Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 221
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I have advocated for this as well - makes perfect sense; religions can then decide if they want to support gay marriage, and yet there isn't a "separate but equal" standard for government civil unions.
    Quite right! I don't know why this hasn't been proposed as a solution....

    Either way, though, it is all about equality and the government should not be allowed to discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation.
    Grant Smith
    A+, Net+, MCPx2, BSIT/VC, MIS

    eNVENT Technologies
    Use your imagination.
    --
    Sprint HTC Evo 4G

    DISCLAIMER: The views, conclusions, findings and opinions of this author are those of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of eNVENT Technologies.
  2. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #82  
    Here is a very very interesting read: The End of Christian America
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by gksmithlcw View Post
    I, respectfully, disagree. There is NO REASON to discriminate based upon the attributes I listed.
    The context of 'we' would be more my point.
    Equality is a basic tenant of our government.
    Equality in what way? Equal outcomes? Equal access? Equal opportunity? That "all men are created equal" is no doubt a tenet of the US system, but that does not necessarily mean equality in all things.
    If it is to recognize marriage, the parties should not matter.
    It depends on why and how the government recognizes it.
    It is that simple. If we want to ban gay marriage, then all marriages should be banned.
    We actually have two separate issues here. Banning certain contracts and providing some measure of recognition of that contract. I can see certain justifications for the latter that de facto exclude 'gay marriage', while still thinking the former is beyond the bounds.
    That is actually the other solution to this problem... One for which I would advocate. Make all marriages 'civil unions' in the eyes of the law and leave the 'marriage' part to the non-government entities.
    Again, this assumes that government recognizes marriage or civil union as an institution of love, and isn't just doing it to reduce the burden for things like inheritance.
    That way, any two people would be allowed to enter into a government-recognized civil union and get 'married' at the supportive institution of their choice...
    Why limit it to two? Polygamy has existed as long as monogamy. Provided the parties are consenting, it seems quaint to continue the 'two party' concept. In our current economic times, perhaps that's the solution.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    The context of 'we' would be more my point.

    Equality in what way? Equal outcomes? Equal access? Equal opportunity? That "all men are created equal" is no doubt a tenet of the US system, but that does not necessarily mean equality in all things.

    It depends on why and how the government recognizes it.

    We actually have two separate issues here. Banning certain contracts and providing some measure of recognition of that contract. I can see certain justifications for the latter that de facto exclude 'gay marriage', while still thinking the former is beyond the bounds.
    I know this sounds like just context, but it's critical to point out that this isn't about justification of "gay marriage". It's about marriage. It exists as a contract, and those that enter into it enjoy certain privledges, tax breaks, rights to each others properties, etc. Gay people are denied the right to enter into this contract. They are entitled to equal treatment under the law, as part of their civil rights under the constitution. So this is about "civil rights", not "gay marriage".

    Saying you're against gay marriage is the exact same as saying you're against civil rights.

    Ok, you law students can now parse my words, but please see my point.
    Again, this assumes that government recognizes marriage or civil union as an institution of love, and isn't just doing it to reduce the burden for things like inheritance.

    Why limit it to two? Polygamy has existed as long as monogamy. Provided the parties are consenting, it seems quaint to continue the 'two party' concept. In our current economic times, perhaps that's the solution.
    Why do people continually bring up other issues to argue their point? Gay people want to be able to marry. Polygomy, incest, child marriage; these are not related.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Here is a very very interesting read: The End of Christian America
    One sentence in particular caught my eye:

    "But coerced belief is no belief at all; it is tyranny".

    Something that those "Christian" conservatives should think about (so should the Catholic church and followers of Islam).
  6. #86  
    Keep marriage as it is, and since you are concerned about the benefits, the redefine "partners" to include the benefits of marriage.

    As for those other things not being related, yes they are. Get the Anti-American Civil Liberties Union involved and the ultimate result may very well be: no end in sight.


    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I know this sounds like just context, but it's critical to point out that this isn't about justification of "gay marriage". It's about marriage. It exists as a contract, and those that enter into it enjoy certain privledges, tax breaks, rights to each others properties, etc. Gay people are denied the right to enter into this contract. They are entitled to equal treatment under the law, as part of their civil rights under the constitution. So this is about "civil rights", not "gay marriage".

    Saying you're against gay marriage is the exact same as saying you're against civil rights.

    Ok, you law students can now parse my words, but please see my point.

    Why do people continually bring up other issues to argue their point? Gay people want to be able to marry. Polygomy, incest, child marriage; these are not related.
  7. #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I know this sounds like just context, but it's critical to point out that this isn't about justification of "gay marriage". It's about marriage.
    To an extent, yes, although that has become a big distraction from the original point.
    It exists as a contract, and those that enter into it enjoy certain privledges, tax breaks, rights to each others properties, etc.
    The tax breaks provision is certainly debatable, but the contract is defined a certain way for a reason.
    Gay people are denied the right to enter into this contract.
    Why?
    They are entitled to equal treatment under the law, as part of their civil rights under the constitution. So this is about "civil rights", not "gay marriage".
    It has not yet been established that government recognition of a marriage is a civil right.
    Why do people continually bring up other issues to argue their point?
    What exactly do you think my point is?
    Gay people want to be able to marry. Polygomy, incest, child marriage; these are not related.
    Polygamy is certainly related. The others much less so. Again, I have no problem with consenting adults entering into whatever sort of domestic contract they wish. I'm just not convinced that government recognition of it is a civil right.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Keep marriage as it is, and since you are concerned about the benefits, the redefine "partners" to include the benefits of marriage.
    You remind me of the patriotic americans that allowed blacks to ride buses, but only in the back. Give them the right to ride, just not up here with us.

    As for those other things not being related, yes they are. Get the Anti-American Civil Liberties Union involved and the ultimate result may very well be: no end in sight.
    The fact that you lump unrelated issues together is meaningless, except to you. It allows you to feel better about yourself. Thats fine.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Why?
    Exactly my point.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Exactly my point.
    LOL...1 point for glibness (in multiple contexts).
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  11. #91  
    Gay people are denied the right to enter into this contract.
    Why?
    Well, gay people can enter into marriage, as long as its not with the person they choose to share their life with. Non-gay people don't have that same restriction - all other parsing of legalities aside, that's simply not fair.

    Polygamy is certainly related. The others much less so. Again, I have no problem with consenting adults entering into whatever sort of domestic contract they wish. I'm just not convinced that government recognition of it is a civil right.
    I don't have a particular issue with polygamy either, TBH. As to whether marriage is a civil right, I think that argument supports making all marriages civil unions and let the religions own marriage. As long as the government recognizes marriage as an institution, one group shouldn't be denied that access based upon what is typically a religious stance.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    It has not yet been established that government recognition of a marriage is a civil right.
    Civil Right
    Right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality.

    Why are you afraid to allow gays to enjoy the legal, social, and economic benefits of marriage? Why are you threatened?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Well, gay people can enter into marriage, as long as its not with the person they choose to share their life with. Non-gay people don't have that same restriction - all other parsing of legalities aside, that's simply not fair.
    Thanks for getting closer to the point of my query and not just being glib. That being said, I think that the emotional issue of 'fairness' somewhat assumes that government recognition of marriage has anything to do with love.
    I don't have a particular issue with polygamy either, TBH. As to whether marriage is a civil right, I think that argument supports making all marriages civil unions and let the religions own marriage. As long as the government recognizes marriage as an institution, one group shouldn't be denied that access based upon what is typically a religious stance.
    The point of the government recognizing marriage doesn't have anything de facto to do with religion. It's a property and procreation issue.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Civil Right
    Right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality.
    So, I've got the civil right to demand the same income as Bill Gates?
    Why are you afraid to allow gays to enjoy the legal, social, and economic benefits of marriage? Why are you threatened?
    Where did you get the idea that I'm afraid or threatened? You should probably read what I've said a bit more carefully.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  15. #95  
    Well, gay people can enter into marriage, as long as its not with the person they choose to share their life with. Non-gay people don't have that same restriction - all other parsing of legalities aside, that's simply not fair.
    Thanks for getting closer to the point of my query and not just being glib. That being said, I think that the emotional issue of 'fairness' somewhat assumes that government recognition of marriage has anything to do with love.
    I don't know that it assumes any motive for marriage or for government recognition of marriage. I guess the reason the government recognizes marriage is irrelevant to me - the fact that they currently do implies that they do so in an equitable fashion. The issue to me is somewhat simple:

    (1) most people get married to spend their lives with the person they love in a formal way, and to start a family. It also provides legal and social benefits to the couple in question.
    (2) marriage is recognized (for whatever reason) by our government.
    (3) gay people don't have the ability in most states to have (2) occur, and thus don't have the ability to have (1) occur.

    It simply isn't fair or equitable.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    So, I've got the civil right to demand the same income as Bill Gates?
    Damn right! You may not get it, but they won't stop you from demanding it!
    Where did you get the idea that I'm afraid or threatened? You should probably read what I've said a bit more carefully.
    It's hard to put together a complete picture of your position, to be honest. At least for me. I admit that I'm assuming, based on the fact that when most people deny rights to others, it's usually because of some fear or perceived threat.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Thanks for getting closer to the point of my query and not just being glib.
    Hey! Glibbness has it's moments!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    The point of the government recognizing marriage doesn't have anything de facto to do with religion. It's a property and procreation issue.
    Right. I was assuming we were discussing legal marriage here, not religious marriage. A gay couple can find a church that will perform the marriage ceremony. It means little outside of the building in which it occurs.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19. #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I don't know that it assumes any motive for marriage or for government recognition of marriage. I guess the reason the government recognizes marriage is irrelevant to me - the fact that they currently do implies that they do so in an equitable fashion.
    But the equity has _everything_ to do with the reason. If we assume that the government recognizes marriage based simply on the fact that two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, it creates a completely different equity than if we assume that the government recognizes marriage to clearly delineate property ownership and inheritance on familial terms and to 'legitimize' procreation.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20. #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Damn right! You may not get it, but they won't stop you from demanding it!
    Therein lies the rub. According to your position, if it's a civil right, the government must provide it. Where's my check?
    It's hard to put together a complete picture of your position, to be honest.
    Then it would seem that one should be more careful in ascribing one.
    At least for me. I admit that I'm assuming, based on the fact that when most people deny rights to others, it's usually because of some fear or perceived threat.
    Where have I said any right should be denied?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions