents care about it. I also don't really understand why so many pro-SSM folks think it's such an important issue; correct me if I'm wrong, but civil unions with all the benefits of marriage are available in many jurisdictions, and as far as I know, most homosexuals seem uninterested in marriage (I saw some stats a while ago about limited numbers of SSMs in Massachusetts, but I can't find it now).
Tuppence for your thoughts?
I'm pretty sure my position would be no different.It might not be an important issue to you but then again I'm sure you would have a different opinion
Who cares if the state or other people recognizes my marriage, as long as my spouse does?if someone told you you cant get married
Having a thick skin can be useful. It means that I'm generally okay with the fact that people have offensive opinions.or your relationship was somehow perverted.
You might think it pedantic of me, but strictly speaking the only group being denied freedom is everyone. After all, it's not like two heterosexual people of the same sex can get married.It's very important to me, and I think it should be to everybody, when one groups freedom is denied, then all of our freedoms can be denied.
Oops! Ten being most important, one being least. Could a mod help fix that?Which direction is the scale?
It's very important to me, and I think it should be to everybody, when one groups freedom is denied, then all of our freedoms can be denied.
I'm pretty sure my position would be no different.
Who cares if the state or other people recognizes my marriage, as long as my spouse does?
You might think it pedantic of me, but strictly speaking the only group being denied freedom is everyone. After all, it's not like two heterosexual people can get married.
That's true. I suppose I intended the discussion to focus mainly on the importance of the distinction between civil union and marriage, but mea culpa for not making that clear. What are your thoughts, assuming civil unions are already in play?I do. If the state doesnt recognize someones marriage then they dont get the benefits/rights that go along with marriage.
That's true. I suppose I intended the discussion to focus mainly on the importance of the distinction between civil union and marriage, but mea culpa for not making that clear. What are your thoughts, assuming civil unions are already in play?
That's true. I suppose I intended the discussion to focus mainly on the importance of the distinction between civil union and marriage, but mea culpa for not making that clear. What are your thoughts, assuming civil unions are already in play?
Ok well I personally dont agree with creating a separate institution for a group of people even if that institution has the exact same rights as the other because we already decided that separate is not equal.
Separate is not equal? What of the military duty assignments and physical fitness satndards? What of "title IX laws" in funding college athletic programs? What of public restrooms? We clearly allow LEGAL gender distinctions to be made even if UNEQUAL.
In a restroom, regardless of who you are and which number you're going, you can always use a toilet to do it. Why not just have a big room full of toilets for both sexes? I don't find that a very compelling argument.I think military standards and assignments should be equal for both sexes. Let women into combat roles as long as they can pass the same physical requirements as a man. I dont know enough about athletic program funding to comment on that. Public restrooms are seperated due to differences in male and female anatomy. Marriage is not effected by those differences while using the restroom is.
In a restroom, regardless of who you are and which number you're going, you can always use a toilet to do it. Why not jut have a big room full of toilets for both sexes? I don't find that a very compelling argument.
In a restroom, regardless of who you are and which number you're going, you can always use a toilet to do it. Why not just have a big room full of toilets for both sexes? I don't find that a very compelling argument.
It was a compelling enough argument to end racial segregation. No one would even CONSIDER having a college program that required racially "separate but equal" sports programs, yet for gender that was deemed logical, correct and just. As you note, it would be a minor inconvenience for longer lines (for men) by having unisex restrooms, yet we see no compelling reason to do it. Many see no compelling reason (state interest) for SSM or polygamy, so we have not allowed those variations on the traditional man/woman marriage. What the pro-SSM crowd wishes to do is say that a RIGHT to SSM now exists, it has just been overlooked in 95% of the world. Marriage, as well as homosexuality, was well known at the time the constitution was written, and they could have been mentioned as "rights" but they were not, in fact, the only individual contract relationship mentioned in the constitution was slavery. Using that SSM is a right "logic", polygamy should be a shoe in, since it is globally much more common, just not seen that way in any U.S. state yet.
SSM is something only %2 of the population would even consider. Of those, few will even attempt, and of those few who attempt, half will divorce. It's argued that this will not affect me either way, good or bad.Whether you support or oppose it, how angry would you be if your federal/state government rejected your position?
I don't think that governments ought to get out of the marriage business, for two reasons: a) I don't think it should be involved in it, and b) I think it's the only compromise that both proponents and opponents might accept, aside from the civil union/marriage distinction (which in my experience many anti-SSM folks seem cool with but many that are pro-SSM seem opposed). People should just call themselves married if they feel like it.
I believe that SSM is a grave sin, but I oppose any attempt to criminalize it because people have to right to choose self-destruction; I don't see why opponents care about it. I also don't really understand why so many pro-SSM folks think it's such an important issue; correct me if I'm wrong, but civil unions with all the benefits of marriage are available in many jurisdictions, and as far as I know, most homosexuals seem uninterested in marriage (I saw some stats a while ago about limited numbers of SSMs in Massachusetts, but I can't find it now).
Tuppence for your thoughts?
Let women into combat roles as long as they can pass the same physical requirements as a man.
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?