Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: I don't Get It

  1. #11
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: I don't Get It

    Quote Originally Posted by Baralis View Post
    I feel that marriage should be left to the religious establishment and all government involvement should be removed. However it is obvious the government needs to be involved with contractual agreements where children, property, ect are involved. I think a better option would be to allow contractual agreements between any individuals of adult age to cover these areas instead of having "marriage" automatically include them. Marriage and laws should be completely separate and in no way involve one another. For those that may argue for example that property should automatically go to the spouse upon death that is something they can manage at the time of a marriage but separately.
    Well said, and I agree for the most part.

    Government should not be in the 'marriage' business. If two people want the legal status of being 'together', and want it through government, it should be a civil union. The same as marriage, without the church. The government should recognize 'marriage' as a civil union performed per a church. Thus be it done through a church or through a judge, the legal standing and rights should be the same.

    And don't fall for the 'this party is against/for' gay marriage or anything else. Their actions speak louder than the hot air that emanates from them. And even the actions of those that (supposedly) support such things, show they really haven't done anything to move towards full equality on this issue (and many others).

  2. #12
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,967

    Re: I don't Get It

    I'm all for stripping the word "Marriage" out of government completely and terming everything a Civil Union. However, lets face reality...that's a rather extreme and out of the box view point for modern day politics and is unlikely to gain wide scale support anytime soon.

    As much as we want to sit here and thump and say that tradition shouldn't matter, religion shouldn't be mixed with government at all, none of its going to change the fact that in the mind of many Americans...the very Americans you've got to convince to support "gay marriage" and not "civil unions"..."Marriage" is a dualistic word that simultaneously refers to the legal status and the religious aspects of it.

    I've stated on this forum a number of times that I think its unconstitutional and why I think that, but I also realize that in terms of actually getting things PASSED the most likely means of having that happening is going the Civil Union route becuase there's far more public support for that. I think eventually we reach a point where its the same for everyone, either through vote or the Supreme Court, but to me going for what is most plausible at this time and then going for that rather than just simply going on all or nothing is the more intelligent thing to do.

    Likely here Huntsman is playing between his feelings of equal rights and his understanding of the public and their wants/desires, and the fact that attempting to significant force a cultural change on a society not ready for it can lead to various issues.

    I'll tell you my honest excitement about this thread though...its watching a bunch of liberals that have been gushing and gushing about Huntsman potentially start talking about him as some crazy right winger or religious nut or illogical extremist or that they're having "second thoughts" about him or that this surprised them about him depsite the fact its been a well known, easy to find out stance of his for quite some time.

  3. #13
    Tavern Bartender
    Pussy Grabbin' Beaver
    Middleground's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Canada's Capital
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,453
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: I don't Get It

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I'm all for stripping the word "Marriage" out of government completely and terming everything a Civil Union. However, lets face reality...that's a rather extreme and out of the box view point for modern day politics and is unlikely to gain wide scale support anytime soon.

    As much as we want to sit here and thump and say that tradition shouldn't matter, religion shouldn't be mixed with government at all, none of its going to change the fact that in the mind of many Americans...the very Americans you've got to convince to support "gay marriage" and not "civil unions"..."Marriage" is a dualistic word that simultaneously refers to the legal status and the religious aspects of it.
    I very much agree. In essence, it's the same thing, no? Marriage = civil union. The only difference I see is that marriage is a term derived from a religious ceremony. However in the eyes of the law, whether a couple gets married in a church or "unionized" at city hall should be irrelevant. They are both binding contracts. So if hererosexual couple want to benefit from "couple" tax breaks, they can, but so should the homosexual couple who got "unionized" at city hall (or heck, though a church that accepts gay marriage!).

    I've stated on this forum a number of times that I think its unconstitutional and why I think that, but I also realize that in terms of actually getting things PASSED the most likely means of having that happening is going the Civil Union route becuase there's far more public support for that. I think eventually we reach a point where its the same for everyone, either through vote or the Supreme Court, but to me going for what is most plausible at this time and then going for that rather than just simply going on all or nothing is the more intelligent thing to do.
    It's unfortunate that it has to be passed that way. I bet, though, that once it is passed, the terminology issue will lose it's importance.


    Likely here Huntsman is playing between his feelings of equal rights and his understanding of the public and their wants/desires, and the fact that attempting to significant force a cultural change on a society not ready for it can lead to various issues.
    He is, but doing it in a political way (i.e. being wishy-washy/contradictory). He might not appeal to his base if he is completely honest on how he feels.

    I'll tell you my honest excitement about this thread though...its watching a bunch of liberals that have been gushing and gushing about Huntsman potentially start talking about him as some crazy right winger or religious nut or illogical extremist or that they're having "second thoughts" about him or that this surprised them about him depsite the fact its been a well known, easy to find out stance of his for quite some time.
    Before this election, I knew very little about Huntsman. I saw him being interviewed by Jon Stewart and was impressed. Then again, it's not difficult to look impressive in this field of GOP candidates. But I still think that although he is contradictory in the OP, the door is somewhat open. Unlike Michelle Bachmann and most of the others.
    Last edited by Middleground; 12-06-11 at 07:10 PM.
    No men are anywhere, and Im allowed to go in, because Im the owner of the pageant and therefore Im inspecting it, Trump said... Is everyone OK? You know, theyre standing there with no clothes. Is everybody OK? And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: I don't Get It

    Quote Originally Posted by Baralis View Post
    What if one parent decides to never let the other parent see the children just to spite them? Someone has to step in.
    Why? Its unfortunate and everything but I can't really see how that is justification.

  5. #15
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: I don't Get It

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Why? Its unfortunate and everything but I can't really see how that is justification.
    Because nothing should keep a child from their parent - or a parent from their child - if they're decent people.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: I don't Get It

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    Because nothing should keep a child from their parent - or a parent from their child - if they're decent people.
    Still can't see it. Why do you need government being the third party? Why is it societies problem?

  7. #17
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,662

    Re: I don't Get It

    Why is it that Huntsmans position garners such a ponderous response, yet it is no different and may be MORE liberal than many elected democrats including presidents, past and present? Why is it so difficult for people to get that many people may not agree with homosexuality and gay marriage yet dont hate or even dislike people that happen to be homosexual and dont find it unreasonable to support civil unions?

  8. #18
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: I don't Get It

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Still can't see it. Why do you need government being the third party? Why is it societies problem?
    Because the government is there to defend and protect our rights. . . more so: the judicial system is there to defend and protect our rights.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  9. #19
    Tavern Bartender
    Pussy Grabbin' Beaver
    Middleground's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Canada's Capital
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,453
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: I don't Get It

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Why is it that Huntsmans position garners such a ponderous response, yet it is no different and may be MORE liberal than many elected democrats including presidents, past and present? Why is it so difficult for people to get that many people may not agree with homosexuality and gay marriage yet dont hate or even dislike people that happen to be homosexual and dont find it unreasonable to support civil unions?
    I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

    A civil union should be no different that a traditional marriage in the eyes of the law.
    Last edited by Middleground; 12-06-11 at 09:53 PM.
    No men are anywhere, and Im allowed to go in, because Im the owner of the pageant and therefore Im inspecting it, Trump said... Is everyone OK? You know, theyre standing there with no clothes. Is everybody OK? And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.

  10. #20
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: I don't Get It

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Why is it that Huntsmans position garners such a ponderous response, yet it is no different and may be MORE liberal than many elected democrats including presidents, past and present? Why is it so difficult for people to get that many people may not agree with homosexuality and gay marriage yet dont hate or even dislike people that happen to be homosexual and dont find it unreasonable to support civil unions?
    Because equal protection under the law should trump your personal feelings about gays, if that is how you feel

    Besides, the whole argument about civil unions vs. marriages is based on a faulty premise anyways. Gay marriage - not some bull**** politically correct term like "gay civil union" - should be recognized by the government, period, if we're interested in equal rights for all.
    Last edited by StillBallin75; 12-06-11 at 10:02 PM.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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