Page 137 of 159 FirstFirst ... 3787127135136137138139147 ... LastLast
Results 1,361 to 1,370 of 1585

Thread: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

  1. #1361
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Last Seen
    08-03-13 @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    38

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Why can't we just let churches decide if they want to marry two people regardless of sex. It really doesn't matter who pay's their taxes with who. This is a moral debate that shouldn't be. If a church is willing to marry two people regardless of sex, then the state should recognize that right.

    I know I am not versed in the bible, and I know all the bible quotes that believers and non-believers like to forum fight with, but I don't see why people who are really against this can't just go to a different church or just ignore it.

  2. #1362
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    I don't think you need to support civil unions. If you can't think of any reason aside from fickle "compassion" to support them, then you may be better off just opposing any legal recognition of same sex relationships. The reason those militant homosexuals act as they do is because they have principles, reasons, and vested interests in their views. If you can't see the conservative argument for recognition of same sex relationships then I don't really see the point of you trying to straddle the fence on the issue, aside from maybe a vain attempt to pretend to be more moderate on the issue than you actually are.
    There is no reason but compassion. Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron but there are rights that went along with it that would be attractive and important to homosexual pairings. The state doesn't owe them tax breaks or anything else because they want to live together and mimic heterosexual marriages. This is something the state may decide to do because it's a compassionate, liberal thing to do, but it is not something that I feel homsexuals can demand. At least for the time being, the law agrees because homosexuals CAN'T force a state to meet their demands for a pseudo-marriage arrangement.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  3. #1363
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,136

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by M_A View Post
    Why can't we just let churches decide if they want to marry two people regardless of sex. It really doesn't matter who pay's their taxes with who. This is a moral debate that shouldn't be. If a church is willing to marry two people regardless of sex, then the state should recognize that right.

    I know I am not versed in the bible, and I know all the bible quotes that believers and non-believers like to forum fight with, but I don't see why people who are really against this can't just go to a different church or just ignore it.
    Certain churches can and do marry same sex couples in every state. That isn't the debate. Marriage isn't decided by churches. A church does not issue a marriage license, it just performs a ceremony. When a priest/pastor/rabbi/etc. is over a ceremony they say "By the power vested in me by the State of..." because it is the state that defines marriage. What is up for debate is how the State should define marriage.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  4. #1364
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by M_A View Post
    Why can't we just let churches decide if they want to marry two people regardless of sex. It really doesn't matter who pay's their taxes with who. This is a moral debate that shouldn't be. If a church is willing to marry two people regardless of sex, then the state should recognize that right.

    I know I am not versed in the bible, and I know all the bible quotes that believers and non-believers like to forum fight with, but I don't see why people who are really against this can't just go to a different church or just ignore it.
    The reason for state sanctioned marriage has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with establishment and support of acceptable and sensible biological pairings. You can marry someone you don't love at all. But that someone has to be a suitable biological partner. You can be barred from marrying someone you love very much... if that person is NOT a suitable biological partner. You can have arranged marriages, marriages for convenience, marriage for love, marriage for money... you can marry for any reason as long as you choose an acceptable BIOLOGICAL partner.

    The arguments about "love" and "religion" are red herrings. The real purpose of state sanctioned marriage doesn't hinge on either of those two things.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  5. #1365
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,136

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    There is no reason but compassion.
    That is where you are mistaken and why you never truly supported any legal form of same sex relationships.

    Bret Stephens: A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage - WSJ.com

    1. Sham marriages.

    Conservative case for gay marriage: Column

    2. Responsibility and Obligation.

    Former Bush Aide Pushes 'Conservative Case' For Gay Marriage : NPR

    3. Family values.

    American Academy of Pediatrics Supports Same Gender Civil Marriage

    4. Children.

    If you can't find reasons aside from fickle compassion to support legal recognition of same sex relationships, whether they are "marriage" or "civil unions" then you never really supported them. You just didn't want to appear prejudiced. And frankly, if you can't see the reasons, then I would prefer that you don't support legal recognition of same sex relationships, because at least then you are standing on some sort of principle.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  6. #1366
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    That is where you are mistaken and why you never truly supported any legal form of same sex relationships.

    Bret Stephens: A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage - WSJ.com

    1. Sham marriages.

    Conservative case for gay marriage: Column

    2. Responsibility and Obligation.

    Former Bush Aide Pushes 'Conservative Case' For Gay Marriage : NPR

    3. Family values.

    American Academy of Pediatrics Supports Same Gender Civil Marriage

    4. Children.

    If you can't find reasons aside from fickle compassion to support legal recognition of same sex relationships, whether they are "marriage" or "civil unions" then you never really supported them. You just didn't want to appear prejudiced. And frankly, if you can't see the reasons, then I would prefer that you don't support legal recognition of same sex relationships, because at least then you are standing on some sort of principle.
    What you prefer isn't important to me. We balance our laws with compassion all the time. Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron for what SHOULD be obvious reasons but a compassionate person would understand that some of the legal protections and benefits of marriage would be beneficial to homosexuals in a committed relationship even if that relationship isn't something the state might deem beneficial to it's purpose or willing to sanction as marriage.

    I'd prefer you'd drop your support of homosexual marriage unless you could explain why it's a suitable biological pairing per the purpose of marriage in this country, but I don't expect what I want to be what drives your opinion any more than what you want should drive mine.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  7. #1367
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,136

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I'd prefer you'd drop your support of homosexual marriage unless you could explain why it's a suitable biological pairing per the purpose of marriage in this country, but I don't expect what I want to be what drives your opinion any more than what you want should drive mine.
    Over 30 years of evidence obtained by mental health and child welfare organizations across the world has found that same sex couples are just as capable at raising children as opposite sex couples. Same sex couples, as a result of their biological situation, have the additional benefit of generally CHOOSING when they have children (adoption, surrogate, in vitro) and are often more ready to raise children than their heterosexual counterparts as a result. Marriage or other such legally recognized unions support the cohabitation and prolonged relationship necessary for many same sex couples to take on such relationships and when they do raise children those children benefit from stability and protections that such legally recognized relationships afford their family. Furthermore, legally recognized relationships can establish cultural norms which over the long term could reduce promiscuous sex and promote monogamous relationships thereby reducing the associated health costs to society. Same sex couples that build families will have a support network into old age that they would not otherwise have and enjoy longer, better lives and can continue to contribute to society.

    But that is just for starters. I honestly don't think you support civil unions or any form of legal recognition of same sex relationships. No offense, your entire line of reasoning comes off disingenuous at best. The fact that you didn't take any time to read any of the articles I posted is also indicative that you have no interest in understanding any point of view other than the one you already possess. You have made up your mind on this issue, and it has nothing to do with compassion. You just want to blame the leftists for why you oppose legal recognition of same sex relationships rather than simply admit you see no reasons to support them and you don't want to support them. If you were as moderate as you claimed you were you would at least understand the reasons why most conservative moderates who support same sex marriage do so, but you clearly don't. This is a game for you to see if you can convince people that you at some point in time ever truly supported such unions, and frankly I am not biting. You never did and never will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  8. #1368
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Over 30 years of evidence obtained by mental health and child welfare organizations across the world has found that same sex couples are just as capable at raising children as opposite sex couples. Same sex couples, as a result of their biological situation, have the additional benefit of generally CHOOSING when they have children (adoption, surrogate, in vitro) and are often more ready to raise children than their heterosexual counterparts as a result. Marriage or other such legally recognized unions support the cohabitation and prolonged relationship necessary for many same sex couples to take on such relationships and when they do raise children those children benefit from stability and protections that such legally recognized relationships afford their family. Furthermore, legally recognized relationships can establish cultural norms which over the long term could reduce promiscuous sex and promote monogamous relationships thereby reducing the associated health costs to society. Same sex couples that build families will have a support network into old age that they would not otherwise have and enjoy longer, better lives and can continue to contribute to society.

    But that is just for starters. I honestly don't think you support civil unions or any form of legal recognition of same sex relationships. No offense, your entire line of reasoning comes off disingenuous at best. The fact that you didn't take any time to read any of the articles I posted is also indicative that you have no interest in understanding any point of view other than the one you already possess. You have made up your mind on this issue, and it has nothing to do with compassion. You just want to blame the leftists for why you oppose legal recognition of same sex relationships rather than simply admit you see no reasons to support them and you don't want to support them. If you were as moderate as you claimed you were you would at least understand the reasons why most conservative moderates who support same sex marriage do so, but you clearly don't. This is a game for you to see if you can convince people that you at some point in time ever truly supported such unions, and frankly I am not biting. You never did and never will.
    I think people that support same-sex MARRIAGE either don't understand the purpose of marriage or think that homosexual marriage should be created as an option even though it doesn't further the purpose of marriage. What is disingenuous is to deny that acceptable biological pairings was ALWAYS the foundation of marriage law in this country with all else being support for that foundation. Even Loving vs. Virginia was meaningful because it included a reasonable and logical biological pairing that was only denied due to issues of race. The real purpose of marriage was already satisfied by their biological male/female coupling.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  9. #1369
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    To really clear it up for you, CT, as though my dilemma is any of your business or subject to your criticism, the dilemma is simply this:

    It makes sense to afford any two (or more people) who want to form a legally bound committed domestic partnership certain sets of rights such as hospital visitation and disposal of property in the event of a partner's death (among others).

    But it does not make sense to find two people of the same sex suitable for any state sanctioned marriage based on the history and purpose of marriage in this country.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  10. #1370
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,136

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I think people that support same-sex MARRIAGE either don't understand the purpose of marriage or think that homosexual marriage should be created as an option even though it doesn't further the purpose of marriage. What is disingenuous is to deny that acceptable biological pairings was ALWAYS the foundation of marriage law in this country with all else being support for that foundation. Even Loving vs. Virginia was meaningful because it included a reasonable and logical biological pairing that was only denied due to issues of race. The real purpose of marriage was already satisfied by their biological male/female coupling.
    That is fine. You don't support same sex marriage. I am not going to convince you otherwise. You have your opinion about what the so-called "purpose of marriage" should be and that differs from my own views. I don't ascribe that there is a SINGLE purpose to marriage. I don't believe the sole or primary purpose of marriage is procreation, nor do I think marriage is necessary for procreation. I think marriage has many purposes for society, some of which work very well for same sex couples. And I think society will ultimately benefit from same sex couples being allowed to marry.

    But what is clear is that you don't support ANY form of legal recognition for same sex couples, because you reject and ignore any reason for having such recognition aside from an alleged fickle compassion that appears to be completely negated because there are people who disagree with you and who put in as little effort to understand your point of view as you do theirs. I don't see you as being particularly anymore tolerant, open minded, or reasonable than the people who call you a "hater" simply because of your position on this issue.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •